Stars of the Hill Map

a reply to: TerryDon79

You still need to show how I've altered any data...

You should also read my paper, you might not understand it but, it will give you better understanding of "why" my version
is a virtual perfect match...AND, if you don't read the paper, you need to drop that whole fantasy.

originally posted by: tanka418
Well no, it wasn't people, it was one person, who is seriously prejudiced against my work for his own reasons...

I don't know who you're referring to here. I'm not "prejudiced against" your work in any way. I think your work is quite good, and has some interesting potentital, if rigorous scientific protocol were to be followed, and if you were able to swallow your pride a bit. If I didn't give a damn, I wouldn't waste my time replying.

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: TerryDon79

You still need to show how I've altered any data...

You should also read my paper, you might not understand it but, it will give you better understanding of "why" my version
is a virtual perfect match...AND, if you don't read the paper, you need to drop that whole fantasy.

The 2 images are not the same.

The 2 images are therefore different.

That means you have changed the data.

Did I really need to explain that again?


And just for the fun of it, I made my own map.

I changed the data a little bit so it would fit to towns/cities. Only changed a little bit, but it still stays within parameters.
Those parameters are that it needs to be a town/city in the UK. That means I've narrowed down the results to a tiny island on the whole planet.

The odds against that must be astronomical!

originally posted by: TerryDon79
The 2 images are not the same.

The 2 images are therefore different.

That means you have changed the data.

Did I really need to explain that again?

Do you understand the concept of a template? In this case it is a rough drawing of a star pattern with "verifiers" (additional stars in patterns, and patterns within the main body). You probably fail to see all that detail, but, it is present, and virtually identical in both images.

Betty's original "star map" is the template, that bit of "data" is a "golden standard" and has not been altered. My image is what the template "makes". If you are unable to see the strong resemblance, then you are not being honest with yourself.

My image is what One gets when the actual stars are identified and "plotted".

I would also like to point out that when Betty originally saw the image, she was under the influence of an Orexin antagonist; in essence she wasn't awake when she saw the original image...she wasn't asleep either.

And just for the fun of it, I made my own map.

Yes quaint...You are aware, I hope, that this template is specifically a template to be applied to stars, as contrasted with cities. Thus your "match" is meaningless...

Now, IF you could match that to other stars than the ones I have, that might actually be something, but, alas, several have tried, and produced work of less precision and fidelity.

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: tanka418
Well no, it wasn't people, it was one person, who is seriously prejudiced against my work for his own reasons...

I don't know who you're referring to here. I'm not "prejudiced against" your work in any way. I think your work is quite good, and has some interesting potentital, if rigorous scientific protocol were to be followed, and if you were able to swallow your pride a bit. If I didn't give a damn, I wouldn't waste my time replying.

No, not you...And times, I need to "center" myself...

Rigorous scientific protocol; what protocol would that be? I've applied what I've learned is rather good engineer principals and protocols...do they count?

You see when you start to question protocols, you need to be as specific as those who are claiming "bias". i.e. we can't even begin to evaluate protocol until we have a starting point, something to compare against.

So, if you wish, specify a protocol and we can compare mine to yours...and perhaps learn something new...

Sorry if I mistook you for a shark...

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79
The 2 images are not the same.

The 2 images are therefore different.

That means you have changed the data.

Did I really need to explain that again?

Do you understand the concept of a template? In this case it is a rough drawing of a star pattern with "verifiers" (additional stars in patterns, and patterns within the main body. You probably fail to see all that detail, but, it is present, and virtually identical in both images.

Betty's original "star map" is the template, that bit of "data" is a "golden standard" and has not been altered. My image is what the template "makes". If you are unable to see the strong resemblance, then you are not being honest with yourself.

A template decided by everyone apart from Betty and the "alien". I never once saw that Betty said it was a template, therefore you're working off of a (possible) false idea that it is a template.

My image is what One gets when the actual stars are identified and "plotted".

