Other forms of Evidence: The Smartphone Challenge to Alien Contactees/Abductees/Experiencers

Does anyone else find it amusing that what's being argued here is a 'star map' drawn by hand from hypnotic recall memory - and then people trying to overlay the hand drawn piece onto actual star positions?

Here's the bottom line, and there's no counter argument for this: you could take any series of dots in any pattern, and from just about any vantage point, make those stars line up. This is the elephant in the room.

originally posted by: jritzmann
Does anyone else find it amusing that what's being argued here is a 'star map' drawn by hand from hypnotic recall memory - and then people trying to overlay the hand drawn piece onto actual star positions?

I agree.

What I find particularly interesting is that if you go by what the star aligners say, our Sun is one little spot off in the corner. But what if these super advanced aliens had a 3-D map that actually moved when the ship moved (not unlike the GPS maps in our cars), so that it was showing the various space routes from the point of view of Earth? Betty Hill, at the time, wouldn't know from automatic adjusting maps. She'd think it was more like a road map she'd get at a gas station.

So all this time, people have been fudging away, trying to get the dots (as you say, vaguely remembered by somebody under hypnosis) to line up, when they're going at it from completely the wrong perspective.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Right. It's just more 'anti-evidence'. I mean even disregarding the fact that hypnotic recall is demonstrable nonsense - it's a hand drawn piece. I'm a professional commercial artist, and I couldn't draw a precise map that people can line up consistencies from.

All this while the phenomena throws out other burning scintillas that are far more productive to examine and debate.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: jritzmann
Does anyone else find it amusing that what's being argued here is a 'star map' drawn by hand from hypnotic recall memory - and then people trying to overlay the hand drawn piece onto actual star positions?

I agree.

What I find particularly interesting is that if you go by what the star aligners say, our Sun is one little spot off in the corner. But what if these super advanced aliens had a 3-D map that actually moved when the ship moved (not unlike the GPS maps in our cars), so that it was showing the various space routes from the point of view of Earth? Betty Hill, at the time, wouldn't know from automatic adjusting maps. She'd think it was more like a road map she'd get at a gas station.

So all this time, people have been fudging away, trying to get the dots (as you say, vaguely remembered by somebody under hypnosis) to line up, when they're going at it from completely the wrong perspective.

Actually, we know where the POV is with respect to the template; and, it is about 250 ly away, on the other side of Zeta Reticuli.

originally posted by: jritzmann
Does anyone else find it amusing that what's being argued here is a 'star map' drawn by hand from hypnotic recall memory - and then people trying to overlay the hand drawn piece onto actual star positions?

Here's the bottom line, and there's no counter argument for this: you could take any series of dots in any pattern, and from just about any vantage point, make those stars line up. This is the elephant in the room.

I invite you to test your hypothesis...perhaps then you will understand the virtual impossibility of the task.

I would also invite you to actually compute the probability of the map being random

originally posted by: jritzmann
I mean even disregarding the fact that hypnotic recall is demonstrable nonsense - it's a hand drawn piece. I'm a professional commercial artist, and I couldn't draw a precise map that people can line up consistencies from.

What? You mean you couldn't glance at an image for a few moments, have it wiped from your memory, recall it under hypnosis three years later, then reproduce it exactly to scale? I guess Betty Hill was just a better artist than you.

Is it possible to turn a smartphone into a meteor camera via software?

originally posted by: jritzmann
a reply to: Blue Shift

Right. It's just more 'anti-evidence'. I mean even disregarding the fact that hypnotic recall is demonstrable nonsense - it's a hand drawn piece. I'm a professional commercial artist, and I couldn't draw a precise map that people can line up consistencies from.

Can you draw a bike from memory? I just watched an episode of Brain Games where they had people draw basic bike shapes from memory. Most people couldn't even do that. Apparently the shapes they drew were so predictable that they had bikes premade that matched the wrong ones.

All this while the phenomena throws out other burning scintillas that are far more productive to examine and debate.

Why don't you drop by the Non-ET thread and tell us about all that Trickster stuff? Stop wasting internet bandwidth.

Discussion of the collective unconscious and archetypes, trickster phenomena, Liminality and similar topics as applied to UFOs are appropriate.

