From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys.nul> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 07:26:35 -0800 (PST) Archived: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 05:54:51 -0500 Subject: Re: Detection Of ET Life & Consequences For >From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 12:54:46 -0000 >Subject: Re: Detection Of ET Life & Consequences For Science & Society >>From: Stanton Terry Friedman <fsphys.nul> >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:30:06 -0400 >>Subject: Re: Detection Of ET Life & Consequences For Science & Society >>>From: Gerald O'Connell <goc.nul> >>>To: post.nul >>>Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:26:28 +0000 >>>Subject: Re: Detection Of ET Life & Consequences For Science & Society >>>>From: Stanton T. Friedman <fsphys.nul> >>>>To: <post.nul> >>>>Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:45:27 -0400 >>>>Subject: Re: Detection Of ET Life & Consequences For Science & Society >><snip> >>none deal with the evidence most directly connected with extra- >>terrestrial life namely the UFO stuff such as discussed in >>"Flying Saucers and Science" or "Captured" . . . >>Evidence should triumph over theory >Hi Stan >I would like to deal with some evidence in "Captured". >Back in 2008 on this forum I asked you to react to specific >questions about issues raised by you and your critics regarding >Betty Hill and the Fish map. You did not respond. Perhaps other >commitments got in the way, but this is a chance to renew some >queries. How about it? >After a series of posts between myself and others discussing the >significance of the claimed pattern-match between the Fish model >and the Hill drawing, you criticised another poster for >conveniently forgetting >"the three kinds of lines connecting the dots, and the base >stars the size of nickels, and the strong admonition of Dr. >Simon to present the facts and to draw the map later on only if >she could remember it accurately." >On Aug 28 2008 I replied to these and other points with several >questions which remain unanswered. May I put them to you again >(attempting to expand and clarify where I may have been less >than clear previously)? >Re the "strong admonition": >Interrupted Journey pp.218-219: >[Begin Quote] >Betty: ...in here, I could almost draw it. If I could draw, I >could draw the map. >Doctor: You want to try to draw the map? >Betty: I'm not good at drawing. I can't draw perspective >Doctor: Well, if you remember some of this after you leave me, >why don't you draw it, try to draw the map? Don't do it if you >feel concerned or anxious about it. But if you do, bring it in >next time, all right? >Betty: I'll try to. >Doctor: But don't feel as if you're compelled to do it. >[Note by John Fuller endorsed by Dr Simon] Sometimes a post- >hypnotic suggestion can be very distressing. The doctor is >guarding against this by leaving it up to Betty's volition. >[End Quote] >I have to say this extremely gentle invitation to Betty to "try" >to draw the map, if and when she feels like it, deliberately >phrased so as to _avoid_ any compulsion, does not read to me >like a "strong admonition to present the facts and to draw the >map later on only if she could remember it accurately". >Are you referring to some other hypnosis session concerning the >map? <snip> >Is "Dr.George Mitchell" the Dr Walter Mitchell who originally >endorsed the accuracy of Marjorie Fish's model back in the >1970s? I assume so. But surely her accuracy in transferring her >selected Gliese catalogue stars to a 3D model has never really >been the heart of the matter? It seems to me that critics of the >Fish interpretation have by and large not doubted the accuracy >of her _model_ but rather the statistical soundness of its >claimed similarity to the Hill "map". >Granted it _would_ have been an issue, historically, if it had >ever been the case that this model was the "one - and only one - >three-dimensional pattern that fit, angle for angle, line length >for line length" to Betty's map. This is the claim of exactness >in Captured! which Huffer finds "astonishing" and completely >novel. Huffer points out that Ms Fish herself, in 'Journey Into >the Hill Star Map' under the subhead DISCREPANCIES, attributes >the mis-match to the facts that Betty "did not draw [different >parts of the map] to the same scale" - which alone would make >any perfect match impossible - and that "there are slight >differences in line length and angles as in any freehand >drawing." >And surely this is conceded implicitly in the proponents' oft- >repeated defence against criticisms that the two patterns of >dots have no resemblance without the "trade routes" etc (which >is unarguable)? The defence is that it is not valid to strip >away the varying sizes and connections that give an internal >logical order to the pattern and then to consider crudely only >the placement of dots. AFAIK the defence has never been made >(until Captured! at least) that these critics are just blind, >and that the two patterns really are an exact match, line for >line, angle for angle, dot for dot. >And now that the Gliese catalogue used by Ms Fish has been >superseded by HIPPARCOS with significantly revised parallaxes >for several of the 16 selected stars (and changes of spectral >type in about half the cases) one assumes that the similarity >between the patterns may be still more approximate (this is >strongly argued by Charles Huffer for example). So Ms Fish's >fidelity, some 40 years ago, to an outdated and inaccurate star >catalogue is surely not the heart of the problem - which has >always been how to assess the _significance_ of whatever >(evolving) degree of dissimiliarity exists between Betty's map >and Ms Fish's view of 16 selected stars. >I'm sure we would all appreciate having these issues finally >thrashed out. Martin: Thanks you very much for reminding me about these issues. I have been swamped and as you can appreciate there is a tremendous amount of material to deal with.Another factor besides those above is that we now know from all the exoplanets that have been detected that the notions as to which stars would likely have planets were wrong. Marjorie's discard of various stars was based on the common wisdom as to which could have planets. I am certainly in agreement that the Hipparchos catalog represents a far more accurate picture of stellar types and positions than was available earlier. For me another problem is to try to sort out discussions I had with Betty, the four meetings I had with Marjorie, comments made to me by Dr.David Saunders and Dr. Walter (Sorry about George..a prominent senator from the neighboring state of Maine) Mitchell. About being accurate I would point out that early on Dr. Simon had stressed to Betty and Barney the need to be honest and as accurate as possible. I think the most important aspect of Marjorie's work was to call attention to Zeta 1 and Zeta 2 Reticuli as a unique and special closest-to-each other-pair of sun-like stars in our neighborhood. They are also much older than the sun. The development of interstellar travel, commerce, colonization etc would certainly be different there than here.. I would be happy to help anybody interested in digging into the puzzle. I think it would make a great graduate thesis. I can't get heavily involved right now. Stan Friedman Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp