Why No Big Scientific Splash?
No scientists gave a fig about Betty Hill's star chart, but after Marjorie Fish-- then a member of Mensa-- took a lot of time to identify each star and proved that a social worker like Betty Hill couldn't have produced such an amazingly accurate star chart (especially not in the days before home computers), why was't at least the SETI and Project Ozma folks not even remotely interested? There was the proof of extraterrestrial intelligence as that star chart could not have been made even by astronomers of the time as some of those stars had been mis-catalogued?
More Questions From This User See All
Answers & Comments
The Armagh Planetarium has an excellent webpage with very excellent articles; Fish herself later stated the correlation was unlikely:
http://www.armaghplanet.com/blog/betty-hills-ufo-s...
Because the SETI and OZMA folks don't believe in astrology.
Despite having irrefutable evidence outside of the starchart, sceptics will always try to refute it no matter how solid any of it is.
Despite their alleged devotion to science, they take the pseudoscientific approach on UFOs. Meaning instead of looking at the evidence, testing the evidence, taking testimonies and drawing conclusions with what the evidence says, they start with the assumption -- repeat ASSUMPTION -- that the whole thing about alien visitations is a load of hogwash and work from there.
But why make such a grandiose assumption? "The existence of which cannot be proven logically. Therefore, V'Ger is incapable of believing in them."
That line from Star Trek: The Motion Picture sums it up as since there is no logical reason for visiting extraterrestrial life to exist -- despite the works of many different scientists and biologist, experts on evolution and REAL scientists -- then their alleged (and I mean alleged) logical conclusion is that they cannot exist.
They start with a grandiose conclusion and work from there trying to reinforce their conclusion no matter how flimsy the evidence is.
A sceptical website called psicop that bleeds pseudoscience "proved" that the Betty and Barney Hill incident was a hoax. Do you know how they "proved" it? Did they find evidence that they took hallucinogens? That they both suffered from schizophrenia? That one of them finally admitted it?
Nope, nope and nope. They "proved" it by quoting Einstein's theory of relativity, something they are NOT experts on, and saying that it says that not only you cannot travel faster than light, but how much energy it would take for them to even reach light speed in the first place. Meaning their evidence is easily be challenged by REAL experts on Einstein's theory and theoretical theorists who not only can quote Einstein's theory without Wikipedia, but also did the numbers as to how Einstein arrived at that conclusion by themselves without relying on Google.
It's like me confirming that a man is the murderer because he ordered Power Rangers on demand. Absolutely no connection to the supposed evidence and the conclusion.
But because of the incapability of proving the logic, the scientific community has already dismissed UFOs despite hard evidence. After all they will still say it's something else even if a 24km ship hovers over Washington DC because despite seeing it, the existence of which cannot be proven logically.
I think it might be because Star Charts are hard to monetize and sell like medical devices or new technologies. It may look impressive, but there's not a huge market for it.
And the fact that the Betty & Barney Hill story has been proven a hoax is irrelevant I suppose.
n