Non-Extraterrestrial UFO Hypotheses

originally posted by: tanka418

According to XHIP 39 Tauri / HIP 19076 is 3.7 billion years...perhaps not so young...

Why 39 Tauri at 55 light years away (with an ambiguous age) when a much better choice would be Delta Pavonis at 19 light years away and whose age is known to be at least 6.6 billion years (2 billion years older than out Sun/Solar System)?

originally posted by: 1ofthe9
Is it possible to turn a smartphone into a meteor camera via software?

I suspect someone could write an app to do just that. The issue however is the CCD in the camera. Most are not the best in low light conditions.

If you can not see a decent star field in your phone's camera then it would be useless as a meteor camera.

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: tanka418

According to XHIP 39 Tauri / HIP 19076 is 3.7 billion years...perhaps not so young...

Why 39 Tauri at 55 light years away (with an ambiguous age) when a much better choice would be Delta Pavonis at 19 light years away and whose age is known to be at least 6.6 billion years (2 billion years older than out Sun/Solar System)?

If we went outside and I "pointed" at 39 Tauri, you might better see the Pleiades than the actual star...

If I pointed a Delta Pavonis; what you think I was "pointing at?"

39Tauri is located such that the Pleiades could easily be mistaken for it...

so in answer to your query; "location, location...location". This is a case where its all about Human misperception...

originally posted by: tanka418
I invite you to test your hypothesis...perhaps then you will understand the virtual impossibility of the task.

I would also invite you to actually compute the probability of the map being random

I invite you to test a hand drawn map from hypnosis, completely without scale, and without proper orientation - and then derive that into actual star positions from different vantage points in the known universe.

Now consider that the map has to be viewed in 3D space and you'll find just how utterly senseless the contention is that this is a 'map' of anything.

This is a perfect example of crap in-crap out, and again a prime example of anti-evidence. It says everything you want to hear and nothing of value.

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: tanka418

According to XHIP 39 Tauri / HIP 19076 is 3.7 billion years...perhaps not so young...

Why 39 Tauri at 55 light years away (with an ambiguous age) when a much better choice would be Delta Pavonis at 19 light years away and whose age is known to be at least 6.6 billion years (2 billion years older than out Sun/Solar System)?

Where are you getting age data from?

According to XHIP the star (HIP 99240) is estimated to be 9.3 billion in a range of 5.8 - 10.7 billion years. Anyway, just wondering since your data appears a bit different than mine...and I'm always looking for alternate data sources.

a reply to: Puppylove

My point is how ludicrous everyone's assumption is that it's so easy for an abductee who apparently is stripped naked in most encounters, under alien control most of the abduction, and then returned, to also snap a picture or take some alien implement with them.

Everyones assumption?

The OP didn't make assumptions about being abducted but a challenge to contactees that get to go on ships with their friendly alien friends and travel to wherever they claim the go to take a pic of few certain things they mentioned in the OP.

I think your assumptions of saying everyones assumptions are ludicrous.

#, if a human abducted someone from their home, stripped them naked for rape or whatever, had full access to their phone, and then returned them home, would you demand they have gotten some pictures during the encounter to show you? No, of course not, is a completely ridiculous expectation, no super tech is even needed to prevent that crap.

Op didn't say anything about abductions, hello, did you read what in the OP?

originally posted by: jritzmann

originally posted by: tanka418
I invite you to test your hypothesis...perhaps then you will understand the virtual impossibility of the task.

I would also invite you to actually compute the probability of the map being random

I invite you to test a hand drawn map from hypnosis, completely without scale, and without proper orientation - and then derive that into actual star positions from different vantage points in the known universe.

Now consider that the map has to be viewed in 3D space and you'll find just how utterly senseless the contention is that this is a 'map' of anything.

This is a perfect example of crap in-crap out, and again a prime example of anti-evidence. It says everything you want to hear and nothing of value.

A little suggestion; go "bone up" on computer vision!

What you suggest I do has already been done, and while the original wasn't done with the aid of a computer, that typically only means it will take longer.

That collection of 14 stars is quite unique; which means that there is one and only one solution out of
13,044,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

That large value is the number of possible combinations if 14 objects out of 2988, and represents a probability that the original "map" was random that is vanishingly small.

