PDA

View Full Version : David Jacobs UFO Abduction Experts



Pages : 1 [2] 3

JayUtah
2010-Feb-24, 09:08 PM
But we have peoples on this board with those qualifications isn it ?

Yes. However, the data are unremarkable. Nothing suggests non-Earth origin. The claim that the photographed object is an "implant" is without merit according to the evidence in their Scientific Data section.

Don J
2010-Feb-24, 09:11 PM
I mean, shouldn't the house of missing time struck them as odd when they returned home, rather than much later as they tried to "think back to what happened"?

No, here the reason why they did not noticed the missing time episode.

Immediate aftermath
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_and_Barney_Hill_abduction#Immediate_aftermat h


Arriving home at about dawn, the Hills assert that they had some odd sensations and impulses they could not readily explain: Betty insisted that their luggage be kept near the back door rather than in the main part of the house. Barney noted that the leather strap for the binoculars was torn, though he could not recall it tearing. Barney says he was compelled to examine his genitals in the bathroom, though he found nothing unusual. They took long showers to remove possible contamination and each drew a picture of what they had observed. Their drawings were similar.

Perplexed, the Hills say they tried to reconstruct the chronology of events as they witnessed the UFO and drove home. But immediately after they heard the buzzing sounds their memories became incomplete and fragmented, and they could not determine a continuous chain of events. ..

NEOWatcher
2010-Feb-24, 09:21 PM
No, here the reason why they did not noticed the missing time episode.
You've never forgot anything?

Fazor
2010-Feb-24, 09:23 PM
My point was that "missing time" is quite regular and mundane. I guess it indeed does not apply here though, as this story is far from that. And note, I'm not saying it's mysterious or caused by aliens. Simply stating that thinking aliens abducted you, or lieing about it, whichever it may be, and/or reciting it from hypnosis is not mundane.

I'm curious though, as to why so many people find it plausible that aliens would wipe immediate memories of an abduction, but leave so much "subconscious" memory that a) the people would act differently when they returned home, even if they couldn't figure out why, and b) that the memories could be restored so clearly through hypnosis.

Or why a) the aliens would be so careful as to wipe memories, but b) careless enough as to rip dresses and binoculars, and leave powder behind.

R.A.F.
2010-Feb-24, 09:25 PM
Don...can you prove that the hills didn't simply (and mundanely) stop along the way, and that was the reason for the longer than expected trip time?

Personally, I don't care how long it took them to make the trip. The idea that missing time must be associated with alien abduction is the wildest of speculations.

JayUtah
2010-Feb-24, 10:27 PM
More about the Missing Time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_time

How is this more? It's simply a suppositional attribution of alleged missing time to a completely unevidenced cause: "possible" UFO abduction. Wikipedia, I've found, is an abysmally poor authority on anything that UFO fanatics remotely connect to their beliefs. I perceive it has a pro-UFO bias.

Let's say "missing time" is a real phenomenon. How does that provide proof of abduction? If abduction, how does it provide proof of alien abduction? The UFO believers claims here are simply steeped in supposition. There is no reason to assume a "missing time" episode is necessarily unnatural, and no reason whatsoever to supposed that little gray men are stealing the people who experience it.

Tog
2010-Feb-24, 11:10 PM
I have a question about the "missing time" episode. They set off on a four hour trip and there were "shocked" to learn from another person that the trip actually took 7 hours? And they discovered this after the trip, rather than at the end of it?

Am I understanding that right?

They arrived home "around dawn" and neither thought it odd that is was getting light three hours early?

kleindoofy
2010-Feb-24, 11:23 PM
... They ... were "shocked" to learn from another person that the trip actually took 7 hours? ... They arrived home "around dawn" and neither thought it odd that is was getting light three hours early?
We're talking about people who think they were abducted by aliens.

What do expect? Rationality?

Personally, I'm surprised they could find Mickey's hands on the clock at all.

JayUtah
2010-Feb-25, 12:10 AM
We're talking about people who think they were abducted by aliens.

People who make outrageous claims shouldn't be discounted simply because they do. Rather it is whether they make outrageous claims which they cannot substantiate.

Yes, their story doesn't make a lot of sense -- having to be told by external means that they "lost" time. That would have been directly observable at the time.

I understand that the Hills sought a certain degree of notoriety for their experience, giving them a motive to embellish their story. Claiming that an external source had to tell them about their time loss adds to the completeness of the amnesia and therefore to the mystery of the experience. It seems illogically tacked on merely to attempt to distinguish their missing-time experience from those that may have derived from more prosaic causes.

Torch2k
2010-Feb-25, 12:10 AM
I find it hard to believe in missing time without some proof that time is actually missing, and the accounts I've seen so far leave a lot do be desired. Specifically:

(1) How did they fix the start and end times of the trip? Their arrival 'at dawn' is rather imprecise, and if their departure time was similarly vague (say, 'at midnight') then that allows for some serious fudging.

(2) We're told they were driving to Portsmouth, NH, but where were they vacationing in Quebec? About the nearest reasonably large center is Sherbrooke, which makes for a 230 mile trip (4 hours 53 minutes, according to my Streets and Trips). Montreal and Quebec City are both over 300 miles. What's four hours from Portsmouth 'in Quebec'?

(3) The time in (2) doesn't include stops, but their account does, during which they observed the 'object' and walked the dog. How long was the stop? 5 minutes? 10? Half an hour? They then drove slowly for some time while watching the 'object' some more. How slow, and for how long, and how much time would this have added to the trip?

Aside from all this, they were driving at night. I can't speak for the Hills, but I consider myself a good night driver, and I slow down at night!

Also, were they rested before the trip? I've pulled the odd all-nighter behind the wheel, and I can attest to how gamey it can be driving with no sleep.

kleindoofy
2010-Feb-25, 12:29 AM
People who make outrageous claims shouldn't be discounted simply because they do. Rather it is whether they make outrageous claims which they cannot substantiate. ...
Yes, of course. That is the first approach, objective analysis.

However, when dealing with subjects such as alien abductions, Big Foot, spontaneous human combustion, Uri Geller style fraud, Planet X, and what have you, I personally think that a post-analytical, subjective "reality check" is prudent.

Proving people wrong with objective means is correct. Granting nutjobs credibility by taking them seriously beyond reasonable limits is counter-productive.

Sardonicone
2010-Feb-25, 12:41 AM
Conversely I've found sometimes on the long drive to work I'm suddenly at the turn off for the industrial park with no specific recollection of what happened during the journey.

I've had plenty of those types of commutes. Never once did I attribute that experience to being abducted by aliens.

xfahctor
2010-Feb-25, 01:56 AM
Torch2k
(2) We're told they were driving to Portsmouth, NH, but where were they vacationing in Quebec? About the nearest reasonably large center is Sherbrooke, which makes for a 230 mile trip (4 hours 53 minutes, according to my Streets and Trips). Montreal and Quebec City are both over 300 miles. What's four hours from Portsmouth 'in Quebec'?


Magog. It's about 50 minutes south of Sherbrooke.

Don J
2010-Feb-25, 04:13 AM
I find it hard to believe in missing time without some proof that time is actually missing, and the accounts I've seen so far leave a lot do be desired. Specifically:

(1) How did they fix the start and end times of the trip? Their arrival 'at dawn' is rather imprecise, and if their departure time was similarly vague (say, 'at midnight') then that allows for some serious fudging.

(2) We're told they were driving to Portsmouth, NH, but where were they vacationing in Quebec? About the nearest reasonably large center is Sherbrooke, which makes for a 230 mile trip (4 hours 53 minutes, according to my Streets and Trips). Montreal and Quebec City are both over 300 miles. What's four hours from Portsmouth 'in Quebec'?


They were vacationing in Montreal City in the province of Quebec.

http://www.travelmath.com/driving-distance/from/Portsmouth,+NH/to/Montreal,+Canada

307 miles / 494 km

Torch2k
2010-Feb-25, 04:14 AM
Magog. It's about 50 minutes south of Sherbrooke.

That's what's 4 hours from Portsmouth? Or we know that's where the drive started?

And S&T calculates it as 35 minutes SW, with a trip to Portsmouth being 220 miles, or about 4-1/2 hours.

Recall driving between Sherbrooke and Magog once, but that was ages ago. S&T might be out to lunch, and I can't remember that far back.

Torch2k
2010-Feb-25, 04:16 AM
They were vacationing in Montreal City in the province of Quebec.

So they were driving from Montreal to Portsmouth? That's even farther.

(Your post must have come in while I was typing my reply to X).

Don J
2010-Feb-25, 04:27 AM
So they were driving from Montreal to Portsmouth? That's even farther.

(Your post must have come in while I was typing my reply to X).

307 miles / 494 km

Map of driving directions from Portsmouth, NH to Montreal, Canada
http://www.travelmath.com/driving-distance/from/Portsmouth,+NH/to/Montreal,+Canada
Edited to add
I see that they were on the U.S. Route 3,when the observation begin...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_and_Barney_Hill_abduction#The_UFO_encounter
The alleged abduction, according to a variety of reports given by the pair in interviews over a period of time, began on the evening of September 19, 1961, when the Hills were driving back to Portsmouth from a vacation in Quebec. There were few other cars on the road as they traveled south. South of Groveton, New Hampshire, they claimed to have observed a bright point of light in the sky. While Barney navigated U.S. Route 3, Betty reasoned that she was observing a communication satellite and urged Barney to stop the car for a closer look and to walk their dog, Delsey. Worried about the presence of bears, Barney removed a pistol that he had in the trunk of the car.

Don J
2010-Feb-25, 04:44 AM
I have a question about the "missing time" episode. They set off on a four hour trip and there were "shocked" to learn from another person that the trip actually took 7 hours? And they discovered this after the trip, rather than at the end of it?

Am I understanding that right?

They arrived home "around dawn" and neither thought it odd that is was getting light three hours early?
If you read what was their reaction in the Immediate aftermath chapter you will find a clue...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_and_Barney_Hill_abduction#Immediate_aftermat h

Van Rijn
2010-Feb-25, 05:23 AM
I only referenced to the definition about the Alien Abduction Phenomena as defined in the "UFO lore".
But there is more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_abduction

So, to repeat my questions, and again, to be clear, you are not claiming there are alien abductions or that claimed abductees have locked memories?

Tog
2010-Feb-25, 05:27 AM
If you read what was their reaction in the Immediate aftermath chapter you will find a clue...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_and_Barney_Hill_abduction#Immediate_aftermat hThe "odd sensations"? That's about the only thing in that section that I can see that might explain failing to notice dawn. Did you have somethign else in mind?

Don J
2010-Feb-25, 05:35 AM
So, to repeat my questions, and again, to be clear, you are not claiming there are alien abductions or that claimed abductees have locked memories?
I am interested in cases implying the observation of a UFO and the episode of missing time following that observation.

That is why I referred to the Hills case.

Spoons
2010-Feb-25, 05:42 AM
The inferred meaning within your post is that there is a connection. Is that the correct way to read your post?

Just trying to avoid confusion via a direct question.

Don J
2010-Feb-25, 05:46 AM
The inferred meaning within your post is that there is a connection. Is that the correct way to read your post?

Just trying to avoid confusion via a direct question.


That is what the Hills experience seem to lead at.

Van Rijn
2010-Feb-25, 05:49 AM
I am interested in cases implying the observation of a UFO and the episode of missing time following that observation.

That is why I referred to the Hills case.

I've asked twice, and you haven't directly answered yet.

Are you claiming there are alien abductions?

Spoons
2010-Feb-25, 05:52 AM
Hint: yes or no are the most direct answers you can use. ;)

Van Rijn
2010-Feb-25, 06:03 AM
The "odd sensations"? That's about the only thing in that section that I can see that might explain failing to notice dawn. Did you have somethign else in mind?

I found this:

http://www.theironskeptic.com/articles/hill/hill_index.htm

Quoting:


The "missing time" part of the story was looked at in a paper by Peter Brookesmith. He points out that the Hills assumed that they were missing two hours of their life because the trip home took two hours more than usual. One important fact generally goes unmentioned: the trip is usually made at daytime. The Hills had gotten up that morning "bright and early" but didn't cross over into the US until well after dark. Barney should have been pretty tired, and to assume that an exhausted man driving along twisting, turning, backwoods forest roads is gonig to travel the same speed as he would if he were wide awake and it was daytime is insane. The two missing hours could easily be explained as simply as the fact that Barney was exhausted, travelled a little bit slower than normal, and since there wasn't anything to keep his mind on the time (radio, sun in the sky, etc.) he just lost track of what was going on.

The perception of missing time is common. I've "lost time" when on the road, when very tired, and during "conscious sedation" (for instance, during dental surgery). Aliens were not required.

Don J
2010-Feb-25, 06:09 AM
I've asked twice, and you haven't directly answered yet.

Are you claiming there are alien abductions?


Based on the lack of evidences about the existence of the aliens I say NO.

However as suggested by Christopher Ferro in his hypothetical assertation in post 188

http://www.bautforum.com/1687060-post188.html

Spoons
2010-Feb-25, 06:13 AM
I thought that was part of a question Christopher had asked of Jay, rather than an assertion.

EDIT: It tied back into his previous post or two, from memory.

Van Rijn
2010-Feb-25, 06:19 AM
Based on the lack of evidences about the existence of the aliens I say NO.


Thanks for answering.

Don J
2010-Feb-25, 06:20 AM
I thought that was part of a question Christopher had asked of Jay, rather than an assertion.

EDIT: It tied back into his previous post or two, from memory.

That is right that was a question based on an hypothetical assertion.

Spoons
2010-Feb-25, 06:31 AM
The problem is, abduction alone in no way lends credibility to the identity of the abductor being an alien. It could just as easily be argued it was an interdimensional traveller, a time traveller or some other unknown being.

There would have to be other supporting evidence which could be used in order to narrow down the identity of the abductor. Someone being abducted, on its own, is only evidence of someone being adbucted.

CJSF
2010-Feb-25, 06:34 AM
I thought that was part of a question Christopher had asked of Jay, rather than an assertion.

EDIT: It tied back into his previous post or two, from memory.

Yes. It was mainly directed at Jay as a sort of "Devil's Advocate" question.

CJSF

Spoons
2010-Feb-25, 06:35 AM
Thanks for that clarification. I think you'd said as much in one of those posts anyway.

Don J
2010-Feb-25, 06:54 AM
My point is, what if the first evidence lain by aliens was through their abuducting? (This is all very hypothetical and speculative. I am not a "UFOlogist" or anything like that.) In other words, what if people missing were to be part of the evidence presented by alien presence? Not ANY missing people, but specific cases that an investigator put together that had some tell tale hallmark or "evidence" that something unique and unprecidented was going on.

CJSF
I think that is the whole point about David Jacob work and other like John e Mack

specific cases that an investigator put together that had some tell tale hallmark or "evidence" that something unique and unprecidented was going on.

Spoons
2010-Feb-25, 07:07 AM
I thought the problem was that their "evidence" is flimsy. Note, my comment is based only on what has been presented in this thread.

This is where the "missing time" issue came up, and it doesn't directly support anything much other than suggesting they lost track of time. I do that all the time.

It happens to me at work a lot, but while I will often be heard saying our boss is inhumane, I'm not really suggesting that he's an alien, stealing my time. ;)

CJSF
2010-Feb-25, 07:29 AM
My hypothetical point was also presuming that the VERY FIRST thing an alien (or aliens) would do, upon reaching Earth (undetected) is to abduct people. But somehow along the way, they'd have to leave evidence that they existed before we'd know they were abducting people, right? Otherwise, we'd have no reason to assume aliens existed to do anything, other than the abductees' words. And while they might very well be telling the truth, we'd have no evidence to back it up. No matter how hard that might be on the abductees, they'd have no extraordinary evidence to back up their extraordinary claims.

