Comments by "oneoflokis" (@oneoflokis) on "Betty and Barney Hill | Alien Abduction or Hoax" video.
-
11
-
9
-
This case was not a hoax. (Your joke, btw, is inappropriate and verges on the racist: it implies that a black man is so stupid that he would mistake a hand grenade for a pineapple. Shame on you Todd Grande!! 👎👎👎👎👎👎)
The case was not a hoax, whatever Todd Grande may think, because:
1) No motive. In fact, given that they were a mixed race couple during the 1960s, there was a NEGATIVE anti-motive: they might have drawn unwanted attention to themselves and their relationship.
2) The psychiatrist who examined them, after they had been constantly troubled by strange dreams, Dr Simon, said that they were not fabricating. (And he was a lot better qualified than this "Dr" Grande fool, I am sure. 😏 Nor did he have to put up disclaimers saying that he was "not diagnosing" someone, as in this case Dr Simon was indeed in a position to diagnose them!)
Dr Simon, as I recall, did I think make some tentative suggestions that the couple might be experiencing a shared delusion. But the important thing was, he said that they indubitably believed in the truth of their experience .
Dr Simon was a very conventional psychiatrist, though I recall he did have to use hypnosis to release the details of the Hill's experiences from their subconscious minds. But as a conventional doctor, he couldn't really go out on a limb by vouching that their experience was real. I'm sure he came to his own conclusions though.. And that they were the diametric opposite of Todd Grande's. 🙂
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Incidentally: the word "hoax" implies a trick or a fraud. Dr Simon said he did not believe that the couple were fabricating. "Fantasy" is not the same as "fabrication". Get your definitions right, Grande! 😏
As for "physical evidence", I seem to recall off the top of my head, that the hood of their car was found to be covered with lots of circles of burned-off paint, which, when a compass was brought near to it, made the needle spin
.. This was witnessed by a neighbour. This was one of the things that made them research the experience further.
As for Betty Hill's later experiences,I understand from the literature that she did indeed have further UFO encounters, but they were of a much more minor nature. As she was not a professional photographer, I'm not surprised she didn't manage any good photos of the UFOs she subsequently saw. (I also think she may have been a bit psychic, in common with so many people who have these experiences. UFOs are probably not all down to extraterrestrial beings: there are other (non-conventional) explanations.)
You STILL haven't come up with a credible motive for the "theory" that they were LYING. 😏
AS for the aliens' "genital obsession", this is a detail that has been independently corroborated by 1000s of people worldwide since, most of whom have never heard of Betty and Barney. So it's a real pattern.
Your video is a lot of shallow, complacent crap anyway!! 👎
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bipolarbear9917 Why do you think the Ilkley Moor case is a hoax?? YOU have no evidence of this: unless you mean what you read in a discredited skeptics magazine, the organisation behind which can't even get their experiments straight! (Look up "sTARbaby scandal". 😏)
It was looked into at the time by a couple of very respected paranormal researchers. The photographic negative was sent away to be analysed by experts, and was cleared. Guy's compass was even sent away to be analysed, because it had been magnetised to show the wrong reading!
Nobody apart from the UFO researchers knows the name of the abductee to this day. He certainly wasn't doing it for publicity. 😏
For the record: As a very young woman, I didn't really "believe" the Ilkley case. Especially seeing as the photo was so blurry and underexposed. (But no Photoshop then, remember? So, whatever it was, it wasn't that. Some people at the time said "he took a dummy up onto the moor". Yeah, right. You couldn't buy blow-up aliens or similar pop culture figures back then. And this wasn't a Grey. Not that I even knew what a Grey was, back in 1989!)
I was just intrigued by it! It was only LATER, in the 1990s, when I started watching documentaries and reading the lore, and especially when I had read all about that Belgian UFO flap occuring at around the same time, which had mysteriously been kept out of the British press (wonder why?? 😏) That I really started to "believe". Enough evidence and good arguments, are enough to make me ignore skeptoids and their magazines, which always remind me of German goalkeepers with extra large gloves, DESPERATE to keep the footballs out of the net! 😏
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tthomas184 You mean, this mysterious unnamed person that you cite, provided what to him was a POSSIBLE explanation for the UFO. Just because he could show (IF he could) that something in the area could RESEMBLE.a strange light, does not prove that it WAS that light source.
Now, if the Hills had managed to take a picture, not of a structured craft, but of a "strange light", which they initially saw, and originally mistook for the moon, if memory serves me - but it was in the wrong position! 😏
AND your mystery man had matched the light in the (nonexistent) photo to the tower, and proved it was in the same direction at the same elevation - THEN you might have something! But you don't. 👎 But photo analysis CAN be a great way to debunk things!
