Stars of the Hill Map

I don't know very much about the Hill's case other than a few segments of TV here and there years ago. I don't know their background. Despite what she calls a map (which could be anything resembling a map), is there any reason to believe she would draw an accurate map? It seems a safe assumption to use as a template, as the OP has.

It also seems to me, mainstream science does this same thing, although I can only think of one possibly two examples, and they're both controversial, so I won't mention them because one will definitely derail the thread.


I think the OP has done a fine job of presenting and defending his case against some very compelling arguments. Which is to say, I don't believe he's been debunked quite yet, but I don't have the background to judge either way. I do not like that it seems he back pedaled a bit when he issued the challenge of duplicating the same thing, which from where I'm sitting, appears to have been met with the criteria originally issued. I don't know how significant that is, but so far it's the only discrepancy I see. But what do I know, eh?

It's possible that I just wanna believe (confirmation bias) and that I'm thrilled that an OP hasn't abandoned ship so far into a thread.

For now, I'm impressed.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79
No. They are different. Anyone can see they're different. To change it and go "looks similar so it's good enough for me!" doesn't work in science.

That's because you have literally changed the data.

Precision based on changing the available data into your own data that is similar, but not the same, as the original.

Sigh...You are going to have to be specific...what elements of either image are not the same?

And, that is a rather serious charge you have there against me; care to prove it? Exactly what data have I changed?
Again, be specific.

Or is this really just a trolling...

Seriously?!

You cannot see how you've DRAMATICALLY altered the image?

If you overlay both of the images you can see entire differences in length and position.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Thought I'd actually take the time to show you the differences.

Here is the original map


Here is what it should look like


Here is what yours looks like


As you can see from the last 2 images, the lengths, angles and positions of the dots/stars/planets are different. VERY different. So different that they are, what we would call, vaguely similar.

a reply to: tanka418

5. You assume that the map only showed stars, although Betty specified stars and planets, and took great care to draw the bodies in the foreground as planets.


Again you are incorrect! That whole statement show only your assumptions...

You have been shown this before; it is from page 300 of the hardcover edition of "Interrupted Journey." You should really read your sources all the way through before imposing your own interpretation on them:

I logically deduced that Betty's other statements about "trade and exploration routes" was a more logical and reasonable explanation of what she saw...course, you don't want any logic or reason here as it destroys your little fantasy.

You threw out anything that disagreed with your fantasy.

originally posted by: DJW001

You have been shown this before; it is from page 300 of the hardcover edition of "Interrupted Journey." You should really read your sources all the way through before imposing your own interpretation on them:

Yep, you're right...One should read their sources through...I used a different source.

Again; I logically deduced that Betty's other statements about "trade and exploration routes" was a more logical and reasonable explanation of what she saw...course, you don't want any logic or reason here go you...

It is illogical to present stellar and planetary information together in the same "frame", and I would presume that ET's interfaces are better designed than anything you'll think of. The planetary data should be left for "drill down" operations that reveal data on request.

I'm sorry that GUI design is not your forte', but, the reality still exists that, in theory, One doesn't display multiple "levels" or "layers" of data together, unless there is a compelling reason.

So...I don't need Betty's, nor your permission to properly deduce what was actually shown. Then there is the aspect that the probability is so overwhelming that it is not likely to have a match with relevant planets on it.

And; we also have to consider the precision and fidelity of the match...Mine has everyone beat.

Finally...when are you going to produce that match of 25 random dots on a page to the stars? I saw you try with your match to a field of dots. Ya know that wasn't even a little clever. Now, if you'd like to try again, this time do it right...

Your failure at that simple experiment proves my point.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
As you can see from the last 2 images, the lengths, angles and positions of the dots/stars/planets are different. VERY different. So different that they are, what we would call, vaguely similar.

Do you know what a "template" is?

Template
1. A pattern or gauge, such as a thin metal plate with a cut pattern, used as a guide in making something accurately, as in woodworking or the carving of architectural profiles.
www.thefreedictionary.com...

How about how computers match features of two different images, to see "IF" they "match"?

a reply to: tanka418

You're using Betty's data, but then you change the data.

Your "template" is your interpretation, meaning it's what you think it means.

So that means you're saying Betty was wrong about her own drawing. You must have proof of that, right?

There must be a solid reason why you dismiss her drawing over your own other than personal interpretation (which is biased from the get go), right?

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

You're using Betty's data, but then you change the data.

Your "template" is your interpretation, meaning it's what you think it means.

So that means you're saying Betty was wrong about her own drawing. You must have proof of that, right?

There must be a solid reason why you dismiss her drawing over your own other than personal interpretation (which is biased from the get go), right?

Actually Betty didn't have much by way of "data", except for the "template"...that's not been changed.

Proof...if you go back to the opening post there is a link...it is to my white paper. Perhaps you should read it...
BTW...it is not proof...

The difference between Betty's drawing and mine is that hers is a template that was the product of post-hypnotic suggestion. With the original "viewing" being while she was in an Orexin deprived state (she was drugged). While my drawing is a precise rendering of interstellar space, although the stars are not to scale.