CJSF

Tog
2010-Feb-25, 07:29 AM
The perception of missing time is common. I've "lost time" when on the road, when very tired, and during "conscious sedation" (for instance, during dental surgery). Aliens were not required.

I've got a roughly 40 minute commute to work, and as I work graveyards, it's always in the dark. Most of the time I run between 70 and 75 mph, but there are some days that I'll look down at the speedometer to find that I'm really only doing 55-60. Usually when I'm tired. I think that could also account for the drive taking longer than it seemed, especially over a long trip.

That brings up point two. The route as given was 307 miles, and was expected to take 4 hours? At night on winding roads though an area where a deer or similar big furry thing might end up in the car with them, they were surprised to not have averaged a little over 75 miles per hours with stops?

And the final thing I have an issue with is how do you miss dawn but remember details about the luggage and the binocular strap? Or if you did notice it but didn't pay attention to it, why is the seven hour trip a shocking revelation as opposed to, "oh, that explains the three AM sunrise. I guess we looked at the whatever it was longer than we thought"?

Granted, this last one is subjective.

NEOWatcher
2010-Feb-25, 01:37 PM
307 miles / 494 km

Map of driving directions from Portsmouth, NH to Montreal, Canada
http://www.travelmath.com/driving-distance/from/Portsmouth,+NH/to/Montreal,+Canada
Edited to add
I see that they were on the U.S. Route 3,when the observation begin...
That site says 5 hours and 4 minutes.
But guess what? Most of that route (http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-089.html) didn't even exist in 1961.

So; that would definitely explain route 3.

Now; without an interstate how long could it take.
When I was a kid, it took between 6 and 7 hours to get from our house to Toronto. Most was highway, but the route from Buffalo to Toronto was before the QEW.
Last time I drove there, it took about 4 1/4 hours.

So; how can anybody say it should have taken them less than 7?

Torch2k
2010-Feb-25, 04:43 PM
That's the problem I'm having with the missing time. There just doesn't seem to be as much time missing, when you really look at it.

Timings I get range from S&T's 4:45 to Mapquest's 5:50, and both rely heavily on Interstates. Would be interesting to see how much longer the trip would've taken at the time.

I don't suppose you have a copy of Streets and Trips 1961, do you? :lol:

JayUtah
2010-Feb-25, 05:42 PM
I think that could also account for the drive taking longer than it seemed, especially over a long trip.

I was in the Los Angeles area over the weekend for work (well, mostly work :lol:) and I drove back at night, stopping in Las Vegas to grab a very late dinner with an old friend who lives there. I really don't remember much of the drive, and it sure seemed to take forever. I have no idea when I left Los Angeles, no idea when I left Las Vegas, and no idea when I got back to Salt Lake City. I really didn't watch the clock. And yes, I was driving slower than usual because it was dark and I was very tired.

I really don't put much stock in the Hills' claims for "missing time." I think it sounds laboriously trumped up.

captain swoop
2010-Feb-25, 06:55 PM
According to google maps it should take me 120 minutes to get from where I live across to Carlisle. In practice I know that the A66 after Brough heading west is single carriageway and chock full of lorries all doing 45 miles an hour. It actualy takes me 170 minutes at least. If I want to go to Hull the Satnav and Routefinders want to take me down the A1 and onto the M18. I know that if I go across the top of the Moors and through Malton and across the Wolds I will save 40 mins on the journey. Estimating how long a journey takes from maps and routefinders is unreliable. Oly previous experience of the journey counts.

Torch2k
2010-Feb-25, 06:55 PM
I have no idea when I left Los Angeles, no idea when I left Las Vegas, and no idea when I got back to Salt Lake City..

If the timings turned out be important, though, I expect you could come up with some reasonably accurate estimates of the details. Who was working the desk at the hotel in LA? Did you gas up before starting your trip? What was the exact route you traveled? What time was dinner? Does your friend recall when you left? And so on ...

That's what I find so unimpressive with the Hills' story. All the best of it relies on a significant amount of time being 'lost', yet the amount of time is based on the unsupported 'it should have taken four hours, but the Hills 'figure' it took seven'.

It reminds me of what someone once told me. 'The best way to ruin a good story is to burden it down with too many details'.

NEOWatcher
2010-Feb-25, 07:12 PM
Estimating how long a journey takes from maps and routefinders is unreliable. Oly previous experience of the journey counts.
Well; they do have to use some sort of benchmark. And that would be designed conditions rather than actual(and variable) conditions.
So yes; I would say that any route-finder would show a faster time than actual (assuming you are strictly obeying the law).

Don J
2010-Feb-25, 08:39 PM
Radar.....

I lost track of your post about your radar experience account....

I think this case migth interest you
1956: RADAR/VISUAL JET CHASE OVER BENTWATER, UK:
http://www.ufologie.net/htm/bentwaters56.htm


Observations of unidentified objects by USAF and RAF personnel, extending over 5 hours, and involving ground-radar, airborne-radar, ground visual and airborne-visual sightings of high-speed unconventionally maneuvering objects in the vicinity of two RAF stations at night. It is Case 2 in the Condon Report and is there conceded to be unexplained

Don J
2010-Feb-25, 08:42 PM
That site says 5 hours and 4 minutes.
But guess what? Most of that route (http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-089.html) didn't even exist in 1961.

So; that would definitely explain route 3.

Now; without an interstate how long could it take.
When I was a kid, it took between 6 and 7 hours to get from our house to Toronto. Most was highway, but the route from Buffalo to Toronto was before the QEW.
Last time I drove there, it took about 4 1/4 hours.

So; how can anybody say it should have taken them less than 7?

Probably because that was not the first time they made that trip for returning home at night.
The thing who is tingy is that they forget the chain of event after they heard the buzzing soud which made their car vibrating.They reported feeling dazzled.


Barney tore the binoculars away from his eyes and ran back to his car, saying, "They're going to capture us!" (Clark, 276) He saw the object again shift its location to directly above the vehicle. He drove away at high speed, telling Betty to look for the object. She rolled down the window and looked up, but saw only darkness above them.

Almost immediately, a series of mechanical buzzing sounds, loud enough to cause the vehicle to vibrate, seemed to come from the rear end of the car. Betty touched the metal on the passenger door expecting to feel an electric shock, but felt only the vibration. The Hills say they experienced the onset of an altered state of consciousness that left their minds dulled, and that they also felt a tingling sensation throughout their bodies.

NEOWatcher
2010-Feb-25, 08:44 PM
Probably because that was not the first time they made that trip for returning home at night.
And average 75 mph on rural roads through towns? Impossible.

Swift
2010-Feb-25, 08:51 PM
Don J,

Maybe I missed it somewhere (sorry if I did), but do you think the missing time actually proves that the Hills were abducted by aliens?

Even if somehow it could be shown, by some hard evidence, that the Hills left point A at some time, arrived at point B at a 2nd time, and that this journey took hours longer than it should have, it would not in any way prove to me that aliens abducted them. Frankly, I don't care what the might say, or what they might say under hypnosis, it is just not hard enough evidence to prove something as extraordinary as alien abductions.

Don J
2010-Feb-25, 08:53 PM
And average 75 mph on rural roads through towns? Impossible.
Who say their speed need to be 75 mph...we dont know when in the evening their depart was ?

Van Rijn
2010-Feb-25, 09:00 PM
Who say their speed need to be 75 mph...we dont know when in the evening their depart was ?

Right, so do you agree that the unknowns make the discussion of missing time in this case pointless?

Tog
2010-Feb-25, 09:06 PM
Who say their speed need to be 75 mph...we dont know when in the evening their depart was ?

We don't need to know when they left. They said they arrived home around dawn at it took 7 hours to really get there, which was three hours longer than they expected. The route would seem to be about 300 miles.

That's 75 average for a four hour trip or 42 for a 7 hour one. Which would be more realistic for the time, driving conditions, and stops?

captain swoop
2010-Feb-25, 09:15 PM
I lost track of your post about your radar experience account....

I think this case migth interest you
1956: RADAR/VISUAL JET CHASE OVER BENTWATER, UK:
http://www.ufologie.net/htm/bentwaters56.htm

Yup, all kinds of things appear on Radar screens, they always have done. Doesn't mean its Aliens. Linking together lots of individual ghost contacts is always a problem. When it comes down to deciding if you need to call the contact to the Plot and engage with live weapons you soon learn to pick out genuine contacts.
From what I read on the link I would say there was a lot of wishful thinking going on that night.
Maybe someone should have had a look out of the window.

Don J
2010-Feb-25, 09:17 PM
Don J,

Maybe I missed it somewhere (sorry if I did), but do you think the missing time actually proves that the Hills were abducted by aliens?

Even if somehow it could be shown, by some hard evidence, that the Hills left point A at some time, arrived at point B at a 2nd time, and that this journey took hours longer than it should have, it would not in any way prove to me that aliens abducted them. Frankly, I don't care what the might say, or what they might say under hypnosis, it is just not hard enough evidence to prove something as extraordinary as alien abductions.

There is no hard evidence but you seem to forget than:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_and_Barney_Hill_abduction#The_UFO_encounter

Their account about observing a UFO and their occupants was not made during the hypnosis session but before.

They lost memory of the chain of event after the UFO chased them.... when they heard
a series of mechanical buzzing sounds .... At that moment ,The Hills say they experienced the onset of an altered state of consciousness that left their minds dulled, and that they also felt a tingling sensation throughout their bodies.


Almost immediately, a series of mechanical buzzing sounds, loud enough to cause the vehicle to vibrate, seemed to come from the rear end of the car. Betty touched the metal on the passenger door expecting to feel an electric shock, but felt only the vibration. The Hills say they experienced the onset of an altered state of consciousness that left their minds dulled, and that they also felt a tingling sensation throughout their bodies.


Quote in context


Barney tore the binoculars away from his eyes and ran back to his car, saying, "They're going to capture us!" (Clark, 276) He saw the object again shift its location to directly above the vehicle. He drove away at high speed, telling Betty to look for the object. She rolled down the window and looked up, but saw only darkness above them.

Almost immediately, a series of mechanical buzzing sounds, loud enough to cause the vehicle to vibrate, seemed to come from the rear end of the car. Betty touched the metal on the passenger door expecting to feel an electric shock, but felt only the vibration. The Hills say they experienced the onset of an altered state of consciousness that left their minds dulled, and that they also felt a tingling sensation throughout their bodies.

Strange
2010-Feb-25, 09:23 PM
There is no hard evidence but you seem to forget than:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_and_Barney_Hill_abduction#The_UFO_encounter

Their account about observing a UFO and their occupants was not made during the hypnosis session but before.

They lost memory of the chain of event after the UFO chased them.... when they heard
a series of mechanical buzzing sounds .... At that moment ,The Hills say they experienced the onset of an altered state of consciousness that left their minds dulled, and that they also felt a tingling sensation throughout their bodies.

So, no hard evidence at all then.

Don J
2010-Feb-25, 09:31 PM
So, no hard evidence at all then.

Maybe there is one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_and_Barney_Hill_abduction#Immediate_aftermat h
Later, when Betty retrieved the items from her closet, she noted a pinkish powder on her dress, but had no idea where it might have come from. She threw the dress away, but later changed her mind, retrieving the dress and hanging it on a clothesline. The powder vanished in the wind, though Betty says a few pink stains were left on the dress. Over the years, she said, five laboratories have conducted chemical and forensic analysis on the dress.


http://www.bautforum.com/1686530-post125.html


I think they are avalaible - free- for reading at the University of New Hampshire library.
scroll down to VI. Subject Files box 5 f.4 Dress Analysis.

http://www.library.unh.edu/special/index.php/betty-and-barney-hill#manuscripts

VI. Subject Files

http://www.library.unh.edu/special/index.php/betty-and-barney-hill#subject%20files

Edited to add
Also of interest
f.6 Grays Harbor County Civil Defense/UFA Report.
Which probably have
*the confirming radar trace from Pease Air Force Base*

as mentioned in UFOs AT CLOSE SIGHT website in their History section.
http://www.ufologie.net/indexe.htm

Van Rijn
2010-Feb-25, 09:31 PM
They lost memory of the chain of event after the UFO chased them.... when they heard
a series of mechanical buzzing sounds


Again, it seems like you are making assertions, not discussing hypothetical arguments (for example, here you say, "they lost memory," not "they claim to have lost memory). If you aren't making assertions, I'd suggest a bit of care in what you write.

And, why do you keep focusing on the Hills?

Swift
2010-Feb-25, 09:33 PM
There is no hard evidence but you seem to forget than:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_and_Barney_Hill_abduction#The_UFO_encounter

Their account about observing a UFO and their occupants was not made during the hypnosis session but before.

OK.

Maybe its me, but verbal testimony of these two people, under hypnosis or not, without any physical evidence, is never going to convince me of alien visitation.

Fazor
2010-Feb-25, 09:36 PM
I'd like to know why you seem to think their claims of "A buzzing sound followed by an altered mental state and their minds dulled" actually lends itself as proof of anything?

I have a lot of people tell me a lot of things have happened to them. That doesn't mean those things are true. In fact, often the more "weird circumstances" someone brings into a story in order to support the overall incident, the more suspicious I am of the claim.

Don J
2010-Feb-25, 09:38 PM
Yup, all kinds of things appear on Radar screens, they always have done. Doesn't mean its Aliens. Linking together lots of individual ghost contacts is always a problem. When it comes down to deciding if you need to call the contact to the Plot and engage with live weapons you soon learn to pick out genuine contacts.
From what I read on the link I would say there was a lot of wishful thinking going on that night.
Maybe someone should have had a look out of the window.

Someone looked out of the window :)

ground visual and airborne-visual sightings of high-speed unconventionally maneuvering objects in the vicinity of two RAF stations at night. It is Case 2 in the Condon Report and is there conceded to be unexplained.

http://www.ufologie.net/htm/bentwaters56.htm

Don J
2010-Feb-25, 09:41 PM
OK.

Maybe its me, but verbal testimony of these two people, under hypnosis or not, without any physical evidence, is never going to convince me of alien visitation.


maybe there is one see post 304

Fazor
2010-Feb-25, 09:49 PM
maybe there is one see post 304

"They had a buzzing feeling and altered mental state" -> proved by -> "When they got home, they did the following weird actions. . ."

"When they got home, they did the following weird actions. . ." -> proved by -> "They felt a buzzing sensation and experienced an altered mental state"

That's quite the circular argument.

Strange
2010-Feb-25, 09:55 PM
Maybe there is one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_and_Barney_Hill_abduction#Immediate_aftermat h
Later, when Betty retrieved the items from her closet, she noted a pinkish powder on her dress, but had no idea where it might have come from. She threw the dress away, but later changed her mind, retrieving the dress and hanging it on a clothesline. The powder vanished in the wind, though Betty says a few pink stains were left on the dress. Over the years, she said, five laboratories have conducted chemical and forensic analysis on the dress.


I can't help feeling that if they had found anything significant, it would have been publicized. As it is, I don't see much evidence of anything significant. And no evidence of aliens.

Gillianren
2010-Feb-25, 10:01 PM
You know, Wikipedia is on certain subjects a reliable source. However, on controversial ones, it isn't, particularly, because there's so much conflict between editors. So you know, Wikipedia isn't my first choice for unbiased material here.

Swift
2010-Feb-25, 10:01 PM
Later, when Betty retrieved the items from her closet, she noted a pinkish powder on her dress, but had no idea where it might have come from. She threw the dress away, but later changed her mind, retrieving the dress and hanging it on a clothesline. The powder vanished in the wind, though Betty says a few pink stains were left on the dress. Over the years, she said, five laboratories have conducted chemical and forensic analysis on the dress.

OK, and what did that analysis show?

Fazor
2010-Feb-25, 10:03 PM
You know, Wikipedia is on certain subjects a reliable source. However, on controversial ones, it isn't, particularly, because there's so much conflict between editors. So you know, Wikipedia isn't my first choice for unbiased material here.
Nonsense. Ending a title in "pedia" automatically registers it as a trusted and reliable source.