Anyway - what's a blinding light doing on a tower, in the middle of the mountains? You Americans so crazy, as to have inland lighthouses? 😁
Or WAS it a prison, with a searchlight?? 😁
Betty and Barney Hill were plagued with disturbing dreams, because of PTSD! The ufonauts wiped their memories (which is of course what beings with the technology to do so, would do.) But the human subconscious cannot be completely wiped . The memories surfaced again through strange dreams, which were so disturbing, that they sought professional help, which they presumably had to pay for.
You wouldn't get that off lights on towers, misidentified moon or Venus, or sleep deprivation on a holiday trip! 😏
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bipolarbear9917 "Reading your comments, it's quite obvious you have a disposition to want to believe in this stuff. But believing doesn't make it true. Humans have been attracted to magical thinking for at least 50,000 years. My guess is you also believe in Bigfoot, the Lochness Monster and that the Earth is flat too."
No. Basically. (As regards a flat earth, read what people above you on this thread have said about that. Ptolemy didn't believe in a flat earth. He believed the sun orbited the earth. But he didn't believe in a flat earth.)
As for Bigfoot and Nessie - that's because there is evidence for those! 🙂 Especially the former. 🙂 Patterson-Gimlin footage? DNA, even.
As for myself, I started to question the "modern Western consensus", back in the 1990s, when I was in my 20s. I came to the conclusion (as have people like Rupert Sheldrake and Colin Wilson, who I shall mention later) that Western thought/science has basically been labouring under a closed-minded DELUSION since the Enlightenment. (Though as a practising pagan I also tend to believe that "Christian exceptionalism" played its part. 🙂)
After all, Western arrogance used to be so great (bringing my left-wing political leanings into play here) that white Western middle-class men used to think that they were the pinnacle of creation ! Or evolution. And that all other races, and genders, and cultures were necessarily inferior. 😏
And the same goes for the closed Western "scientific" mind."Oh, that can't exist, because we say so, and it doesn't fit into our system, so there must be a 'rational explanation'. Explain away, explain away, blah blah blah..."
Arrogant, narcissistic madness. 👎
As for the writer Colin Wilson, who was certainly a white man, but by no means a stupid one... Actually he was an existentialist philosopher, who laboured under the handicap, of working in a country, England, where existentialism was never fashionable nor respected as a philosophy.. Anyway, he earned his living by writing lots and lots of books, many of them commercial, many on arcane subjects.
Well, as he said after he'd written his seminal bestselling overview on the matter, The Occult, in the early 1970s... Once you really look into the matter... And he did; he was very thorough and erudite, and went back through all sorts of original sources, going back to the ancient world and the Middle Ages, as well as more modern times... And the 19th century, covering all sorts of semi-obscure, semi-famous historical figures, such as Franz Anton Mesmer, and the scientist Baron von Reichenbach.
Well you tend to find, that there's quite a lot "in it". As it were! 🙂
Now why don't you educate yourself, and go off and read The Occult, for starters??
1
-
@bipolarbear9917 Bollocks! It's probably run by the CIA, for starters. Probably that's why YouTube use it. 😏
&I know for a fact, that university tutors do NOT allow you to cite Wikipedia as an academic source. Because it does not use named, traceable experts and editors, unlike, for example, the Encyclopedia Britannica. Anyone can edit it. I've found all KINDS of trolly things on there - which, as a Lokean, I haven't attempted to remove, because (by the God of Mischief!) I found them FUNNY! 😂 AND wondered how many people would be fooled; or how long it would take Wackypedia to notice and remove the insults, etc! Hmmm. Yes. Very amusing! 😂
It's fine for pop culture. I look at summaries of comic book plots on there all the time! (&once found a passage in an entry on The Penguin, that he, and I quote, "went out with fat prostitutes he found on Jdate". An obvious anti-Semitic slur.😏)
Yes. It's mostly fine for stuff like that, instant updates on who has died, and general blanket summaries of this'n'that. (Scientific articles, however, such as those on astronomy or chemistry, for exact, do seem to be much more carefully edited. But then I'm not a chemist or an astronomer. Still might be full of mistakes!)
And WHEN it comes to "fringe science", alternative medicine, paranormal etc, I have found that it is FAR from unbiased or even-handed, and goes so far as to use pejorative language . As I have already said, in a race or a gender context, this would nowadays be forbidden! But some minorities are less favoured by the (post) modern "consensus" than others... It's no wonder there's an independent Witchipedia, is all I can say. We witches need to have our own space, away from the US patriarchy: the wing of it that calls itself "liberal". 🙄
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1