"Biased", you're funny...we've already gone over all your objections...perhaps you should read the whole thing...

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

You're using Betty's data, but then you change the data.

Your "template" is your interpretation, meaning it's what you think it means.

So that means you're saying Betty was wrong about her own drawing. You must have proof of that, right?

There must be a solid reason why you dismiss her drawing over your own other than personal interpretation (which is biased from the get go), right?

Actually Betty didn't have much by way of "data", except for the "template"...that's not been changed.

Proof...if you go back to the opening post there is a link...it is to my white paper. Perhaps you should read it...
BTW...it is not proof...

The difference between Betty's drawing and mine is that hers is a template that was the product of post-hypnotic suggestion. With the original "viewing" being while she was in an Orexin deprived state (she was drugged). While my drawing is a precise rendering of interstellar space, although the stars are not to scale.

You've changed what Betty drew. That's changing available data.

If you take a triangle as a "template", add another line and make all 4 lines the same size, you can't call it a triangle any longer as it has been changed to a square.

You ignore the fact she says the there were "planets and stars" as it doesn't fit your "theory".
You change the way the whole thing looks as it doesn't fit your "theory".
You say that the abduction, craft and anything else is BS, but the map isn't because it fits your "theory".

You have to work with available data to prove anything. What you have done it change and ignore the data to fit your "proof".

I have also read your white paper and all the other posts on this thread. All you have done is changed the length, angle and position of the dots/planets/stars to fit your own personal theory. You have given no reason for it apart from "it fits", which isn't a reason.

Lastly, if you're saying her map is just a template, how do you know it's not a template of roads in the USA or any other country? Or a map from different countries? Or even a connection of lines from one country to another?

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

You're using Betty's data, but then you change the data.

Your "template" is your interpretation, meaning it's what you think it means.

So that means you're saying Betty was wrong about her own drawing. You must have proof of that, right?

There must be a solid reason why you dismiss her drawing over your own other than personal interpretation (which is biased from the get go), right?

"Biased", you're funny...we've already gone over all your objections...perhaps you should read the whole thing...

Of course it's biased. You have biased the map to fit your theory. If it wasn't biased then the map would be either exactly the way it was drawn or extremely close to the original. You even said it was "your interpretation" of the map. Personal interpretations are biased.

originally posted by: tanka418
Again; I logically deduced that Betty's other statements about "trade and exploration routes" was a more logical and reasonable explanation of what she saw...

Yes, we've been over your remarkably flawed and biased methods. Several times.

course, you don't want any logic or reason here go you...

Correct, your skewed, biased "logic" and "reason" are unwanted.

It is illogical to present stellar and planetary information together in the same "frame", and I would presume that ET's interfaces are better designed than anything you'll think of. The planetary data should be left for "drill down" operations that reveal data on request.

You just don't stop, do you? More of your flawed logic, more presumptions, but not a bit of scientific data to be found....

I'm sorry that GUI design is not your forte', but, the reality still exists that, in theory, One doesn't display multiple "levels" or "layers" of data together, unless there is a compelling reason.

More of you projecting your "logic" onto the behavior and actions of a hypothesized extraterrestrial species. This thread, much like your "research" is pathetic.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Of course it's biased. You have biased the map to fit your theory. If it wasn't biased then the map would be either exactly the way it was drawn or extremely close to the original. You even said it was "your interpretation" of the map. Personal interpretations are biased.

Biased...well, if you're gonna say it then you get to prove it...

"extremely close to the original", Oh!! Guess what! it is...!!!

Maybe you should try being honest!

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Of course it's biased. You have biased the map to fit your theory. If it wasn't biased then the map would be either exactly the way it was drawn or extremely close to the original. You even said it was "your interpretation" of the map. Personal interpretations are biased.

Biased...well, if you're gonna say it then you get to prove it...

Personal interpretation is biased. Therefore your personal interpretation of the map is biased by definition.

"extremely close to the original", Oh!! Guess what! it is...!!!

No it's not. It's VERY different from the original as I proved with the original, my image and your image.

Maybe you should try being honest!

Coming from the guy who admits it's a personal interpretation, but says it's not biased?

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
Yes, we've been over your remarkably flawed and biased methods. Several times.

Yeah, you keep saying that, but never get very specific...must be just sour grapes...

Correct, your skewed, biased "logic" and "reason" are unwanted.

Then go away...its that hard..

"It is illogical to present stellar and planetary information together in the same "frame", and I would presume that ET's interfaces are better designed than anything you'll think of. The planetary data should be left for "drill down" operations that reveal data on request."

You just don't stop, do you? More of your flawed logic, more presumptions, but not a bit of scientific data to be found....

Yeah, not much scientific data, just sound computer applications and interface design...

More of you projecting your "logic" onto the behavior and actions of a hypothesized extraterrestrial species. This thread, much like your "research" is pathetic.

No...see above.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Personal interpretation is biased. Therefore your personal interpretation of the map is biased by definition.

Wow, so why don't you show where I've introduced significant bias that isn't caused by natural elements...For that matter try to show that it is "my interpretation"...