BertL
2010-Feb-25, 10:10 PM
We don't need to know when they left. They said they arrived home around dawn at it took 7 hours to really get there, which was three hours longer than they expected. The route would seem to be about 300 miles.

That's 75 average for a four hour trip or 42 for a 7 hour one. Which would be more realistic for the time, driving conditions, and stops?

I thought it would be worth to re-post this post, as it seems to have been missed by Don J.

Orion's Fan
2010-Feb-25, 11:33 PM
Maybe there is one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_and_Barney_Hill_abduction#Immediate_aftermat h
Later, when Betty retrieved the items from her closet, she noted a pinkish powder on her dress, but had no idea where it might have come from. She threw the dress away, but later changed her mind, retrieving the dress and hanging it on a clothesline. The powder vanished in the wind, though Betty says a few pink stains were left on the dress. Over the years, she said, five laboratories have conducted chemical and forensic analysis on the dress.


http://www.bautforum.com/1686530-post125.html

A pink powder if proof of aliens? All ladies beware of your cosmetics!

Seriously...there are many things that this could have been and one of the least likely explanation, as there is no evidence to support it, is that it is connected with an alien abduction.

Torch2k
2010-Feb-25, 11:36 PM
Don J,

Before we go off on tangents regarding radar, buzzing noises, and stains on dresses, I'd appreciate answers to three related points, which I am posing as direct questions:

1. How heavily does the Hills' story rely on 'missing time'?

2. How much time is missing?

3. How has the amount of time been determined, and therefore, what is the margin of error in the determination?

captain swoop
2010-Feb-26, 12:10 AM
Someone looked out of the window :)

ground visual and airborne-visual sightings of high-speed unconventionally maneuvering objects in the vicinity of two RAF stations at night. It is Case 2 in the Condon Report and is there conceded to be unexplained.

http://www.ufologie.net/htm/bentwaters56.htm

Yup I read it. Why would anyone think Alien Spaceships?

It still seems like someone putting unconnected events together.
If I had a Tot for every ghost on a radar screen or light at night that seemed to dance around in the early hours I would have a barrel of Rum by now but no proof of Aliens.

Van Rijn
2010-Feb-26, 12:39 AM
Don J,

Before we go off on tangents regarding radar, buzzing noises, and stains on dresses, I'd appreciate answers to three related points, which I am posing as direct questions:


Also, unless the majority of alien abduction stories involve radar, buzzing noises, and pink stains on dresses, it isn't clear to me how they are relevant to the thread topic.

LotusExcelle
2010-Feb-26, 01:30 AM
My drive home today, which normally takes 6 hours, took 7.5. I cannot recall most of it. And when I arrived home I had several urges - mostly to sleep. I noticed that my camera case was dirtier than I remember it being, that my car had considerably more ice caked on it than when I left, and that I couldn't find my wedding ring in its usual location. (I put it in my car when I work so as not to damage it).

None of these things suggest aliens. In fact thinking that any unclear memory can actually be evidence of anything is *absurd*. In fact it is beyond absurd. It is insane.

The human memory system is incredibly complicated and also incredibly fallible. Trying to claim a non-event as a retroactively interesting event is so ridiculous that it doesn't merit anything but being ignored.

Evidence is not anecdotal. It is data. The people in question can not provide solid data - only poorly recalled anecdotes. It is literally that simple and only indicates that they are humans with fallible memories.

So how do you interpret the data I gave in the first paragraph? Aliens? I found my ring somewhere I don't recall putting it. Who put it there? An alien? According to abduction proponents it *couldn't* be that I simply forgot doing it. That is not possible.

Don J
2010-Feb-26, 05:14 AM
OK, and what did that analysis show?

I dont know.However,
The results are available at the University of New-Hampshire library maybe there is a dude living near that library who can go read them and tell us.
see VI. Subject Files
f.4 Dress Analysis. at this link
http://www.library.unh.edu/special/index.php/betty-and-barney-hill#subject%20files

Or maybe it is possible to order them via internet.
http://www.library.unh.edu/special/index.php/fees

http://www.library.unh.edu/special/index.php/using-materials

Don J
2010-Feb-26, 05:36 AM
Don J,

Before we go off on tangents regarding radar, buzzing noises, and stains on dresses, I'd appreciate answers to three related points, which I am posing as direct questions:

1. How heavily does the Hills' story rely on 'missing time'?

2. How much time is missing?

3. How has the amount of time been determined, and therefore, what is the margin of error in the determination?

1. How heavily does the Hills' story rely on 'missing time'?
The missing time is not the sole factor involved as you can read here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_and_Barney_Hill_abduction

2. How much time is missing?
3 hours
(though the drive should have taken about four hours, they did not arrive at home until seven hours after their departure.

3. How has the amount of time been determined, and therefore, what is the margin of error in the determination?
Probably because that was not the first time they made that return trip to their home at night.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_and_Barney_Hill_abduction#Missing_time


Missing time

On November 25, 1961, the Hills were again interviewed at length by NICAP members, this time C.D. Jackson and Robert E. Hohman.

Having read Webb's initial report, Jackson and Hohman had many questions for the Hills. One of their main questions was about the length of the trip. Neither Webb nor the Hills had noted that, though the drive should have taken about four hours, they did not arrive at home until seven hours after their departure. When Hohman and Jackson noted this discrepancy to the Hills, the couple was stunned, having no explanation (a frequently reported circumstance in alleged alien abduction cases that some have called "missing time"). However, Betty was able to recall an image of the moon shining on the ground.

As Clark writes, despite "all their efforts the Hills could recall almost nothing of the 35 miles between Indian Head and Ashland. The subject of hypnosis came up. Perhaps hypnosis could unlock the missing memories. Barney was apprehensive about hypnosis, but thought it might help Betty put to rest what Barney described as the 'nonsense' of Betty's recurrent dreams." (Clark, 282)

Spoons
2010-Feb-26, 06:49 AM
You keep saying the drive should've taken 4 hours. Based on the information regarding locations, people have suggested multiple times that it sounds like 4 hours was very lean.

75 miles per hour was the rough calc - that's very fast. I travel highways and freeways the whole way to work. This morning I set the computer in the car to check, and with one stop at the petrol station near home I only managed 75 kph.

I thought it had been said they stopped once or twice on their travel. Is that correct?

What data reasonably backs up the expectation of a 4 hours drive?

Don J
2010-Feb-26, 07:12 AM
You keep saying the drive should've taken 4 hours. Based on the information regarding locations, people have suggested multiple times that it sounds like 4 hours was very lean.

I was replying to a direct question.... about 4 hours is what is reported i have not made that up.



I thought it had been said they stopped once or twice on their travel. Is that correct?

Right they stopped to observe the UFO.
see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_and_Barney_Hill_abduction#The_UFO_encounter



What data reasonably backs up the expectation of a 4 hours drive?

Maybe it could be possible to determine the highway and roads they have taken with some localisation they indicated.

http://www.travelmath.com/driving-distance/from/Portsmouth,+NH/to/Montreal,+Canada

Based on the fact than the highway indicated on the Google map was inexistant in 1961 they must have taken the Highway 91

Traveling from Montreal to Magod on Highway10 for crossing the US border they surely took the US Highway 91 and 93 to go home.

(The distance from Montreal to Magog is about 1 hour at a speed of 60 miles/100 km per hours.-Legal speed on Canadian Highway-)

Spoons
2010-Feb-26, 08:26 AM
Those who are somewhat familiar with the areas have said it would be somewhere in the order of 300 miles travel.

When the speed limit for my drive to work is 100 kph I find my average speed to be closer to 75-80 kph (closer to 50 mph).

If they had similar circumstances their 300 miles drive at approx. 50 mph would take 6 hours. At 60 mph - 5 hours. After experiencing a strange occurrence they might reasonably be expected to be a little wary, so assume 50mph avg. making a 6 hours drive.

It is easy to lose track of time, especially at night, with no sun & shadow movement to judge by. It wouldn't be a shock if they'd been out the car for an hour or so.

Why the need to explain any "missing time" at all?

Tog
2010-Feb-26, 08:48 AM
And if the reported time was 4 hours and the distance was over 300 miles, that's 75 mph. How many stops were there for any reason?
To get gas?
Potty breaks?
Coffee?
Observe UFO?
Every one of those stops ate away at that average speed.

My nightly commute is 40.3 miles. I normally do it in about 35 minutes which is an average of just under 70. Only three miles of my drive is not on the freeway, and it's rare that I stop for more than 2 minutes total due to traffic lights.

If their drive was the 307 miles reported earlier in the tread, then I think an elapsed time of 4 hours was too short given the conditions (night, state highway, been up since dawn early morning the day before).

The "Missing Time" is based on the idea that it took them three hours longer than expected to reach their destination, and that is based on the four hour estimate. If that four estimate is wrong, then the amount of missing time is wrong as well.

So, here are my direct questions about the drive:

1. How long (in miles or km) was their trip? if you don't know exactly, then what is the shortest possible route?

2. How many stops did they acknowledge making and about how long was each stop?

Tog
2010-Feb-26, 09:33 AM
From the Wiki article:

The alleged abduction, according to a variety of reports given by the pair in interviews over a period of time, began on the evening of September 19, 1961, when the Hills were driving back to Portsmouth from a vacation in Quebec (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec). There were few other cars on the road as they traveled south. South of Groveton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groveton,_New_Hampshire), New Hampshire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire), they claimed to have observed a bright point of light in the sky. While Barney navigated U.S. Route 3, Betty reasoned that she was observing a communication satellite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_satellite) and urged Barney to stop the car for a closer look and to walk their dog, Delsey. Worried about the presence of bears, Barney removed a pistol that he had in the trunk of the car.

Betty, whose sister had confided to her about having a flying saucer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_saucer) sighting several years earlier, observed the object through binoculars as it moved across the face of the moon flashing multicolored lights. Barney, who had not observed the craft, thought the light was a conventional aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft).

Google Maps, using the points for Montreal, Groveton, and Portsmouth, and with the "avoid highways" option marked gives me a distance of 307 miles and a travel time of 8 hours and 17 minutes.

I'll admit that their estimates are normally a little slower than I drive, but not by a factor of 2.

Now, Groveton is about 160 miles from Montreal. Since the reports said they arrived home "around dawn", I went here (http://www.sunrisesunset.com/calendar.asp) and used the lat and long for portsmouth, GMT-5 hours, and US daylight savings time to get the following:
Twi A: 4:49
Twi N: 5:24
Twi: 5:57
Sunrise: 6:26
Sunset: 18:47
Twi: 19:16
Twi N: 19:49
Twi A: 20:24
Moonrise: 15:39
Moonset: 0:31

"Dawn" was around 6 AM.
7 hours before 6 AM was 11 PM the night before.
Groveton is 160 miles from Montreal, and Betty saw the UFO pass in front of the face of the moon.
Looking at the moon phase time for Groveton shows that it set at 30 minutes past midnight on the 19th.
That must mean that they traveled 160 miles in less than 90 minutes, for an average speed of 106 miles per hour. Suddenly 75 seems pretty reasonable.

Spoons
2010-Feb-26, 09:54 AM
I don't want to distract from Tog's post, so may I please refer you to post #326. ETA: and #327

Additionally, I was trying to find some details of the trip they made and found the following details:

There was no mention of any abduction until "two technical writers who were interested in UFOs, Robert Hohman and C.D. Jackson, made arrangements to interview the Hills in November. It was during this interview that one of the writers asked a key question: Why had it taken the Hills so long to get home?"

From there, they tried to calculate the travel times and appeared to be looking for something to get their teeth into. The approach certainly doesn't seem objective to have their first probing (pun intended) come from UFO enthusiasts. Of course they're going to be looking for a way to confirm the story - they're UFO writers looking for a story.

Before any of this, actually just after the drive, Betty starts reading up on UFO stories. Only after that she starts having nightmares of UFO abductions. Prior to that neither Betty nor Barney mention anything about abduction.

It's only once the two writers start pressing for a story that they start thinking maybe there was an abduction. Seems rather like suggestive memories.

ETA: the site I saw these details on was: http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc357.htm (I admit being a little distracted trying to watch some sport at the same time, so if I got anything wrong there, let me know and I'll have another look)

NEOWatcher
2010-Feb-26, 01:02 PM
OK, and what did that analysis show?I dont know.
Then why did you bring it up in the first place?


The results are available at the University of New-Hampshire library maybe there is a dude living near that library who can go read them and tell us.
Maybe so, and I would like to see it myself. Unfortunately, this was your point, so the onus is on you.


see VI. Subject Files
f.4 Dress Analysis. at this link
Just for everyone's sake. There is no analaysis there. Only a mention of what box the analysis is in.

Spoons
2010-Feb-26, 01:11 PM
It's interesting to note that when I was looking around there was fairly scant evidence, although if you want to buy a book there are promises of evidence in those.

Who'd a thunk it eh?

JayUtah
2010-Feb-26, 04:02 PM
I dont know.

Thankfully I do, having read something about it years ago. The analysis of the dress could not be completed because there was not enough of the pink material to support any analysis. That's why Wikipedia does not report the results -- they were inconclusive. The more parsimonious theory: Betty Hill sent off an old stained dress for analysis to provide the illusion of physical evidence for her claim.

Incidentally that's one of the reasons I consider Wikipedia biased toward UFO fanatics -- the inconclusiveness of the analysis in the Betty Hill dress case is a material omission.

Fazor
2010-Feb-26, 04:05 PM
Frankly, I'm surprised it's omitted. The UFO crowd thrives off of words like "inconclusive". Sounds mysterious. Do they know, and just won't say? Is it unlike anything they've ever seen? Can't identify it? OoOoOo.

:shrug:

JayUtah
2010-Feb-26, 05:11 PM
Well there's a difference between stumping the experts and not providing the experts with enough data.

Spoons
2010-Feb-26, 06:07 PM
The stain is just another carrot dangled in this case. Mention the carrot, then leave out the answer. That way people who want to hold out hope for that piece of evidence will see;

<google search result>
Amazon.com: Captured! The Betty and Barney Hill UFO Experience ...
This book goes into more and newer details than any previous ones written on Barney and Betty Hill. A great read, hard to put down. ...;

and rush out to buy it.

No answer is a one up on an inconclusive answer, since it's possible there was a conclusive answer and you just haven't been told what it is yet.

Fazor
2010-Feb-26, 06:13 PM
Well there's a difference between stumping the experts and not providing the experts with enough data.
Well of course. But that doesn't stop "not enough data" from being paraded around as a "mysterious find!"

gzhpcu
2010-Feb-26, 06:22 PM
When it comes to alien abductions, there is no substantial evidence. Marks on the earth, where supposedly ufos have landed have not been shown to be unusual. Scars supposedly caused by aliens supposed abductees can be accounted as normal injuries. No so-called implant has been found and analyzed to back up claims. So what is left? Just the stories told by supposed abductees. Not enough...

Torch2k
2010-Feb-26, 06:52 PM
Pardon me if I review these in reverse order.



3. How has the amount of time been determined, and therefore, what is the margin of error in the determination?
Probably because that was not the first time they made that return trip to their home at night.

Maybe, but it's curious to me that it was apparently the NICAP interviewers who brought up the discrepancy. Why didn't the Hills notice it themselves? If I was driving from here to Edmonton and the trip took 6 hours instead of the usual 3, I guarantee I'd notice. By the same token, if I was driving from Montreal to Toronto (a trip I've made several times) I wouldn't be at all surprised if it took 7 hours. At 338 miles, that's how long the trip takes, and that's just a little more than the trip to Portsmouth.

Also, four hours seems an outrageously short time to make a 300-mile trip, especially with stops and slow driving, so that figure looks suspicious to me. The seven hours they say the trip took is also imprecise, but whatever. Add a reasonable amount to the former and the 'missing time' disappears without adjusting the latter at all.



