UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Nov > Nov 22

Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2.nul>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:37:08 EST
Archived: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 08:11:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

>From: Catherine Reason <CathyM.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Fwd Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:49:25 -0500
>Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & ETs

>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 02:42:28 EST
>>Subject: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & Extraterrestrials


>>In both cases, the ufologists are ignoring an important
>>skeptical argument: If Betty Hill was seeing a real UFO, then
>>there would have been _3_ starlike objects near the moon:
>>Jupiter, Saturn, and the UFO. But she reported seeing only two.
>>Similarly, Carter did not say that he saw two bright objects
>>towards the west - Venus and his UFO - he saw only one."

>No, this isn't actually true.

Hi, Cathy:

I assume that you mean that they may not have actually "seen"
what they said they did. Because in both cases we have their own
words for the above statements.

>One can't emphasize too much that the human visual system isn't
>a kind of video camera, passively recording everything that
>happens in front of it. The starry sky is a repeated texture,
>and bright objects selected as a focus for visual attention are
>treated differently by the visual system than background
>textures. The process is called figure/ground segmentation, and
>is intrinsic to the way the visual system works. In the Betty
>Hill case, for example, the visual system may simply have
>segemented Saturn out as part of the starry background texture -
>there is plenty of experimental evidence that such background
>features are suppressed from visual attention, and mechanisms
>for doing this may be hardwired into primary visual cortex.

>Another problem is that only a very restricted portion of our
>field of view is actually perceived with optimal resolution, and
>that to overcome this problem the eye is constantly moving as
>the visual system shifts its attention from one focus to
>another. It's actually quite easy for even prominent objects to
>"disappear" in this process, if the eye's attention is
>constantly being directed elsewhere.

Thanks for this interesting information about how the visual
system effects eyewitness accounts and reliability.

>As far as the Betty Hill case goes, none of this is diagnostic
>of anything in particular.

Except that what the witnesses said that they say does match was
was in the sky at the time of the sighting.

>The significant features of this case are presumably those
>which came later during the sighting.

The Hills case is one of the most interesting because of it's
key role in the development of the folklore of the UFO
abduction. I'm using folklore in the sense that even if some
abductions are genuine the UFO phenomenon includes a folkloric
element, which could account for IFOs, hoaxes, or whatever was
not a "real" event.

The question being, if the initial sighting was prosaic, what
accounted for Barney latter seeing "nazis" and little figures
when he looked at the UFO in binocs, as Betty without binocs
still described it as a "star"?

And then, of course, months later after reading UFO literature
and being hypnotized, what might have created the abduction

Are you familiar with Martin Kottmeyer's discovery of the
possible source of key elements of Barney's story under hypnosis
in a TV program broadcast a few days earlier?

Please see "The Eyes That Spoke" at:


and "The Eyes Still Speak" at:


These questions continue to make the Hills' story a very unique
one in the annals of ufology.

Clear skies,

Bob Young

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com