Jump to content

Talk:Barney and Betty Hill incident/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

analysis

Under "Analyses" - "Their story may be true", is that really necessary?

  • While I suppose it MAY be a valid claim, it most certainly isn't the result of an analyses (where is the argument for it being such?). As such, I removed that as well as the possible star system section thingy. The proposed systems are so different that any medium that could be mistaken for one or the other is fundamentally flawed. Thought 16:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC


Star system

In a Q&A about SETI from Seth Shostak, it was revealed that the star system that the two thought the aliens came from was already researched and no signal came from the system. http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_thursday_060720.html Anyone wanting to put that in? 72.92.156.175 06:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't mean anything since radio waves travel at a certain speed, civilizations can be seperated by many thousands of years, and they might have different technology..Mahmud II 01:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

haven't you seen futurama where they get the signals a thousand years later on omicron persii 8 because its 1000 light years away? zeta 1 and 2 are 39 light years if not more, so has it been 39 times 2 years? for the send and reply? not to mention we are 1AU from our star and that emits various waves itself, simply sending a signal is pointless, we need better technology to do what seti cannot. 8th november 2009 anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.203.39 (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Images?

I'm fairly certain that images exist (in one form or another) of sketches of the aliens and of the incident. Also someone must have an image of the couple. I think both of these would greatly help this article...Also was the Alien who examined Betty Hill called "the Examiner" or "the doctor"? As this article says she called him "the Examiner" but then starts going on about "the doctor." Humorbot5 17:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

for the sketches and obviously any image like this:
http://www.magma.ca/~latour/photo10.jpg
For the Betty/Barney image. Humorbot5 18:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  • images for these two exist everywhere from books.Check google images.I dont think this article looks at all acurate without any images.People will obviously not give it any credibility without images.-Vmrgrsergr 03:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Headers

It looks to me like there are too many headers for the article. I think it would look a bit better if we cut back on the size 3 headers. --OGoncho 08:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

what is about RA Wilsons mentioned "nazi regalia"?

User:Abe.Froman Is Censoring Information

Abe.Froman is trying to censor information about Betty and Barney Hill. This information is very important because the entire episode was due to the stress of being a mixed race couple during this civil rights era.

Please Assume Good Faith. I removed the phrase "mixed-race" from the lead because the information was already in the background section of this article. Repeating it in the lead lends it undue weight. Abe Froman 22:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You removed it because you were trying to censor it. It is an integral part of this story.

Please read the entire article. It was repeated twice, that is why I removed it from the lead. Because it is repeated in "Background". Abe Froman 03:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So you are admitting that you are trying to censor it from the lead?

Please read the UNDUE WEIGHT section of WP:NPOV for the policy reason I used to I removed it. Repeating the fact that the Hill's are/were a mixed race couple is not necessary because it was already done in the Background section of this article, which sits underneath the lead. Why are you so determined to highlight the fact that this couple is mixed-race, anyway? Abe Froman 03:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Instead of censoring information, face the facts. Where I come from (Watseka, Illinois), there are plenty of interracial marriages. This information is very important because the entire episode was due to the stress of being a mixed race couple during this civil rights era. Steve.

Back it up with citations and it might stay in ;) Wikipedia is not about conjecture and assumptions. -- GIR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.12.8 (talk) 04:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


This article lacks objectivity

The point of view of the article as well as the comments on this discussion page shows that those working on the article have their own ax to grind.


There was no missing time for the abduction to have taken place. That was established during the era of the event. Believers of alien abduction refuse to include that fact. Today there is a blog from a local to the area. It uses Betty's account to point out that driving even a short distance at five miles per hour would have taken over an hour. Additional excursions looking for somewhere to have coffee and eat also ate up time adding to their normal trip time.

Although this article has a picture of the Outer Limits alien there is no comparison to Barney's drawing. Major features of his sketch, the eye cleft extending from the center of the face to disappear over the human ear location, match the appearance of that program character.

But don't let the facts ruin a nonsense Wikipedia article. Material like this is the reason Wikipedia has such a poor reputation. This article should be corrected or deleted.

VisionAndPsychosis.Net, my site, points to a little known problem of human physiology known to cause mental breaks. Barney was a postal worker and would have had Subliminal Distraction exposure if he worked in the Post Office building to sort the letters for his route. He had psychosomatic complaints, Betty's words, that were never resolved. That was the reason for the trip. Subliminal Distraction acting when Qi Gong and Kundalini Yoga are correctly performed produces just that type problem. It also causes fear and paranoia. No one will ever prove that the abduction was real. But if there is still information available about that Post Office Subliminal Distraction exposure can be proved.

The conflict of their interracial marriage is often cited as the cause of their incident. But there is no evidence they ever had any such problems.

There is no mention that their home had a rental apartment so that there were people close by to do things like put a pair of Betty's blue ear rings in a pile of leaves on the kitchen table while they were out. Only someone living nearby would know when they would be away for enough time to enter the home and execute a prank.

There are links on my page about Barney and Betty. I emailed Betty's relative who operates the foundation to confirm my information.