2. How much time is missing?
3 hours
(though the drive should have taken about four hours, they did not arrive at home until seven hours after their departure.

That's just it. I'd say, based on the distance and their reported activities, it's nothing like three hours. That's a big part of the problem I have with this story.



1. How heavily does the Hills' story rely on 'missing time'?
The missing time is not the sole factor involved as you can read here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_and_Barney_Hill_abduction


Give me some credit, mate ... I've read through that page several times, and others as well. :lol: What I've seen is so vague and full of holes you could shoot a spaceship full of aliens through it. And that seems to be the point.

The missing time may not be the sole factor, but it's a great premise for everything else: it adds an air of mystery to the story; it provides an empty container into which the participants can then cram 'detail'; and, it's the main reason hypnotic regression is suggested as a means to recover that detail, albeit there are some dubious aspects to that process.

The whole story seems to do very well by leaving out accurate detail; I'm sure many people find it fascinating, but without that detail, I can't buy it. I'd love to see the original NICAP report, or maybe the Blue Book record of it, but can't seem to find them. Maybe they'd provide enough details to firm up the story.

Don J
2010-Feb-26, 08:14 PM
The whole story seems to do very well by leaving out accurate detail; I'm sure many people find it fascinating, but without that detail, I can't buy it. I'd love to see the original NICAP report, or maybe the Blue Book record of it, but can't seem to find them. Maybe they'd provide enough details to firm up the story.

NICAP site but not sure if the original report is there.
http://www.nicap.org/hilldir.htm

Don J
2010-Feb-26, 08:34 PM
I don't want to distract from Tog's post, so may I please refer you to post #326. ETA: and #327

Additionally, I was trying to find some details of the trip they made and found the following details:

There was no mention of any abduction until "two technical writers who were interested in UFOs, Robert Hohman and C.D. Jackson, made arrangements to interview the Hills in November. It was during this interview that one of the writers asked a key question: Why had it taken the Hills so long to get home?"

From there, they tried to calculate the travel times and appeared to be looking for something to get their teeth into. The approach certainly doesn't seem objective to have their first probing (pun intended) come from UFO enthusiasts. Of course they're going to be looking for a way to confirm the story - they're UFO writers looking for a story.

Before any of this, actually just after the drive, Betty starts reading up on UFO stories. Only after that she starts having nightmares of UFO abductions. Prior to that neither Betty nor Barney mention anything about abduction.

It's only once the two writers start pressing for a story that they start thinking maybe there was an abduction. Seems rather like suggestive memories.

Very good points.



ETA: the site I saw these details on was: http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc357.htm (I admit being a little distracted trying to watch some sport at the same time, so if I got anything wrong there, let me know and I'll have another look)

Edited to add.
Your link give more details about the Hills travel.... and a precise hour . At about 10:15PM, just south of Lancaster,



They went to Niagara Falls and to Montreal, and on September 19th, they were on their way back home to Portsmouth. They stopped in Colebrook for a burger and then wound on down Highway 3 through Lancaster.

At about 10:15PM, just south of Lancaster, Barney noticed a light in the sky below the moon, and called Betty's attention to it.
At first they thought it was a planet, but then they noticed it was moving. Barney began trying to convince himself that it was only a satellite or a plane, becoming more and more agitated at anything that contradicted this view. Betty, whose sister had seen a UFO, was convinced from the start that the light in the sky was something unusual. They stopped the car to let Delsey do her business, and observed the object with a pair of binoculars they had.
By the time they reached the Flume, north of North Woodstock, the object had grown in size and Barney noticed that it had an unusual motion in that it would dart away to the west and then back, closer each time. At Indian Head, Barney stopped the car again and looked at the object with the binoculars. He could now see multi-colored lights and rows of windows on the pancake-shaped object, which was huge and was only a hundred feet away. He walked closer to the craft, and could see occupants standing inside, one of which he said seemed to be the "leader". He became very frightened and ran back to the car, where Betty was waiting. He started the car and took off quickly. They could no longer see the object, but they heard a beeping noise.

Sometime later, they heard the beeping noise again, and noticed that they were thirty-five miles south of Indian Head, at Ashland. They drove on home to Portsmouth without further incident.

They slept until afternoon, and when they awoke, Betty called her sister Janet and told her about their experience. Janet urged her to report the UFO sighting to nearby Pease Air Force Base.

gzhpcu
2010-Feb-27, 07:49 AM
Barney Hill reported that the aliens had "wraparound eyes," a rather unusual feature. However, twelve days earlier an episode of "The Outer Limits" featured just such an alien being (Kottmeyer). According to Robert Schaeffer, "we can find all the major elements of contemporary UFO abductions in a 1930 comic adventure, Buck Rogers in the 25th Century."

source: http://www.skepdic.com/aliens.html

Spoons
2010-Feb-27, 08:07 AM
Thank you Don.

As I was trying to illustrate, and as gzhpcu showed with his excerpt, the power of suggestion is a very influential thing.

It's the same sort of thing that stirs a lot of paranormal suggestions.

I don't think a lot of people are aware of these sort of things, and if you (not you specifically) weren't, the fact that so many UFO reports are so similar almost takes on a "factual" significance of it's own.

Torch2k
2010-Feb-27, 05:05 PM
Found an interesting read from Jim Macdonald that establishes the trip timings and locations between Colebrook, NH at 2205 on the 19th and Portsmouth, NH at 0500 on the 20th. In between, he goes over the route, the stops, and a likely source for the 'object' Betty and Barney saw.

Jim is apparently from the area and has retraced the Hills' route. His take on the Hills' report of the trip can be found here (http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/009378.html)

Strange
2010-Feb-27, 06:34 PM
Jim is apparently from the area and has retraced the Hills' route. His take on the Hills' report of the trip can be found here (http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/009378.html)

Slam, and indeed, dunk.

kleindoofy
2010-Feb-27, 07:16 PM
... he goes over the route, the stops, and a likely source for the 'object' Betty and Barney saw. ...
Please excuse me for appearing crude or insensitive--or perhaps even unscientific--, but I'm really surprised that anybody would take the time and bother to go out and physically check wild woo claims.

I doubt very much that if I claimed I had played unicorn polo with some friendly ETs that people would go hunting around for the hoof marks, or for their absence.

Re-enact debunking about the moon landing? Sure. That's educational.

Show woos their weak spots with logic? Sure. It sharpens the mind.

Spend more than 2,33 seconds physically researching woo claims? That insults human intelligence.

Don J
2010-Feb-27, 08:07 PM
Found an interesting read from Jim Macdonald that establishes the trip timings and locations between Colebrook, NH at 2205 on the 19th and Portsmouth, NH at 0500 on the 20th. In between, he goes over the route, the stops, and a likely source for the 'object' Betty and Barney saw.

Jim is apparently from the area and has retraced the Hills' route. His take on the Hills' report of the trip can be found here (http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/009378.html)
Here the map from NICAP site
http://www.nicap.org/hillriddle.htm

http://www.nicap.org/images/map6aL.gif

When Betty said it took about 4 hours to do the distance from Quebec to Portsmouth she is referencing to the borderline Quebec US .
from another quote she is referencing to Colebrook US when they stopped to eat burgers.

Calculating the time and the mileage from Colebrook to Portsmouth showed that they should have gotten home two hours sooner than they did, even allowing for stops.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc357.htm

Don J
2010-Feb-27, 08:13 PM
source: http://www.skepdic.com/aliens.html
There was no flying saucers in Buck Rogers story only futuristic rockets.

Don J
2010-Feb-27, 08:26 PM
Thank you Don.

As I was trying to illustrate, and as gzhpcu showed with his excerpt, the power of suggestion is a very influential thing.

It's the same sort of thing that stirs a lot of paranormal suggestions.

I don't think a lot of people are aware of these sort of things, and if you (not you specifically) weren't, the fact that so many UFO reports are so similar almost takes on a "factual" significance of it's own.
Correct me if I am wrong but before the observation of strange crafts in the mid 40 there was no science-fiction book or movies about flying saucers.That is the observation of unusual object in the sky and the account of peoples seeing them who inspired science fiction author in the 50 th.Orson Wells in War of the World dont even mention flying saucers.
:)
From your link
http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc357.htm


The Hill's story was the first "modern" abduction story. There was no Communion back in 1961, and no X-Files. Abduction stories had not become part of the popular culture yet. People had claimed to have contact with aliens, but they were "contactees" in the mold of George Adamski, who claimed to have been visited by friendly Venusians with long blond hair who gave him a warning for all mankind about nuclear war. Skeptics such as Martin S. Kottmeyer claim that the elements of the Hill abduction could be found in movies like 1953's Invaders From Mars and in the pulp science fiction magazines. They also say that an alien with wrap-around eyes such as Barney Hill described was portrayed on an episode of Outer Limits just 12 days before the hypnotic session during which he described the aliens. These claims might be compelling if it had ever been proven that Betty and Barney had seen the movie or the Outer Limits episode or that they were science fiction fans. But investigators such as Karl Pflock say that there is no evidence that they had been exposed to any of those things. Skeptics also point out that Betty's nightmares began after she read Keyhoe's book. That's true, but Barney had not read Kehoe's book when he saw the UFO with double rows of windows with "people" behind them on the night of the sighting.

Strange
2010-Feb-27, 08:36 PM
Correct me if I am wrong but before the observation of strange crafts in the mid 40 there was no science-fiction book or movies about flying saucers.That is the observation of unusual object in the sky and the account of peoples seeing them who inspired science fiction author in the 50 th.Orson Wells in War of the World dont even mention flying saucers.
:)
From your link
http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc357.htm


Although disc-shaped flying objects have been interpreted as recorded occasionally since the Middle Ages, the first highly publicized sighting by Kenneth Arnold on June 24, 1947, resulted in the creation of the term by U.S. newspapers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_saucer

Don J
2010-Feb-27, 08:41 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_saucer
This confirm what I said.
IE
Correct me if I am wrong but before the observation of strange crafts in the mid 40 there was no science-fiction books or movies about flying saucers.That is the observation of unusual objects in the sky and the account of peoples seeing them who inspired science fiction authors in the 50 th.

Strange
2010-Feb-27, 08:47 PM
This confirm what I said.
IE
Correct me if I am wrong but before the observation of strange crafts in the mid 40 there was no science-fiction books or movies about flying saucers.That is the observation of unusual objects in the sky and the account of peoples seeing them who inspired science fiction authors in the 50 th.

Seems to be that way - I had always assumed it was the other way round. But with no real reason.

Torch2k
2010-Feb-27, 09:16 PM
Please excuse me for appearing crude or insensitive--or perhaps even unscientific--, but I'm really surprised that anybody would take the time and bother to go out and physically check wild woo claims.

For me, it was mostly idle curiosity about how such a story got started and why it's persisted this long. The missing time was certainly important, since it's a handy place to insert the abduction story; however, this re-creation provides a plausible chronology, as well as a believable source for the light they saw.


I doubt very much that if I claimed I had played unicorn polo with some friendly ETs that people would go hunting around for the hoof marks, or for their absence.

I'm not so sure. It seems that in the Hills' case, at least, they had more than enough help 'filling in the blanks', regardless the lack of physical evidence. You might find in your case that there would be some interest amongst ET believers whether your unicorn polo was being played using Venusian or Betelgeusian rules.

I just wonder whether such a re-creation at the time would have precluded this becoming a 'classic abduction case' by identifying it as a 'road trip gone wonky'.

Garrison
2010-Feb-27, 10:45 PM
This confirm what I said.
IE
Correct me if I am wrong but before the observation of strange crafts in the mid 40 there was no science-fiction books or movies about flying saucers.That is the observation of unusual objects in the sky and the account of peoples seeing them who inspired science fiction authors in the 50 th.

You're kidding right? They may not have been called 'flying saucers' but there were plenty of stories about alien spacecraft, abductions, etc in the 30's. They generally appearded in magazine form, so those who were talking about Saucers in the 40's and 50's may well have been exposed to those magazines in the 30's, even if they just saw the lurid covers in their local store.

manxman
2010-Feb-27, 11:00 PM
even longer ago than the 30s.

http://www.ufopicture.org/ufos_in_art.html

the madona pic with the guy and dog on the cliff in the background shielding his from the sun whilst viewing a ufo
was very imaginative from that particular renaissance artist.

LotusExcelle
2010-Feb-27, 11:09 PM
I see the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch in one of those. We therefore can assume that they had Monty Python back then. Logically.

Torch2k
2010-Feb-27, 11:11 PM
Dunno about movies/books, but images/stories of flying saucers certainly existed as early as the 20's.

Spoons
2010-Feb-28, 03:03 AM
I don't have a reference currently, but in their previously preferred form weren't cigar shaped descriptions all the rage?

Oh, and since wikipedia is such a reliable source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UFO_sightings <- list of UFO sightings recorded since the late 1800's.

Gillianren
2010-Feb-28, 05:30 AM
This confirm what I said.
IE
Correct me if I am wrong but before the observation of strange crafts in the mid 40 there was no science-fiction books or movies about flying saucers.That is the observation of unusual objects in the sky and the account of peoples seeing them who inspired science fiction authors in the 50 th.

Well, except that science fiction as a genre is relatively new, only really getting going within about the last maybe century and a half. (Yes, there are examples which predate; I'm quite aware of that. However, the idea that it's a genre in which people work.) Practically everything in it is new, and which inspired the other gets confused in places. The shift from "magic did it" to "science did it" has created some interesting overlaps.

Sardonicone
2010-Feb-28, 06:59 AM
even longer ago than the 30s.

http://www.ufopicture.org/ufos_in_art.html

the madona pic with the guy and dog on the cliff in the background shielding his from the sun whilst viewing a ufo
was very imaginative from that particular renaissance artist.

And let's not forget all the ancient cultures that have images that are CLEARLY alien in nature.

Aliens are everywhere...as long as "everywhere" is limited to the world of the imaginary...

Don J
2010-Feb-28, 07:03 AM
Dunno about movies/books, but images/stories of flying saucers certainly existed as early as the 20's.

These were photos gathered by the site after they asked people who have old photos of UFO.Even the UFO photo in your attached thumbnail is there.
http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/decade/pre1940.htm

Don J
2010-Feb-28, 07:10 AM
I don't have a reference currently, but in their previously preferred form weren't cigar shaped descriptions all the rage?

Oh, and since wikipedia is such a reliable source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UFO_sightings <- list of UFO sightings recorded since the late 1800's.

Cigar shaped objects were also observed after that.

Note these are all reports of observations nothing from science fiction books

gzhpcu
2010-Feb-28, 07:32 AM
I don't have a reference currently, but in their previously preferred form weren't cigar shaped descriptions all the rage?

The Kenneth Arnold sighting in 1947 kicked off the "flying saucer" image, as reported by the press, even though what he saw was not saucer-shaped. Nowadays, it is more black triangles and morphing shapes. Every era has a different image... A Life magazine article in 1952 also promoted the "saucer" image... (www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/L/Lifearticle.html (http://www.bautforum.com/www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/L/Lifearticle.html))

Don J
2010-Feb-28, 07:57 AM
The Kenneth Arnold sighting in 1947 kicked off the "flying saucer" image, as reported by the press, even though what he saw was not saucer-shaped. Nowadays, it is more black triangles and morphing shapes. Every era has a different image... A Life magazine article in 1952 also promoted the "saucer" image... (www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/L/Lifearticle.html (http://www.bautforum.com/www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/L/Lifearticle.html))


He may have coined the term "flying saucer".

However observation and photos of flying disks predate Kenneth Arnold sigthing.
http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/decade/pre1940.htm

List of UFO sightings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UFO_sightings

Nowadays, it is more black triangles and morphing shapes.
Flying discs are still observed and photographed.
http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/photohome.asp

Van Rijn
2010-Feb-28, 09:43 AM
He may have coined the term "flying saucer".