Coming from the guy who admits it's a personal interpretation, but says it's not biased?

I didn't say it wasn't biased, I asked you to prove it...but so far you can't tell us how it is biased.

I think I done with you too...you have nothing to add and only wish to disrupt...

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Personal interpretation is biased. Therefore your personal interpretation of the map is biased by definition.

Wow, so why don't you show where I've introduced significant bias that isn't caused by natural elements...For that matter try to show that it is "my interpretation"...

You changed the whole damn map with your personal interpretation of "what it's meant to be". That's you saying Betty was wrong because you said so. You have no proof that she didn't make it up or that her map is accurate. You have inserted your personal bias into the subject. You "think" it's what it is. You don't know what it is or if it was made up.

Coming from the guy who admits it's a personal interpretation, but says it's not biased?

I didn't say it wasn't biased, I asked you to prove it...but so far you can't tell us how it is biased.

I already proved it was biased as it's your personal interpretation. Personal interpretations are inherently biased.

I think I done with you too...you have nothing to add and only wish to disrupt...

So because I have pointed out that your map doesn't even come close to a match of Bettys original map, shown you how you have inserted your personal interpretation (bias) into it and you have failed to understand that you may just be looking at a collection of dots of a road map/other countries map/connection of countries that means I'm only here to disrupt?

You have shown no proof of your claims.
You have completely dismissed everything Betty has done (including the original map) as she was "wrong".
You counter someone disagreeing with you (throughout the whole thread) with "I'm right, you're wrong", but fail to actually explain how and why.
You've been shown how you're wrong and how you completely changed data and you just ignore it.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
You changed the whole damn map with your personal interpretation of "what it's meant to be". That's you saying Betty was wrong because you said so. You have no proof that she didn't make it up or that her map is accurate. You have inserted your personal bias into the subject. You "think" it's what it is. You don't know what it is or if it was made up.

lol...Is that your problem??? lol

The proof she didn't make it up: A probability of random
that is so small it may as well not exist at all: 4.1520445e-87
And the "accurate" bit has already been addressed; Betty's "map" is the template, so it is by definition; accurate.

So because I have pointed out that your map doesn't even come close to a match of Bettys original map, shown you how you have inserted your personal interpretation (bias) into it and you have failed to understand that you may just be looking at a collection of dots of a road map/other countries map/connection of countries that means I'm only here to disrupt?

No...because you have nothing new to add...

You have shown no proof of your claims.

Yes, I have...

You have completely dismissed everything Betty has done (including the original map) as she was "wrong".

No, I have not...Although, the "story" is considered irrelevant in this inquiry.

You counter someone disagreeing with you (throughout the whole thread) with "I'm right, you're wrong", but fail to actually explain how and why.

Well that's not quite true, in fact I have provided more data in evidence than any other...

You've been shown how you're wrong and how you completely changed data and you just ignore it.

Again, no, it didn't happen...Plenty has been said, and I have addressed it all. Perhaps you should read stuff...anyway, nobody has been able to show that I'm wrong...at least not without misrepresenting everything...

originally posted by: tanka418
...anyway, nobody has been able to show that I'm wrong...at least not without misrepresenting everything...

What thread are you reading? The last several pages have been nothing but people showing exactly how and why you're wrong, followed by you sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "nuh-uh!" over and over.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79
You changed the whole damn map with your personal interpretation of "what it's meant to be". That's you saying Betty was wrong because you said so. You have no proof that she didn't make it up or that her map is accurate. You have inserted your personal bias into the subject. You "think" it's what it is. You don't know what it is or if it was made up.

lol...Is that your problem??? lol

The proof she didn't make it up: A probability of random
that is so small it may as well not exist at all: 4.1520445e-87
And the "accurate" bit has already been addressed; Betty's "map" is the template, so it is by definition; accurate.

Is it "accurate" before you after you changed it completely?

Absolutely none of your map matches the original. When I say none I mean none. Not a single line is the same length, angle or in the same place. The dots/stars/planets are also in a completely different place.

Bettys map compared to your map is 100% different. There is no comparison between the 2, as I have already shown.

You changed the data because "it makes it fit". I can change the map to make it fit a road map of a country or a connection to countries.

How exactly is that accurate?

ETA: If your bias wasn't so strong you would accept that there is a possibility of it being something else. Instead you have flat out denied that it is anything apart from a star map (after you changed the data).

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: tanka418
...anyway, nobody has been able to show that I'm wrong...at least not without misrepresenting everything...

What thread are you reading? The last several pages have been nothing but people showing exactly how and why you're wrong, followed by you sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "nuh-uh!" over and over.

Well no, it wasn't people, it was one person, who is seriously prejudiced against my work for his own reasons...

The reality is that he hasn't proven a damn thing, The allegations of "bias" are rather fraudulent since the "bias" is imposed by nature, and/or constitutes undesirable noise. But, y'all don't want to hear that so you falsely attribute logical, reasonable, scientific and engineering decisions to "bias".

I'd say I was sorry the data didn't meet with your approval, but the truth is, I don't give a damn. The data is what it is, so deal with it...