69.1.46.40 (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC) L K Tucker


I hesitate to comment on this subject, but I noticed there was a claim that Betty Hill said the the map pointed to the Zeta Reticuli system. I do not believe she did, but a close match to that star was found later. Ms. Hill didn't know where the stars were.

Also, I have heard over the years that there were other sitings in the area. Has anyone heard of that? If documented, that might be included. J. J. in PA (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Way too credulous

This article essentially takes the Hill's claims at face value, which I have a major issue with. I don't have the time or resources to do it justice, but I'm slapping a pov tag on this article. ---13.13.137.1 (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"I don't like this article but won't bother to be more specific. One of you other peons, whose time is less important than mine, will have to work on it until I'm happy with the result" is a really, really crappy explanation for placing a POV tag. If you can't be more specific than that, it will get removed.
Having said that, you're right that the article is a credulous mess. If nothing else, it goes on way too long. - DavidWBrooks (talk) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with the article. What is the difference between reading this on the internet versus a book? At no point were the Hills made out to be telling the truth or lying. It simply states what they supposedly experienced. Ryan8374 (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The difference..

Is that this isn't the Hills' novel, it's an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias tend to strive to be neutral, factual, sourced, etc. This article is none of that. It's essentially a recount of their story, at least that's what the article would tell you, but no one would know because VERY LITTLE of any of it is cited. Taking their claims at face value alone would be a travesty, but failing to cite even them is pure fail. The very first reference on the page is halfway down for crying out loud.

Since this is an article about their *supposed abduction* and *not* the Hills' book, there SHOULD be significantly more weight given to skeptical viewpoints (there are more than a few, to say the least..). A child reading this article would take it as fact. Would you want this article in, for instance, a textbook? An encyclopedia has just as much literary and factual responsibility as a textbook. Consider that.

As for IP 13-13's comments, I would have chosen different words to describe the article, but "way too credulous" and "POV" I feel was satisfactory. It doesn't take a skeptic to read the article and see the hefty POV issues. It violates almost every wikipedia policy I can think of, one way or another. NPOV, OR, resource citing, etc.

Just because he doesn't have the time (or maybe knowledge, or just the interest) doesn't mean he should come back and spend hours working on it just because you come back with a snappy reply. Maybe he's just like me - just read the article with little interest, and saw it was a joke and decided to comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.19.179.29 (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Note that it is generally always okay to remove unreferenced information. You may not have the time to refine the content, do research, add new citations, etc., but if you want to make the article less of a "joke", removing offending content (even if the result is just a few lines) is fine. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


Alien Picture

You should compare the alien from the Outer Limits episode Bellero Shield to Barney's drawing of the alien he claimed to have seen. That is what I plan to do on my site.

While Subliminal Distraction is difficult to verify, you must phone designers who work in Systems Furniture, it is a plausible explanation for the Hill abduction. VisionAndPsychosis_Net

24.96.50.118 (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC) L K Tucker

Dear topic editor! I have read your text concerning the Barney and Betty Hill abduction case and must conclude, that you have not read John G. Fuller's book. I imagine that you have seen some Hollywood product. This can evidently be done better. My best regards Arne Nielsen Arne Nielsen (talk) 03:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Analysis of Betty?

I once saw a video of Betty talking to an interviewer, well after Barney's death. She seemed on the verge of exuberant hysteria (years later, remember). As if, for her, hysteria was normal! Not really believable IMO. Obviously a "neutral" qualified source would have to be found to certify this. Student7 (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"Analyzing the star map": an additional factoid.

Look, for what this is worth, this is all I have in the form of "verifiable citations": I first heard of this story in 1976 (ie, a long time ago) when it was presented at Sydney University by Dr Don Herbison-Evans, who was then generally accepted as Australia's leading UFO "researcher", using that word in the proper scientific skeptical sense. Even though this was so long ago, there is something that I clearly remember his saying in the context of the paragraph under discussion.

The paragraph here states that: "Distance information needed to match three stars, forming the distinctive triangle Hill said she remembered, was not generally available until the 1969 Gliese Catalog came out."

Dr Don said this in 1976 but as a MUCH stronger point. What he said was that the information as to stellar distances available even to professional astronomers at the time was very inaccurate and that laterand more accurate measurements were very different to the accepted and available values at the time. Thus, initially, the configuration of nearby stars made by Fish could not be matched to any star map at all. It was only a little later (and perhaps this is the 1969 Gliese reference) when the distances had been revised that the described match could be made.

Don considered this very important in the sense that it showed that the map could not have been faked post-factum, because any attempt to do so at the time would have used wrong data and therefore have been exposed as a fake as soon as the more accurate data became available. Old_Wombat (talk) 10:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Lie

I've removed the link in 'see also' to the article for "Lie". Obviously the events recounted here are hard to believe but making the suggestion that this was a 'lie' is not called for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.Lacasse (talk • contribs) 06:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Title is misleading

Surely this should be titled as the "alleged" Betty and Barney Hill abduction, because this title is just ridiculous. 114.76.41.165 (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barney_and_Betty_Hill_incident/Archive_1&oldid=1150650137"