No, apparently that was due to a reporter, but anyway, that's when the idea became popular.



However observation and photos of flying disks predate Kenneth Arnold sigthing.
http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/decade/pre1940.htm



You've linked to a page of photos of uncertain provenance. Do you have a specific claim relevant to the thread subject that you're willing to support?



Nowadays, it is more black triangles and morphing shapes.
Flying discs are still observed and photographed.


Yes, flying disks are still observed. Here's one:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/93/Cool_pics_004.jpg

but do you have a specific claim you're willing to support that is relevant to the subject of the thread?

(By the way, that's a frisbee, if you couldn't tell, or didn't want to click on the link.)

Van Rijn
2010-Feb-28, 09:55 AM
even longer ago than the 30s.

http://www.ufopicture.org/ufos_in_art.html

the madona pic with the guy and dog on the cliff in the background shielding his from the sun whilst viewing a ufo
was very imaginative from that particular renaissance artist.

This is a "look at the picture" argument, based on popular current biases, without considering the original context of the paintings. There have been other threads that have gone into this. Often it gets into misinterpretation of religious symbolism but it can be other things, like comets.

If you have a specific claim relevant to the thread, that you intend to support, please make it.

Garrison
2010-Feb-28, 01:11 PM
Cigar shaped objects were also observed after that.

Note these are all reports of observations nothing from science fiction books

My point was that the magazines of the 30's mean that the sightings of the 40's weren't necessarily as 'pure' as you seemed to think they were. There was plenty of material that could have shaped peoples perceptions, especially if they were children in the 30's. Of course I forgot one of the major 'UFO' influnces from the 30's; Orson Welles and 'War of the Worlds' from 1938.

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-28, 01:21 PM
Also, the "look" of aliens in sightings tended to change depending on what was popular in scifi at the time; Penn and Teller go into detail on this.

Don J
2010-Feb-28, 08:16 PM
My point was that the magazines of the 30's mean that the sightings of the 40's weren't necessarily as 'pure' as you seemed to think they were. There was plenty of material that could have shaped peoples perceptions, especially if they were children in the 30's.

In the 30's science fiction magazines were all about futuristic rockets not flying discs.



Of course I forgot one of the major 'UFO' influnces from the 30's; Orson Welles and 'War of the Worlds' from 1938.

As you can read in the plot summary there is no mention of flying discs.
Excerpts
a cylindrical meteorite lands in Grover's Mill, ..... The meteorite unscrews, revealing itself as a rocket machine,....and onlookers catch a glimpse of a tentacled, pulsating, barely mobile Martian....until a tripod alien fighting machine rears up from the pit.

So based on your point people should report seing tentaculed aliens going out of a
cylindar rocket ,and tripod alien fighting machine.


Plot summary


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Worlds_(radio)#Plot_summary
(Text removed and hyperlink provided in keeping with Wikipedia's Terms of Use)

JayUtah
2010-Feb-28, 09:22 PM
...

In the 30's science fiction magazines were all about futuristic rockets not flying discs.

Except, of course, for Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers.

So based on your point people should report seing tentaculed aliens going out of a cylindar rocket ,and tripod alien fighting machine.

Yes, if H.G. Wells were the only science-fiction author that wrote about aliens prior to 1947.

The problem is with all the sightings of saucers that happened after the Arnold sighting was published. After Arnold saw his saucer, a whole bunch of other people started seeing them too. The problem, however, is that Arnold did not see a saucer. This rather conclusively proves that people are simply copying what they read about others -- because they are duplicating the errors in reporting.

Strange
2010-Feb-28, 09:26 PM
The problem, however, is that Arnold did not see a saucer. This rather conclusively proves that people are simply copying what they read about others -- because they are duplicating the errors in reporting.

Indeed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arnold_crescent_1947.jpg

kleindoofy
2010-Feb-28, 09:31 PM
... After Arnold saw his saucer ...
:eek:


... Arnold did not see a saucer. ...
Phew!

You really had me scared there for a second.

Garrison
2010-Feb-28, 09:31 PM
In the 30's science fiction magazines were all about futuristic rockets not flying discs.


From which comment I'm taking it that you know very little about 30's sci-fi. Disks may not have been predominant but there were plenty of aliens and even abductions. The reality is that the UFO sightings of the 40's and 50's had plenty of inspiration to draw on, and it has been pointed out the specific term 'flying saucer' had little to do with what Arnold said he saw.
If people reading the reports Arnold's sighting then claimed to see craft that conformed to that term rather than to the description Arnold gave don't you find that suggestive that people were interpreting what they saw to conform to an expectation?

Garrison
2010-Feb-28, 09:35 PM
In the 30's science fiction magazines were all about futuristic rockets not flying discs.

Except, of course, for Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers.

So based on your point people should report seing tentaculed aliens going out of a cylindar rocket ,and tripod alien fighting machine.

Yes, if H.G. Wells were the only science-fiction author that wrote about aliens prior to 1947.

The problem is with all the sightings of saucers that happened after the Arnold sighting was published. After Arnold saw his saucer, a whole bunch of other people started seeing them too. The problem, however, is that Arnold did not see a saucer. This rather conclusively proves that people are simply copying what they read about others -- because they are duplicating the errors in reporting.

Sorry didn't see this post before I replied to Don J, hence the repetition of the same point.

Van Rijn
2010-Mar-01, 12:19 AM
Don J, did you miss my questions? See this post:

http://www.bautforum.com/1690456-post363.html

Torch2k
2010-Mar-01, 12:53 AM
Does this all make the UFO phenomenon self-perpetuating? Since flying discs are common, are new reports more likely to include descriptions of flying discs (or whatever the current rage is)? The Grays (TM) are so fixed in the UFO lore; are they most likely to be the culprits behind new ET shenanigans? And, will probings and proddings continue to be inserted into whatever 'missing time' might be 'found' in the middle of the night?

More to the point of this thread, I wonder whether hypnotic regression stands any chance of credibility in such a cultural climate. Is there any way of subtracting these memes from the 'recollections' (both conscious and subconscious) of those who've experienced something unusual and are being encouraged it's the latest close encounter?

Also, what would happen within the UFO community if: the next contactee to come forward had physical evidence of an encounter; the alien craft was sleek and aerodynamic; the alien resembled not a classic 'Gray', but Keanu Reeves; and, rather than poking and prodding, ET wanted to just sit back, have a beer, and sort out once and for all whether the greatest hockey player of all time wasn't Gretzky, but Orr?

Spoons
2010-Mar-01, 02:02 AM
I vote for Bobby Orr. Wait, is that ATM?

kleindoofy
2010-Mar-01, 02:09 AM
Orr.

If the ET wants a Bud-Light, then he's not genuine.

ET's have good taste.

Torch2k
2010-Mar-01, 03:38 AM
I vote for Bobby Orr. Wait, is that ATM?

Second!

And from where I'm standing, the Mainstream (TM) is pretty solidly onside. So, don't see how it's against them.

Spoons
2010-Mar-01, 04:25 AM
In that case, I have two 40 ounce bottles of beer on chill. Percy, you're clear for landing.

Don J
2010-Mar-01, 06:24 AM
The problem is with all the sightings of saucers that happened after the Arnold sighting was published. After Arnold saw his saucer, a whole bunch of other people started seeing them too. The problem, however, is that Arnold did not see a saucer. This rather conclusively proves that people are simply copying what they read about others -- because they are duplicating the errors in reporting.

As I said earlier...
there were observations and photograph of Flying Disks which predate Arnold sighting even if Arnold dont really saw a flying saucer.
Do you think hoaxers were already at work?

http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/decade/pre1940.htm

Don J
2010-Mar-01, 06:45 AM
but do you have a specific claim you're willing to support that is relevant to the subject of the thread?

Yes,that is why iI talked about the Hills case.

Gillianren
2010-Mar-01, 07:24 AM
Yes,that is why iI talked about the Hills case.

Care to put it into a clear sentence?

Van Rijn
2010-Mar-01, 08:36 AM
Yes,that is why iI talked about the Hills case.

Then make your case and present your evidence.

gzhpcu
2010-Mar-01, 11:52 AM
As I said earlier...
there were observations and photograph of Flying Disks which predate Arnold sighting even if Arnold dont really saw a flying saucer.
Do you think hoaxers were already at work?

http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/decade/pre1940.htm

So if there were photos of flying saucers much earlier, how come nobody ever spoke about them? Why just many years later, in retrospect?

JayUtah
2010-Mar-01, 03:22 PM
...

there were observations and photograph of Flying Disks which predate Arnold sighting...

Retrospectively interpreted as flying "discs" after UFOs become popular. Where is the evidence that the people who took these photos or published them interpreted these photos as flying saucers prior to 1940?

Do you think hoaxers were already at work?

No, they're obvious effects of careless photo processing, and were likely interpreted as such glitches back then.

This doesn't answer the proliferation of post-Arnold disc sightings.

JayUtah
2010-Mar-01, 03:23 PM
Yes,that is why iI talked about the Hills case.

And what is your specific claim?

vonmazur
2010-Mar-01, 06:11 PM
Fellows: Here is a link to an essay by John Keel, one of the few popular writers who seems to understand this phenomenon from a standpoint of psychological, rather than physical manifestation...http://greyfalcon.us/The%20Man%20Who%20Invented%20Flying%20Saucers.htm

Dale in AL

gzhpcu
2010-Mar-01, 06:27 PM
Nice find vonmazur...:)

vonmazur
2010-Mar-01, 07:34 PM
gzhpcu: I knew John Keel in the 1970's, and he was, in my opinion, quite correct in his view of this stuff. I am amazed at all the cultish following that these unproveable theories have. One presumes that such things as myth and culture are not discussed in grade schools anymore, at least from a critical standpoint...

I make this assertion based on the ubiquitous nature of the whole ufo/alien subject, and the almost total lack of objectivity in "analysis" from the general culture, ie: endless ufo hunter shows and tons of books, but almost no common sense in dealing with it....(This august board excepted, of course!)

Dale in AL

NEOWatcher
2010-Mar-01, 07:53 PM
... but I'm really surprised that anybody would take the time and bother to go out and physically check wild woo claims.

I doubt very much that if I claimed I had played unicorn polo with some friendly ETs that people would go hunting around for the hoof marks, or for their absence...
Normally; checking wild woo claims is a waste of time.
But; If your unicorn polo match had recieved as much media coverage and legend as B&B Hill, then I'm sure that there might be some to try to check it out.


... Spend more than 2,33 seconds physically researching woo claims? That insults human intelligence.
On the flip side, the proponents didn't even do such a simple re-enactment to reinforce thier case.

So; not only is it demonstrating that there was a flaw in the story, but it shows a gaping flaw in the proponents' investigation. If it could be done so simply, then why didn't they go and do it.
(although; maybe they did and found it worked against them)

Don J
2010-Mar-01, 08:52 PM
Yes,that is why iI talked about the Hills case.
Care to put it into a clear sentence?

What is the think you dont find clear enough in that sentence ?

Gillianren
2010-Mar-01, 09:02 PM
What is the think you dont find clear enough in that sentence ?

What, exactly, is the point you mean to raise about the Hill case? Why do you find it convincing? What are you trying to convince the rest of us of?

JayUtah
2010-Mar-01, 09:05 PM
What is the think you dont find clear enough in that sentence ?

All of it.

You cite the case of Betty and Barney Hill. Is it your claim that they actually were abducted by aliens, as they say? Or if not, what are you claiming about the Hills?

Don J
2010-Mar-01, 09:09 PM
And what is your specific claim?
My specific claim is than nobody in the mid 60 's were influenced by the Hill abduction story.
Abduction story begin to come to light only in the mid 80 's.
Maybe Budd Hopkins was inspired by the Hills account of abduction and the missing time episode to start a new business . 'expert in aliens abduction :sad:

Van Rijn
2010-Mar-01, 09:21 PM
My specific claim is than nobody in the mid 60 's were influenced by the Hill abduction story.
Abduction story begin to come to light only in the mid 80 's.


Odd claim.

From that wikipedia page you keep linking to, the first public disclosure of their claims was in 1963 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_and_Barney_Hill_abduction#First_public_discl osure)

And by 1965, there was widespread publicity. From

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_and_Barney_Hill_abduction#Publicity_after_th e_hypnosis_sessions


But on October 25, 1965, a newspaper story changed everything: A front page story on the Boston Traveler asked "UFO Chiller: Did THEY Seize Couple?" (Clark, 286) Reporter John H. Lutrell of the Traveler had been given an audio tape recording of the lecture the Hills had made in Quincy Center in early 1963. Lutrell learned that the Hills had undergone hypnosis with Dr. Simon; he also obtained notes from interviews the Hills had given to UFO investigators. On October 26, the UPI picked up Lutrell's story, and the Hills earned international attention.

In 1966, writer John G. Fuller scored the cooperation of the Hills and Dr. Simon, and wrote the book The Interrupted Journey about the case. The book included a copy of Betty's sketch of the "star map". The book was a quick success, and went through several printings.

Van Rijn
2010-Mar-01, 09:24 PM
By the way, Don, don't forget my previous questions about the page of photos you've linked to twice. Here's a link, again, to my post, with questions:

http://www.bautforum.com/1690456-post363.html

Strange
2010-Mar-01, 09:24 PM
My specific claim is than nobody in the mid 60 's were influenced by the Hill abduction story.
Abduction story begin to come to light only in the mid 80 's.

And is your claim there, that somehow that (if true) gives the later cases more credibility (because they are not just copycats)?

kleindoofy
2010-Mar-01, 09:31 PM
... notes from interviews the Hills had given to UFO investigators.
"UFO investigators"?

That's so easy to write and so easy to overlook.

What, please, is an "UFO investigator"? Especially in 1965.

They make it sound as if the "UFO investigators" were some kind of objective third party.

Why don't they just say "crackpots" instead of "UFO investigators" and get it over with?

Garrison
2010-Mar-01, 09:51 PM
My specific claim is than nobody in the mid 60 's were influenced by the Hill abduction story.
Abduction story begin to come to light only in the mid 80 's.
Maybe Budd Hopkins was inspired by the Hills account of abduction and the missing time episode to start a new business . 'expert in aliens abduction :sad:

Well I was once upon a time quite into UFO's and I'm sure I read about the Hills in the late 70's. Even if they didn't influence anyone in the 60's, a pretty major claim, they certainly could have in the 70's and 80's, in fact Spielbergs 'Close Encounters' came out in 1977, so it was clearly influenced by some previous stories; and probably influenced later abduction claims.

JayUtah
2010-Mar-01, 11:21 PM
...

My specific claim is than nobody in the mid 60 's were influenced by the Hill abduction story.

I disagree. I remember films of UFO gatherings shot in the 1960s in which several pepole claim to have been either abducted or taken as semi-willing guests into flying saucers.

The movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) touched on abduction themes that were already well entrenched in the folklore.

Torch2k
2010-Mar-02, 01:42 AM
Don,

From the Wiki page that's already been referenced here:

"In November 1963, the Hills spoke before an amateur UFO study group"

Clearly, B&B were getting the word out on the street. Also clearly, groups of UFO enthusiasts existed.


And Von,

Thanks for the link to background on saucers.

Selenite
2010-Mar-02, 02:32 AM
My specific claim is than nobody in the mid 60 's were influenced by the Hill abduction story.
Abduction story begin to come to light only in the mid 80 's.
Maybe Budd Hopkins was inspired by the Hills account of abduction and the missing time episode to start a new business . 'expert in aliens abduction :sad:

I believe there was a British TV series called U.F.O. which premiered either in the late 60s or early 70s in which abducting humans for organ harvesting was a central theme. So, clearly the alien abduction mythos was in full stride well before the 1980s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO_%28TV_series%29

Jim
2010-Mar-02, 03:53 AM
And movies.