So, perhaps, before you start throwing around old computer clichés around, you might want to actually become familiar with the technologies involved.

The realities here are that the map was produced, interpreted, and an attempt to debunk failed. That attempted "debunk" failed for technical / scientific reasons, now you are trying to simply obfuscate reality with your irrelevant rhetoric...perhaps it is time to accept reality.

By the way...this start life as a 3D image...

a reply to: InhaleExhale

I'm guessing and I could be wrong about this, but if there is no such evidence, and these things are really happening, the aliens have chosen for it not to happen. Whether they claim to be friendly or not, if they say, no pictures, what makes you or anyone else think they have any ability to go against the aliens wishes, once again for all the reason I listed above.

Abducted or no, the contactee or abductee are both completely at the mercy of, and the control and supervision of another species that is technologically more advanced than us.

Here's a better example. You are a contractor for the military, they need you to work on some secret project. They monitor your activities, are very friendly and show you about, they let you work and go home. They have a strict no picture policy and probably take your cell phone before you enter the base, or limit you to phones without picture taking capabilities. Later you go home. Now tell me? How much photo evidence of the secret black project aircraft did you get?

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: tanka418

According to XHIP 39 Tauri / HIP 19076 is 3.7 billion years...perhaps not so young...

Why 39 Tauri at 55 light years away (with an ambiguous age) when a much better choice would be Delta Pavonis at 19 light years away and whose age is known to be at least 6.6 billion years (2 billion years older than out Sun/Solar System)?

If we went outside and I "pointed" at 39 Tauri, you might better see the Pleiades than the actual star...

That's right. I forgot you were using it in reference to the Pleiades and the people who make claims of contact from extraterrestrials they allege claim to come from there.

If I pointed a Delta Pavonis; what you think I was "pointing at?"

For me? Why Delta Pavonis of course!

39Tauri is located such that the Pleiades could easily be mistaken for it...

Got it.

so in answer to your query; "location, location...location". This is a case where its all about Human misperception...

The problem in my opinion is not the location of this star or that star it's in the veracity of the stories these people tell. Looking for a sunlike star within x-number arc minutes in the sky from the Pleiades based on contactee stories is kind of like looking at a map of Ireland and trying to locate likely places for leprechauns.

originally posted by: JadeStar

For me? Why Delta Pavonis of course!

Should have known better than to ask an astronomer that question...

The problem in my opinion is not the location of this star or that star it's in the veracity of the stories these people tell. Looking for a sunlike star within x-number arc minutes in the sky from the Pleiades based on contactee stories is kind of like looking at a map of Ireland and trying to locate likely places for leprechauns.

I try to ignore most of the modern tales. There are plenty of references in much older myth and legend that do so much better. The Pleiades for instance is more involved with North American Indian myth than other places like say Egypt.

But, for either, I submit a possible bit of something real...Oh Wait!!! My bad; I keep forgetting about that whole "dimensional" thing...funny, I have a good background in traditional metaphysics, and I can't for the life of me figure out quite what this whole "dimensional" thing really is...I seriously doubt Hermes could figure it out either.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: tanka418

According to XHIP 39 Tauri / HIP 19076 is 3.7 billion years...perhaps not so young...

Why 39 Tauri at 55 light years away (with an ambiguous age) when a much better choice would be Delta Pavonis at 19 light years away and whose age is known to be at least 6.6 billion years (2 billion years older than out Sun/Solar System)?

Where are you getting age data from?

According to XHIP the star (HIP 99240) is estimated to be 9.3 billion in a range of 5.8 - 10.7 billion years. Anyway, just wondering since your data appears a bit different than mine...and I'm always looking for alternate data sources.

I get my data from published papers on ArXiv.

Age reference for 39 Tauri...

Age reference for Delta Pavonis...

a reply to: JadeStar

Would it be able to pick up and run spectrographic stuff on something like the Hessdalen lights? I wonder if a cubesat would work...

edit: Hey, does anyone know if the cameras still work on Bigelow's Genesis I and II? Alternatively we could repurpose something like the ISEE-3 if there is a satellite available.