The Flying Saucer, 1950

The Day the Earth Stood Still, 1951

This Island Earth, 1955

Earth vs the Flying Saucers, 1956

Forbidden Planet, 1956

Visit to a Small Planet, 1960

And on, and on.

There was even a "remake" of Orson Welles WotW radio broadcast as a record, "Flying Saucer, Parts 1 and 2," in 1955.

ETA, maybe these influenced the Hills.

Don J
2010-Mar-02, 04:23 AM
My specific claim is than nobody in the mid 60 's were influenced by the Hill abduction story.

I disagree. I remember films of UFO gatherings shot in the 1960s in which several pepole claim to have been either abducted or taken as semi-willing guests into flying saucers.

The movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) touched on abduction themes that were already well entrenched in the folklore.

In my rush to reply i forget one important observation.
Here what I said in post 17.
http://www.bautforum.com/1684871-post17.html

One thing interesting about the Hill's abduction is that nobody seem to have been influenced by their extraordinary adventure related in newspapers, book,and even a movie.I mean nobody at that time (1961) rushed to have an hypnosis regression.

So what have make people in the 80 's suddently going to their psychiatrist for an hypnotic regression ?

Spoons
2010-Mar-02, 04:27 AM
The Hills only had hypnotic regression after prompting from these writers, who were presumably after a story.

I heard about someone having a knee reconstruction on the sports news the other day but I haven't heard of a rush to have that surgery. Not that many knees are busted. "Nobody" might be a stretch though.

Don J
2010-Mar-02, 04:42 AM
The Hills only had hypnotic regression after prompting from these writers, who were presumably after a story.

I know that. But...

If Kenneth Arnold immediately started a new social phenomena with his "Flying Saucer" tingy.

Why influencable people have not immediately rushed to have an hypnotic regression after the Hills aliens abduction account became plublic ?

Spoons
2010-Mar-02, 04:53 AM
But there are so many why questions you could ask.

Why, regarding that particular question - I don't know. Maybe they did, but reserved the info for books which make money. I don't have an answer though.

Maybe the book-writers already had a story to run with. Maybe sales on the first book didn't make enough to warrant the expense involved in creating more stories.

Maybe there aren't as many people out there who truly believe they were abducted, or maybe they think they were abducted without need for hypnotic regression (maybe because the ideas about abduction were already firmly planted in their minds due to the prior stories about abductions), and hence saw no need for hypnotic regression in order to plant *cough cough* the memories of abductions.

A lot of why's out there. A lot of maybe's too.

Gillianren
2010-Mar-02, 04:59 AM
Maybe not UFO enthusiasts, but hypnotic regression wasn't new to the Hills.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridey_Murphy

Don J
2010-Mar-02, 05:19 AM
You've linked to a page of photos of uncertain provenance.

Click on the photos you will have a description.
http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/decade/pre1940.htm




Do you have a specific claim relevant to the thread subject that you're willing to support?


see post 403 and 405

Spoons
2010-Mar-02, 05:51 AM
Yes, but wouldn't that qualify for one of those "if I ran the zoo" type comments? (I really don't know if that's the proper usage of the phrase) You seem to suggest people should have gone out at undergone hypnotic regression, but they didn't. What is the significance of this?

What you said in those comments aren't themselves claims, they're questions. It seems you may be hinting at a claim, though I'm not certain of that.

Would you mind clearly stating what your claim is?

Don J
2010-Mar-02, 06:28 AM
Yes, but wouldn't that qualify for one of those "if I ran the zoo" type comments? (I really don't know if that's the proper usage of the phrase) You seem to suggest people should have gone out at undergone hypnotic regression, but they didn't. What is the significance of this?

That peoples are not so influencable (influenced) than that by extraordinary account.



What you said in those comments aren't themselves claims, they're questions. It seems you may be hinting at a claim, though I'm not certain of that.


Would you mind clearly stating what your claim is?

I have not made any claim.But observations,which many of you interpret as a claim.

Van Rijn
2010-Mar-02, 06:55 AM
Click on the photos you will have a description.


I read the comments (where they exist) the first time you linked to that page. Do you have any specific comments you want to discuss?




see post 403 and 405

I see nothing in those posts about the photos you linked to three times now. Perhaps my questions haven't been clear enough. There are eight photos on that page. Pick a photo. What are your SPECIFIC claims about that photo? About its comments? What is its relevance to the thread topic?

JayUtah
2010-Mar-02, 07:09 AM
...

I mean nobody at that time (1961) rushed to have an hypnosis regression.

There's a lot of things people in 1961 didn't rush to do. Why do you think this one particular item indicates a lack of interest?

So what have make people in the 80 's suddently going to their psychiatrist for an hypnotic regression ?

Hm, did they?

gzhpcu
2010-Mar-02, 07:20 AM
Implications are being made that Betty Hill is credible.


Robert Schaeffer: (http://skeptoid.com/episode.php?id=4124&comments=all)


I was present at the National UFO Conference in New York City in 1980, at which Betty presented some of the UFO photos she had taken. She showed what must have been well over two hundred slides, mostly of blips, blurs, and blobs against a dark background. These were supposed to be UFOs coming in close, chasing her car, landing, etc... After her talk had exceeded about twice its allotted time, Betty was literally jeered off the stage by what had been at first a very sympathetic audience. This incident, witnessed by many of UFOlogy's leaders and top activists, removed any lingering doubts about Betty's credibility — she had none. In the oft-repeated words of one UFOlogist who accompanied Betty on a UFO vigil in 1977, she was "unable to distinguish between a landed UFO and a streetlight." In 1995, Betty Hill wrote a self-published book, A Common Sense Approach to UFOs. It is filled with obviously delusional stories, such as seeing entire squadrons of UFOs in flight and a truck levitating above the freeway.


Even "ufologists" don't believe her.... ;-)

Don J
2010-Mar-02, 07:28 AM
I read the comments (where they exist) the first time you linked to that page. Do you have any specific comments you want to discuss?


I see nothing in those posts about the photos you linked to three times now. Perhaps my questions haven't been clear enough. There are eight photos on that page. Pick a photo. What are your SPECIFIC claims about that photo? About its comments? What is its relevance to the thread topic?
Ho! that was only in reply to someone saying than that was only when Kenneth Arnold coined the term "Flying Saucer"in 1947 than people began reporting seing flying saucers too.

I linked to these photos which predate Kenneth Arnold citation.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/decade/pre1940.htm

Van Rijn
2010-Mar-02, 07:30 AM
I believe there was a British TV series called U.F.O. which premiered either in the late 60s or early 70s in which abducting humans for organ harvesting was a central theme. So, clearly the alien abduction mythos was in full stride well before the 1980s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO_%28TV_series%29

That would be 1970.

On TV, there was also The Invaders, starting in '67. While that was about alien invasion, the aliens in the story did abductions, and in some cases used mind control.

By the way, I'll mention Robert Heinlein's book, Have Space Suit, Will Travel. That was published in 1958 and an alien abduction was a major plot point. This is supposedly a book meant for a younger audience, but was a great story.

gzhpcu
2010-Mar-02, 07:44 AM
Ho! that was only in reply to someone saying than that was only when Kenneth Arnold coined the term "Flying Saucer"in 1947 than people began reporting seing flying saucers too.

I linked to these photos which predate Kenneth Arnold citation.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/decade/pre1940.htm
Yet these photos were not deemed anything special at the time, just when people in retrospect started hunting for old photos of blurry objects have they been identified as "proof" for flying saucers. Quality is just as bad as today's photos...

Van Rijn
2010-Mar-02, 07:47 AM
Ho! that was only in reply to someone saying than that was only when Kenneth Arnold coined the term "Flying Saucer"in 1947 than people began reporting seing flying saucers too.

I linked to these photos which predate Kenneth Arnold citation.


So, you're claiming that these are photos of flying saucers?

You are willing to support the claim that this (the first photo in the list):

http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/pre1940/Photo295.htm

is a photo of a flying saucer?

Don J
2010-Mar-02, 08:04 AM
So, you're claiming that these are photos of flying saucers?

You are willing to support the claim that this (the first photo in the list):

http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/pre1940/Photo295.htm

is a photo of a flying saucer?
Maybe I should have say some of them to be more clear...
Like these
http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/pre1940/Photo121.htm

http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/pre1940/Photo12.htm

http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/pre1940/Photo135.htm

source
http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/decade/pre1940.htm

Van Rijn
2010-Mar-02, 08:58 AM
Maybe I should have say some of them to be more clear...
Like these
http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/pre1940/Photo121.htm


I don't see a claim of a flying saucer in the comments. Rather, a person is saying their father claimed to see a "round thing" the size of a large boulder in the air, but nobody else claimed to see it. On that page, there is a closeup of what looks like a photographic artifact.



http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/pre1940/Photo12.htm


I don't see a claim of a flying saucer in the comments (it talks about a "thing"). There is no specific self identification in the comment (just "volunteer Fireman of Cave Junction"). There is a thing in a whitish area of the photo. Could be an alteration (old or recent), could be a lot of things.



http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/pre1940/Photo135.htm


I don't see a claim of a flying saucer in the comments. It is supposed to be a photo of a "George Sutton" but there is no statement of what George Sutton (or the photographer) claimed to see. In the photo, there is a blob in the light sky in the upper right - could be an alteration, could be a photographic artifact.

kleindoofy
2010-Mar-02, 12:02 PM
... influencable people ...
I guess that's a polite way of saying something else.


... Why influencable people have not immediately rushed to have an hypnotic regression after the Hills aliens abduction account became plublic?
Maybe they did. How would you or we know?

Not everybody who gets treated for something runs out and writes a book or holds a press conference.

Do you or we know how many people were put under hypnosis last week, and what for?

Maybe lots of, errr, umm, "influencable people" did rush to have a hypnotic regression after the Hills aliens abduction account and only found out that they hate their mothers and are sexually repressed. Not much of a book market for that.

Granted, if hypnotic regression had become a mass phenomenon or a "groovy" fad in the 60's, we might know about that fad, but lack of that knowledge doesn't mean it didn't happen to some degree.

I'm not saying it did happen. I'm just saying we don't know.

Strange
2010-Mar-02, 12:07 PM
So what have make people in the 80 's suddently going to their psychiatrist for an hypnotic regression ?

Even if it were true that hypnotic regression (and associated false memories) became popular in the eighties (and I have no idea if that is true or not) what does that have to do with the existence or otherwise of aliens?

Donnie B.
2010-Mar-02, 12:50 PM
I believe there was a British TV series called U.F.O. which premiered either in the late 60s or early 70s in which abducting humans for organ harvesting was a central theme. So, clearly the alien abduction mythos was in full stride well before the 1980s.
Let's not forget an even earlier TV series, The Invaders (1967-68). Here's the teaser narration from that series:


The Invaders, alien beings from a dying planet. Their destination: the Earth. Their purpose: to make it their world. David Vincent has seen them. For him, it began one lost night on a lonely country road, looking for a shortcut that he never found. It began with a closed deserted diner, and a man too long without sleep to continue his journey. It began with the landing of a craft from another galaxy. Now David Vincent knows that the Invaders are here, that they have taken human form. Somehow he must convince a disbelieving world that the nightmare has already begun.Any of that sound familiar?

ETA: Oops, I see Van Rijn beat me to it. Sorry for the duplicated information.

Strange
2010-Mar-02, 01:10 PM
That would be 1970.

On TV, there was also The Invaders, starting in '67. While that was about alien invasion, the aliens in the story did abductions, and in some cases used mind control.

And, not quite the same, there was Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956).

JayUtah
2010-Mar-02, 02:52 PM
...

http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/pre1940/Photo121.htm

Second-hand story of an experience allegedly in front of many witnesses, but strangely with no corroboration or local recollection. More likely: a story made up about a curious photo.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/pre1940/Photo12.htm

No claim made -- just a curious photo.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/pre1940/Photo135.htm

Clearly post-interpreted, and not by the author of the photograph. No claim of extraterrestrials. Feature on photo is clearly chemical in nature.

gzhpcu
2010-Mar-02, 05:48 PM
Don J, you are definitely trying to support the alien abduction premise indirectly by trying to submit photos to support the flying saucer standpoint, thereby lending credibility to Betty and Barney's "abduction", etc. Otherwise, why come up with these old bogus photos?

eburacum45
2010-Mar-02, 06:12 PM
http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/pre1940/Photo121.htm

Second-hand story of an experience allegedly in front of many witnesses, but strangely with no corroboration or local recollection. More likely: a story made up about a curious photo.
I'd tend to agree with this- the 'object' resembles a drop of foamy liquid on the photo itself- possibly a glitch during the development process. There is another possible foamy bubble directly below the first one.

Note that the handwritten inscription does not mention the sighting either.

Gillianren
2010-Mar-02, 06:18 PM
Maybe I should have say some of them to be more clear...

See, to me at least, you're still not being terribly clear, so here is what I want. Consider this a direct question.

In a few simple sentences, with no links or references to past posts, spell out exactly what you're proposing here. What point are you trying to make? Why should we listen to it?

JayUtah
2010-Mar-02, 06:26 PM
...

I'd tend to agree with this- the 'object' resembles a drop of foamy liquid on the photo itself- possibly a glitch during the development process.

Likely, since the photo is also lightstruck. That indicates clumsy handling of the film.

Note that the handwritten inscription does not mention the sighting either.

Indeed, suggesting that it was always accepted as a depiction primarily of the saw mill, not of a UFO, and that the previous owners of the photograph did not consider the "UFO" significant.

Don J
2010-Mar-02, 07:35 PM
See, to me at least, you're still not being terribly clear, so here is what I want. Consider this a direct question.

In a few simple sentences, with no links or references to past posts, spell out exactly what you're proposing here. What point are you trying to make? Why should we listen to it?
Hey! after reading your direct questions I realise than I have no point in particular to make.Only observations.

I drop the subject. Bye! Have a nice day. :)

Garrison
2010-Mar-02, 07:49 PM
So what have make people in the 80 's suddently going to their psychiatrist for an hypnotic regression ?

Why did women's clothes sport huge shoulder pads? Why was suddenly okay for men to start wearing pastel colours? It was a decade with its strange fads and fancies like any other.

Spoons
2010-Mar-02, 10:34 PM
Why did women's clothes sport huge shoulder pads? Why was suddenly okay for men to start wearing pastel colours? It was a decade with its strange fads and fancies like any other.
I blame those cowboys down in Florida for all that madness. :D

Torch2k
2010-Mar-03, 04:02 PM
Why did women's clothes sport huge shoulder pads? Why was suddenly okay for men to start wearing pastel colours? It was a decade with its strange fads and fancies like any other.

Our own decade has its moments. Did you catch the Norwegian men's curling team at this year's Olympics?

Gillianren
2010-Mar-03, 06:15 PM
Our own decade has its moments. Did you catch the Norwegian men's curling team at this year's Olympics?

Several years ago, there was a marquee at a local restaurant bearing the sign, "Walker Stephens is Mr. Sassy Pants," and that was what I thought of while we were watching curling. Because those were some sassy pants.

Spoons
2010-Mar-03, 11:04 PM
Good grief! Say it aint so!

The first thing that springs to mind when I see those is a character on the Eric Bana Comedy Show who was named Groovy Pants Gus.

Just looked it up - Gus was groovier (http://elflady.com/legolasgreenleaf/serein/animations/groovy_pants.gif).

jja
2010-Mar-04, 04:28 AM
The first thing that springs to mind when I see those is a character on the Eric Bana Comedy Show who was named Groovy Pants Gus.
May we assume that he wore corduroys?

Spoons
2010-Mar-04, 04:35 AM
If it pleases the court, then sure. Why not?

I can't find details or online photos. May have to do a screen grab at home when I get a chance.

[/derail]

Jimmy123
2010-Mar-07, 04:01 AM
To go back to Dr. David Jacobs, the original topic of this thread, Paratopia have just done a show on him. It has a lot of audio, including of him giving Emma Woods hypnotic suggestions she had MPD (multiple personality disorder.)

http://paratopia.podbean.com/2010/03/05/paratopia-episode-57-the-emma-woods-tapes/

Emma's website has other audio and information on it.

http://www.ufoalienabductee.com/david-jacobs-audio-clips.html

neilzero
2010-Mar-07, 01:12 PM
My screen memories (if any) have functioned perfectly for 75 years, however my mother had what was diagnosed and treated as schizophrenia. I agree most of the debunkers take what might be an explanation for the experience and treat it as if it is proof that no ET were involved. That kind of debunking is bad science. Neil

Starfury
2010-Mar-07, 03:06 PM
You know what bad science is? Taking someone's personal anecdote, remembered imperfectly, and promulgating it as hard fact.

Studies have proven that UFO abduction memories can be implanted into subjects in hypnogogic (sp?) states. That calls recall of such events into question.

Plus abductees unfortunately (and I use that word because I'd like to believe that something so extraordinary is happening to them and the implications of such an event) don't have any corroborating evidence.

If one of these little gray men appeared in my room at night trying to get me I'd do like Will Smith in "Independence Day", punch it in the mouth and declare, "Welcome to Earth". Then I'd duct tape it to the floor or a chair and call the authorities. That would be hard evidence. If abductees ever brought back any sort of token of their experience like a small alien device (although I think that any scientist or engineer examining such an item would feel like a Neanderthal confronted with an iPhone) or book written in unknown script, their stories would have more credence.

kleindoofy
2010-Mar-07, 07:54 PM
... abductees unfortunately ...
I'm assuming you mean "alleged abductees."


... book written in unknown script ...
Why do I have the distinct feeling that for supposed abduction victims and other alien visitation believers most any book is in an unknown script? ;)

David Mc
2010-Mar-08, 02:54 AM
If one of these little gray men appeared in my room at night trying to get me I'd do like Will Smith in "Independence Day", punch it in the mouth and declare, "Welcome to Earth". Then I'd duct tape it to the floor or a chair and call the authorities. That would be hard evidence.

Well, you can't because they freeze you by telepathy and you have to do what they say. You become a Bio-bot.

I hadn't taken much interest in this particular... "field", but after a little reading I think psychiatry should take an interest.
It seems to me that MPD is not a subsequent problem, it's primary.

Don J
2010-Mar-08, 04:52 AM
If abductees ever brought back any sort of token of their experience like a small alien device (although I think that any scientist or engineer examining such an item would feel like a Neanderthal confronted with an iPhone) or book written in unknown script, their stories would have more credence.

written in unknown script

You mean that kind of unknown script... :)

http://isaaccaret.fortunecity.com/pacl-lang-analysis-p119-fullsize.jpg

and technology

http://isaaccaret.fortunecity.com/

Spoons
2010-Mar-08, 05:04 AM
I'm not getting anything out of your first link. Anyone else?

Don J
2010-Mar-08, 05:09 AM
I'm not getting anything out of your first link. Anyone else?
It is a JPG file it take some time to load.

http://isaaccaret.fortunecity.com/
Go to the chart at the right
to
PACL Linguistic Analysis Primer p119

Spoons
2010-Mar-08, 05:20 AM
Ok, I'll have to check it at home - darn work net blocker.

That may be the reason I wasn't getting the first link to work - it was just throwing up a copy of the fortunecity logo.

Ta.

JayUtah
2010-Mar-08, 06:11 AM
...

http://isaaccaret.fortunecity.com/pacl-lang-analysis-p119-fullsize.jpg

Doesn't load for me either.

http://isaaccaret.fortunecity.com/

Debunked a long time ago -- digitally created/composited photos.

JayUtah
2010-Mar-08, 06:13 AM
PACL Linguistic Analysis Primer p119

Kudos to the graphic designer; I'd hire him. How is this proof of alien visitation?

JayUtah
2010-Mar-08, 06:38 AM
Well, you can't because they freeze you by telepathy and you have to do what they say.

When do they tell you to go on talk radio or to write books?

slang
2010-Mar-08, 07:25 AM
http://isaaccaret.fortunecity.com/

The images on the top of the page seem to be stolen from a digital graphics artist. Note the interesting naming of the files: chad.gif, tahoe.gif, rajman.gif. Wish I could remember the music/video project the images are from, I'm sure it was mentioned here on BAUT.


PACL Linguistic Analysis Primer p119

One would expect a linguistic analyst to know how to spell "brief".

Tedward
2010-Mar-08, 10:03 AM
written in unknown script

You mean that kind of unknown script... :)

http://isaaccaret.fortunecity.com/pacl-lang-analysis-p119-fullsize.jpg

and technology

http://isaaccaret.fortunecity.com/


If I may, I got hooked on Lord of the Rings in my youth. Long before the films, after reading the Hobbit I started down the various books that were out like Silmarillion etc. Then onto how and why Tolkien liked to invent languages and the alphabet that was used. Fantastic the way it all pans out into the story.

Clicky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quenya#Fictional_history) Looks real doesn't it......


Edit. I should have included the runes and origins of.

Strange
2010-Mar-08, 11:31 AM
Go to the chart at the right
to
PACL Linguistic Analysis Primer p119

It doesn't look very "alien" does it? Inspired by Japanese (katakana) by the look of it. I wouldn't expect alien writing to even be recongnisable as writing at first glance (e.g. http://www.earth-history.com/_images/ms2367a.jpg).

gzhpcu
2010-Mar-08, 12:20 PM
It doesn't look very "alien" does it? Inspired by Japanese (katakana) by the look of it. I wouldn't expect alien writing to even be recongnisable as writing at first glance (e.g. http://www.earth-history.com/_images/ms2367a.jpg).
Why would aliens necessarily even write in the first place? :confused:

Spoons
2010-Mar-08, 12:26 PM
The assumption would be it's a necessary form of information storage but I think I see your point.

We store most our stuff on hard drives by now anyway, if we imagine great advances it could end up being a relic of the past.

Strange
2010-Mar-08, 12:48 PM
Why would aliens necessarily even write in the first place? :confused:

True. But, if they did, why would it be visible to us, rather than only in infrared or ultraviolet. Or smell. Or touch. Or their unique q'fne!epltch sense.

JayUtah
2010-Mar-08, 03:43 PM
...

If abductees ever brought back any sort of token of their experience like a small alien device...

The implantees claim essentially that. However the "small alien devices" they offer seem to differ little from slivers or pieces of solid material. In other words, they are undetectable from the flotsam and jetsam of Earth life that our bodies pick up, sometimes without our recollection (e.g., when we were very young).

The implantees go on to claim that the reason why modern scientists can't tell that those "devices" are alien technology is precisely because they are Neanderthals looking at iPhones. Even an Edwardian engineer would have trouble with modern solid-state electronics because of the lack of visibly working mechanism. Nevertheless the only evidence of otherworldly purpose and manufacture is the notion that the "implants" are composed of materials that "don't occur in nature." (That pronouncement usually leaves out whether they could be human-made refined materials.)

Unfortunately until the implantees come up with a way of deterministically distinguishing their "implants" from ordinary slivers of glass, they won't get much of a hearing.

...or book written in unknown script, their stories would have more credence.

With respect, that wouldn't convince me. Making up scripts is, as has been suggested already, a pastime of every graphic artist and typographer. I did it quite a lot as a teenager, especially after I had some formal linguistics under my belt. Cleaning out Mom's house, I recently came across some notebooks I wrote when I was about 19 or 20, containing several alphabets I had invented.

So since Earthlings seem quite capable of inventing "unknown scripts," I don't think that would convince me that something was necessarily alien.

Jason Thompson
2010-Mar-08, 05:23 PM
With respect, that wouldn't convince me. Making up scripts is, as has been suggested already, a pastime of every graphic artist and typographer.

Just examine the sci-fi shows on TV at the moment for examples of 'unknown scripts'. This week alone I have seen ancient Bajoran, Ferengi, Klingon, 'Dominionese', Romulan, Kazon, Dalek, Ood, and the alien language invented for Futurama....

Gillianren
2010-Mar-08, 05:59 PM
Heck, there are not-imaginary human scripts that remained untranslatable for generations--some are still untranslatable now. It's just that everyone who knew how to write in them is long dead.

Don J
2010-Mar-08, 08:10 PM
The images on the top of the page seem to be stolen from a digital graphics artist. Note the interesting naming of the files: chad.gif, tahoe.gif, rajman.gif. Wish I could remember the music/video project the images are from, I'm sure it was mentioned here on BAUT.

Some of them came from a strange observation at Lake Tahoe.... the last one show the same type of script/graphic .
http://www.ufosightingreport.com/images/07-05/Original%20Files/tahoe-ufo-5.jpg
Source
http://www.ufosightingreport.com/strange-device-over-lake-tahoe-extraterrestrial





One would expect a linguistic analyst to know how to spell "brief".

He call it
a "functional blueprint".
The “Language”
from the author


I put the word Language in quotes because calling what I am about to describe a “language” is a misnomer, although it is an easy mistake to make.

details
http://isaaccaret.fortunecity.com/
sro;; down to
The “Language”

He claim that he worked on a project named CARET and when he saw the report and photos of observation of Lake Tahoe... that he appearance of these photos has convinced him to release at least some of the numerous photographs and photocopied documents he still possess some 20 years later that can explain a great deal about these sightings.
He show picture of some harware he said are visible on the object from Lake Tahoe pic.
http://isaaccaret.fortunecity.com/pacl-q385-inventory-review-fullsize.jpg

source
http://isaaccaret.fortunecity.com/

One must not separate the whole thing he present out of context
From the author


This letter is part of a package I've assembled for Coast to Coast AM to distribute to its audience. It is a companion to numerous document and photo scans and should not be separated from them.

JayUtah
2010-Mar-08, 08:32 PM
...

He claim that he worked on a project named CARET...

"He" is simply the anonymous author of some web site. Please tell us how we can verify any of what he has claimed.

One must not separate the whole thing he present out of context

No. Reluctance to swallow a little hogwash is not cured by asking us to swallow a lot.

The photos alone made a brief splash on Art Bell before they were roundly debunked. The notion of "Project CARET" was added some time later. Someone has evidently simply spun some modern folklore around these obviously hoaxed pictures.

Don J
2010-Mar-08, 08:38 PM
He claim that he worked on a project named CARET...

"He" is simply the anonymous author of some web site. Please tell us how we can verify any of what he has claimed.

One must not separate the whole thing he present out of context

No. Reluctance to swallow a little hogwash is not cured by asking us to swallow a lot.

The photos alone made a brief splash on Art Bell before they were roundly debunked. The notion of "Project CARET" was added some time later. Someone has evidently simply spun some modern folklore around these obviously hoaxed pictures.

What about the pieces of hardware he present, see the chart at the right for more.
http://isaaccaret.fortunecity.com/
example
PACL Q4-86 Report Photo 4.1

JayUtah
2010-Mar-08, 08:42 PM
What about the pieces of hardware he present...

We'll get to those. Kindly don't distract from questions already on the table.

First please tell us why the photos are fake if this is a true account.

Then please tell us why "Isaac" must be anonymous and why none of his story can be verified. In other words, what evidence other than his claims can you offer than any such project as CARET existed, or any such laboratory as PACL existed in Palo Alto?

Don J
2010-Mar-08, 08:53 PM
The photos alone made a brief splash on Art Bell before they were roundly debunked.
You mean the Lake Tahoe observation ...I want a link to the debunking.
http://www.ufosightingreport.com/strange-device-over-lake-tahoe-extraterrestrial

As for the CARET project i remember a discussion here at Baut who was mostly running about the too good quality of the photocopies... if I remember correctly.

JayUtah
2010-Mar-08, 08:56 PM
...

You mean the Lake Tahoe observation ...I want a link to the debunking.

It's somewhere here on BAUT. You search, I'll search, and one of us will find it.

As for the Caret project i remember a discussion here at Baut who was mostly running about the too good quality of the photocopies...

Please answer the question. What evidence can you give me that there was any such project as CARET or any such lab as PACL?

JayUtah
2010-Mar-08, 09:06 PM
Photos previously discussed here.

http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/58298-stange-craft.html

Don J
2010-Mar-08, 09:06 PM
Please answer the question. What evidence can you give me that there was any such project as CARET or any such lab as PACL?

Are you aware about black projects?

JayUtah
2010-Mar-08, 09:14 PM
Are you aware about black projects?

That is not an answer to my question. Do you have any evidence that Project CARET existed? Do you have any evidence that there was any such lab as PACL in Palo Alto. Please provide the evidence in your next post or I will consider it an intentional evasion of my question.

chrlzs
2010-Mar-08, 09:59 PM
What about the pieces of hardware he present, see the chart at the right for more.
http://isaaccaret.fortunecity.com/
example
PACL Q4-86 Report Photo 4.1

As pointed out, the craft on that page have long been known as CGI, and the authors are relatively easy to find. You could start your journey of research here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57PIS2hh0Y8

and look at the links, comments, other work by him and others.. Try searching "cgi drone" at Youtube if you want even more...

JayUtah
2010-Mar-08, 10:06 PM
While you're looking for evidence of CARET and PACL (and I know it will take you a long time searching before you give up), allow me to discuss your "hardware."

Note that this isn't actual hardware that was produced for mechanical engineers to inspect, but rather photographs of alleged hardware. The difference is quite important. In all cases "Isaac's" (formerly "Chad's") evidence is simply photographs.

Now the spacecraft photographs are ingeniously rendered, but clearly rendered nonetheless. We can determine this based on anomalies in focus and photometry. So we ask ourselves: what could someone do who was clearly very skilled at computer graphics?

The photos of the "hardware" depict three objects -- an assembly with gross radial symmetry, and two smaller pieces. They are placed on what appears to be a white diffuse surface. The objects cast highly diffuse shadows onto this surface. This indicates the use of a broad area light source. The objects themselves display a degree of specular reflection. They reflect an "image" of the white surface around them, which extends to the left and truncates while still horizontal, to the rear and upwards out of frame, and to the right and bent upward to provide a background at certain camera angles. Partially spherical features on the object reflect the edge of the background surface in a manner consistent with a spherical reflector and a planar background.

In other words, all the reflections in the image are consistent except for one -- the image of the broad area light source located generally above the object. This is a common mistake made by some computer graphics artists whose software tools do not render light sources as objects by default. The artist has to turn it on explicitly. In other words, the overall lighting in this scene is not consistent with an actual photograph and is fully consistent with CGI rendering.

captain swoop
2010-Mar-08, 10:14 PM
That is not an answer to my question. Do you have any evidence that Project CARET existed? Do you have any evidence that there was any such lab as PACL in Palo Alto. Please provide the evidence in your next post or I will consider it an intentional evasion of my question.
Don J. That is a Direct question I would like to see answered please
along with
Then please tell us why "Isaac" must be anonymous and why none of his story can be verified?

Provence
2010-Mar-08, 10:21 PM
Heck, there are not-imaginary human scripts that remained untranslatable for generations--some are still untranslatable now. It's just that everyone who knew how to write in them is long dead.

I can provide you with samples of undecipherable human scripts that were written yesterday.

eburacum45
2010-Mar-08, 10:24 PM
I can provide you with samples of undecipherable human scripts that were written yesterday.

A schoolteacher? Or a pharmacist?

Provence
2010-Mar-08, 10:50 PM
A schoolteacher? Or a pharmacist?

More of an engineer. But it is definitely undecipherable, including by the person who wrote it. I've asked.

JayUtah
2010-Mar-08, 10:56 PM
More of an engineer. But it is definitely undecipherable, including by the person who wrote it. I've asked.

It depends on what kind of engineer. Mechanical engineers in the days before CAD were taught unambiguously decipherable lettering. Engineering has been one of the few professions where one can be legally liable for the legibility of one's handwriting.

Provence
2010-Mar-08, 10:59 PM
Engineering has been one of the few professions where one can be legally liable for the legibility of one's handwriting.

This individual could be in trouble then :(

slang
2010-Mar-08, 11:19 PM
Some of them came from a strange observation at Lake Tahoe.... the last one show the same type of script/graphic .
http://www.ufosightingreport.com/images/07-05/Original%20Files/tahoe-ufo-5.jpg
Source
http://www.ufosightingreport.com/strange-device-over-lake-tahoe-extraterrestrial

Yeah. Right. Here's the original author's website. Tahoe, eh? Watch the video, it's a beautiful piece of art by Kris Avery (http://www.kaptive.co.uk/index.cfm).

http://www.kaptive.co.uk/video.cfm

Don J
2010-Mar-09, 05:27 AM
Don J. That is a Direct question I would like to see answered please
along with

That is not an answer to my question. Do you have any evidence that Project CARET existed? Do you have any evidence that there was any such lab as PACL in Palo Alto. Please provide the evidence in your next post or I will consider it an intentional evasion of my question.

I don't have that inormation.

Then please tell us why "Isaac" must be anonymous and why none of his story can be verified?

For his own security.

and why none of his story can be verified?
because nobody else working on the project have talked .

Don J
2010-Mar-09, 05:30 AM
Yeah. Right. Here's the original author's website. Tahoe, eh? Watch the video, it's a beautiful piece of art by Kris Avery (http://www.kaptive.co.uk/index.cfm).

http://www.kaptive.co.uk/video.cfm

Kris Avery is not the author of the pics... he was inspired by them to create his animation video

Here the comments made by Kris Avery about the pics after they were presented by MUFON.
http://www.mufon.com/documents/Drones-CARET.ppt

Html version
http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:E2snIpg_SjIJ:www.mufon.com/documents/Drones-CARET.ppt+Palo+Alto+CARET+Laboratory&cd=13&hl=fr&ct=clnk

Spoons
2010-Mar-09, 05:42 AM
On the website you link to Kris Avery has this to say about the Chad pic:

“On the Chad photos, the Spires have a very jagged edge only observed as the result of 3D rendering, never on a photo … it is a combination of high light levels, angle of light and very thin geometry"

and on the Rajman pic:

“On the Rajman photos, the photo grain is identical through the different images. It is hard to spot because of the different content of each photo. But in areas where the sky is neutral through the set, clear grain repetition is clear. This isn’t natural . It either points to a particular type of rendering, or it is a post effect added to give the images a photolike appearance. Either way, it doesn’t bode well for their authenticity"

ETA: Do you accept his expert opinion that these photos appear to be 3D rendered and manipulated?

Don J
2010-Mar-09, 06:19 AM
On the website you link to Kris Avery has this to say about the Chad pic:

“On the Chad photos, the Spires have a very jagged edge only observed as the result of 3D rendering, never on a photo … it is a combination of high light levels, angle of light and very thin geometry"

and on the Rajman pic:

“On the Rajman photos, the photo grain is identical through the different images. It is hard to spot because of the different content of each photo. But in areas where the sky is neutral through the set, clear grain repetition is clear. This isn’t natural . It either points to a particular type of rendering, or it is a post effect added to give the images a photolike appearance. Either way, it doesn’t bode well for their authenticity"

ETA: Do you accept his expert opinion that these photos appear to be 3D rendered and manipulated?

He does not say that he have analysed the original pics only the JPG's from MUFON site.

Spoons
2010-Mar-09, 06:30 AM
Are you being this skeptical in both directions? It seems you're applying greater rigour to the null hypothesis than to the idea that it is truly some sort of UFO.

I would expect that as an expert in his field Kris Avery would have given this consideration.

Van Rijn
2010-Mar-09, 06:49 AM
That is not an answer to my question. Do you have any evidence that Project CARET existed? Do you have any evidence that there was any such lab as PACL in Palo Alto. Please provide the evidence in your next post or I will consider it an intentional evasion of my question.

I don't have that inormation.


So, you're saying you don't have any evidence, correct?



Then please tell us why "Isaac" must be anonymous and why none of his story can be verified?

For his own security.


How did you determine it was for his security? What is your evidence?



and why none of his story can be verified?
because nobody else working on the project have talked .

I thought you couldn't support the claim that there was a project.

Can you support it or not?

Spoons
2010-Mar-09, 07:06 AM
To be fair, "Isaac" does write:

"Of course they spent about 2 months briefing us all before we saw or did anything, and did their best to convince us that if we ever leaked a single detail about what we were being told, they’d do everything short of digging up our ancestors and putting a few slugs in them too just for good measure."

Though this is just something he writes, with no backup whatsoever. One man's claim... somewhat meaningless without any other credible evidence.

Which is why we're looking at those photos, and they seem to be one point against the validity of Isaac's little story.

Don J
2010-Mar-09, 07:10 AM
I thought you couldn't support the claim that there was a project.

Can you support it or not?
I dont know if it qualified as support for the claim but....
There exist a research report named
Palo Alto Caret Laboratory Q4-86 Research Report
You can find -the whole report- on that page
http://www.crystalinks.com/dragonflydrones.html


rather than partly listed from link to link on the chart from "Isaac"site.
http://isaaccaret.fortunecity.com/

JayUtah
2010-Mar-09, 07:16 AM
...

I don't have that inormation.

What information? Why so evasive? Can you just say plainly whether or not you have any evidence? Why do we always have to extract the truth from you so painfully?

For his own security.

Really? Do you think the people he allegedly worked for are going to be fooled by his simply using a fictitious name, yet talking in great detail about what he supposedly did for them? Isn't it amazing that he turns over all this supposedly top secret stuff to the media with almost complete impunity?

No, his efforts would be completely ineffective at hiding his identity from law enforcement officers or even private detectives. It's effective only in hiding his identity from potential debunkers. The same old scenario plays out here: the alleged whistle-blower is so afraid of reprisals that he must give a false name -- while publishing his claims far and wide.

because nobody else working on the project have talked.

Prove there's a project. Prove anyone else actually worked for it. All you're pointing to is "Isaac's" excuse for why he can't substantiate his claims. You have no evidence at all that any of this is real.

gzhpcu
2010-Mar-09, 07:21 AM
Lots of people are making CGI Isaac Drones.

Here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBEYc5OUUtw
and here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07Bq9fC14ew&NR=1

:)

JayUtah
2010-Mar-09, 07:22 AM
...

You can find -the whole report- on that page
http://www.crystalinks.com/dragonflydrones.html

It contains no verifiable statements, just claims. It mentions no specific names, places, dates, or events. It is indistinguishable from fiction.

Plus, it contains the obviously faked pictures of the "hardware," which you have yet to explain.

Don J
2010-Mar-09, 07:42 AM
You can find -the whole report- on that page
http://www.crystalinks.com/dragonflydrones.html

Plus, it contains the obviously faked pictures of the "hardware," which you have yet to explain.
These are high resolution scans of the original photographs see point- 3
see my collection
http://isaaccaret.fortunecity.com/

Quote from the author....
"By the time I was done, I'd made out with hundreds of photocopies, as well as a few originals and a large collection of original photographs.

With this initial letter I have attached high resolution scans of the following:

1. A page from an inventory review with a photo that appears to depict one of the parts found in the Rajman sighting and parts very similar to the Big Basin craft
2. The first 9 pages of one of our quarterly research reports
3. Scans of the original photographs used in that report, since the photocopies obscure most of the details
4. 5 pages from a report on our ongoing analysis of the “language” (inappropriately titled “linguistic analysis”), depicting the kind of diagram just barely visible on the underside of the Big Basin craft"

Don J
2010-Mar-09, 07:44 AM
You can find -the whole report- on that page
http://www.crystalinks.com/dragonflydrones.html

It contains no verifiable statements, just claims. It mentions no specific names, places, dates, or events. It is indistinguishable from fiction.



For his own security.

Really? Do you think the people he allegedly worked for are going to be fooled by his simply using a fictitious name, yet talking in great detail about what he supposedly did for them? Isn't it amazing that he turns over all this supposedly top secret stuff to the media with almost complete impunity?

Explanation given by the author
http://isaaccaret.fortunecity.com/
"I should be clear before I begin, as a final note: I am not interested in making myself vulnerable to the consequences of betraying the trust of my superiors and will not divulge any personal information that could determine my identity. However my intent is not to deceive, so information that I think is too risky to share will be simply left out rather than obfuscated in some way (aside from my alias, which I freely admit is not my real name). I would estimate that with the information contained in this letter, I could be narrowed down to one of maybe 30-50 people at best, so I feel reasonably secure."

JayUtah
2010-Mar-09, 07:51 AM
...

The "linguistic analysis" is simply technical-sounding hogwash. It uses words taken from computer science and electrical engineering but without any useful context or correct meaning. It would probably fool a layman, but it doesn't make sense to a qualified technical expert.

The photographs of the purported anti-gravity object and project are obviously faked. I covered this at length. You directed me to high-resolution copies of them, and I examined them. I have made my case and I have asked you to address it. You have completely ignored it. Please explain, if you can, the anomalous lighting in those photographs.

The five pages purported to come from a research report simply make unfounded and unevidenced claims of functionality in artifacts whose existence is supported only by computer-rendered "photos." They provide no technical detail that a qualified engineer or scientist could use to test and thereby debunk the document. It is carefully constructed to as to preclude verification, yet to sound impressive to the layman.

JayUtah
2010-Mar-09, 07:55 AM
Explanation given by the author

How convenient. There are well-established security procedures such as covert copy tagging and token embedding that make it quite easy to track down leaks.

You want us to believe that an organization that is capable of erasing all traces of its existence won't interview 30-50 people to find out who leaked? You want us to believe that an organization that powerful is going to let itself be outed on Art Bell's show? You don't think that an organization that capable of secrecy can't figure out who published a web site?

Don J
2010-Mar-09, 08:02 AM
The photos of the "hardware" depict three objects -- an assembly with gross radial symmetry, and two smaller pieces. They are placed on what appears to be a white diffuse surface. The objects cast highly diffuse shadows onto this surface. This indicates the use of a broad area light source. The objects themselves display a degree of specular reflection. They reflect an "image" of the white surface around them, which extends to the left and truncates while still horizontal, to the rear and upwards out of frame, and to the right and bent upward to provide a background at certain camera angles. Partially spherical features on the object reflect the edge of the background surface in a manner consistent with a spherical reflector and a planar background.

In other words, all the reflections in the image are consistent except for one -- the image of the broad area light source located generally above the object. This is a common mistake made by some computer graphics artists whose software tools do not render light sources as objects by default. The artist has to turn it on explicitly. In other words, the overall lighting in this scene is not consistent with an actual photograph and is fully consistent with CGI rendering.
In other words, the overall lighting in this scene is not consistent with an actual photograph

Is it possible than this can be caused by the fact that these are high resolution scans
of the original photographs used in that report?... since (as the author mention) the photocopies obscure most of the details ..see post 487

JayUtah
2010-Mar-09, 08:09 AM
...

Is it possible than this can be caused by...

No.

I'm looking at the high-resolution JPEG images you directed me to several hours earlier. It has nothing to do with photocopying. There is sufficient detail to determine that the specular reflections and the diffuse shadow constitute an inconsistent lighting depiction for true photography.

Further, the anomaly corresponds to known behavior in some computer rendering systems.

The photographs are obviously computer renderings of 3D computer graphics models.

captain swoop
2010-Mar-09, 09:58 AM
Depending on your definition of 'high', scanned images look like the original. I have scanned old photographic prints for retouching and restoration that show the grain of the original print.

slang
2010-Mar-09, 10:25 AM
Kris Avery is not the author of the pics... he was inspired by them to create his animation video

Here the comments made by Kris Avery about the pics after they were presented by MUFON.
http://www.mufon.com/documents/Drones-CARET.ppt

Html version
http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:E2snIpg_SjIJ:www.mufon.com/documents/Drones-CARET.ppt+Palo+Alto+CARET+Laboratory&cd=13&hl=fr&ct=clnk

Help me out here, because I see nothing in there to support your claim that he was "inspired" by those pictures. I only see some quotes from him about images seeming to be fake. Did I miss it?

Spoons
2010-Mar-09, 10:40 AM
Either way it supports the contention that the image is fake, so I don't see how critical that point would be anyway.

It still supports the point you were making.

Strange
2010-Mar-09, 11:38 AM
Then please tell us why "Isaac" must be anonymous and why none of his story can be verified?

For his own security.

I'm sure if the real security forces were after him, just using a false name on a web site would not slow them down for more than about 30 seconds.


and why none of his story can be verified?
because nobody else working on the project have talked .

Or because there is no such project?

Strange
2010-Mar-09, 12:00 PM
The web page written by "Isaac" says that PACL was looking at this hardware to develop commercial applications. (I don't know how plausible it is that the military would do that.) But he claims he was there 20+ years ago and that research had already been going on for some time. Why haven't we yet seen any commercial products based on this technology? I want a flying car!

I find myself tempted to ask Don: did you know the word "gullible" isn't in the dictionary?

Torch2k
2010-Mar-09, 04:39 PM
I love the way this 'secret organization' works.


They spent about 2 months briefing us all before we saw or did anything, ...

Really. They didn't have personnel who were already qualified and possessed appropriate clearances to work on such an important project? How did they recruit them? By handing out leaflets on the street?


... and did their best to convince us that if we ever leaked a single detail about what we were being told, they’d do everything short of digging up our ancestors and putting a few slugs in them too just for good measure.

Nice melodramatic touch, that. Like something right out of a Clancy or le Carre novel. (Though I'd be disappointed if either of these authors resorted to such dime novel foolishness.) A bit ironic, too, considering the next bit.


By the time I was done, I'd made out with hundreds of photocopies, as well as a few originals and a large collection of original photographs.

So, an agency that's willing to send out the death squads if someone blabs institutes lax physical security and little or no document control. 'Have the black Suburbans ready to roll if there's any hint of a leak, but pay no attention to the photocopier running overtime. Oh, and don't worry about checking anyone's brief case.'


I could be narrowed down to one of maybe 30-50 people at best, so I feel reasonably secure.

How big was this agency, if 'narrowing down' the source of a leak leaves 30-50 names on the list? Shouldn't there be some other evidence of an organization that large? And how does going on talk radio make the author feel more secure?

Think we'd better call up the team and warm up the truck. Oh, and bring some shovels.

JayUtah
2010-Mar-09, 06:16 PM
...

Depending on your definition of 'high', scanned images look like the original.

I've attached one of the four photographs I've used for my analysis. It was downloaded from "Isaac's" web site.

I represent that its resolution and gamut are sufficient in spatial, tonal, and chromatic terms to support my interpretation of the photo. It is my qualified, professional opinion that this image has been rendered using a combination of radiosity and ray-tracing global illumination models, and that the illumination in the scene is inconsistent with natural photography.

I have scanned old photographic prints for retouching and restoration that show the grain of the original print.

I am preparing a set of Vanity Fair prints from the 1880s for giclee reproduction. I have had them scanned at approximately 1600 dpi. The giclee proofs so far are indistinguishable from the originals.

JayUtah
2010-Mar-09, 06:34 PM
...

The web page written by "Isaac" says that PACL was looking at this hardware to develop commercial applications.

Specifically it claims they were looking for patentable technology. A patent is a public disclosure of the nature of some process or mechanism in enough detail that someone "skilled in the art" can reproduce the design. The idea is that someone who works hard to innovate something can exploit it commercially for a time without free competition, as a means of recovering their expenses, and may sue infringers in order to protect that right.

That creates a need for a public registry of ideas so protected, so that other potential inventors may steer clear of it and avoid liability, and so that a court investigating an may have a factual statement of what the technique entails.

The bottom line is that if you plan to patent something, you won't be keeping it secret. Secrecy and patent are antithetical concepts.