And the reason YOU chose those stars are because YOU decided to. You didn't chose any planets though. She specifically said stars and planets. You changed it from stars and planets to just stars, therefore you changed more data.

I would also like to point out that when Betty originally saw the image, she was under the influence of an Orexin antagonist; in essence she wasn't awake when she saw the original image...she wasn't asleep either.

So what you're saying is her judgment was impaired due to drugs? Wouldn't that then put the whole idea of a map, aliens and abduction in the bin?

And just for the fun of it, I made my own map.

Yes quaint...You are aware, I hope, that this template is specifically a template to be applied to stars, as contrasted with cities. Thus your "match" is meaningless...

Says who? Betty was influenced by drugs. Who knows what she really meant.

Now, IF you could match that to other stars than the ones I have, that might actually be something, but, alas, several have tried, and produced work of less precision and fidelity.

Less precision because you say so. There have been many maps done that are a closer fit than yours. It's you that dismiss them due to not meeting certain parameters that you have set out.

Let's see if I can get some straight answers, shall we?

Why do you dismiss most of Bettys story as BS, but the map is ok?
Why is the map just a template?
How do you know the map is of the stars and not because she lied or hallucinated it due to drugs?
Why do you only include planets that might hold life yet ignore others?
Who says the "aliens" were going to the planets for life and not resources?
Why only include planets and not planets and stars as Betty stated?

(I'll be waiting for answers that have nothing to do with bias)

a reply to: tanka418

I have just realised what this whole thread boils down to and I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned before.

It's confirmation bias. Also known as the fallacy of the enumeration of favourable circumstance.

Confirmation bias, also known as Observational selection or The enumeration of favorable circumstances is the tendency for people to (consciously or unconsciously) seek out information that conforms to their pre-existing view points, and subsequently ignore information that goes against them, both positive and negative. It is a type of cognitive bias and a form of selection bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study. Avoiding confirmation bias is an important part of rationalism and in science in general. This is achieved by setting up problems so that you must find ways of disproving your hypothesis

That just fits this thread to a T.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Why do you dismiss most of Bettys story as BS, but the map is ok?

Because there is so much BS surrounding the story that it is impossible to make a real sense. However, IF the "Map"/"Template" does actually "match" a region of space with reasonable precision, then perhaps the story can gain a small amount of credibility. Having that "match" would also be a very strong indicator that Extraterrestrials have indeed visited the Earth.

Why is the map just a template?

Because it was originally seen while Betty was not awake, and later retrieved through post hypnotic suggestion, A method that is controversial at best. Because of this nature of "remembering" all we can hope for is an artistic representation of an artistic representation...The fact that certain stars are disproportionately out of scale seems to indicate that this is an artistic representation.

How do you know the map is of the stars and not because she lied or hallucinated it due to drugs?

It is purported to be of stars; it matches a collection of very logical and relevant stars, so it doesn't matter IF it was an hallucination...

Why do you only include planets that might hold life yet ignore others?

Actually I don't include any planets, although some of the identified stars have planets.

The class of star is selected because they are more likely to have advanced sentient life...read my paper and you can get a better understanding of "why".

Who says the "aliens" were going to the planets for life and not resources?

Because there would be more than enough resources closer to home, No need to travel 40ly for iron ore...

Why only include planets and not planets and stars as Betty stated?

Because it is illogical, and poor design to include tier 2 on a tier 1 data page...I'm not sure you can understand this but. in GUI design One typically puts tier 1 data on a page with no other data. This allows the user to "drill down" to the detail he is seeking.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Why do you dismiss most of Bettys story as BS, but the map is ok?

Because there is so much BS surrounding the story that it is impossible to make a real sense. However, IF the "Map"/"Template" does actually "match" a region of space with reasonable precision, then perhaps the story can gain a small amount of credibility. Having that "match" would also be a very strong indicator that Extraterrestrials have indeed visited the Earth.

So what Betty said under hypnosis was BS? That makes the map BS also.

Why is the map just a template?

Because it was originally seen while Betty was not awake, and later retrieved through post hypnotic suggestion, A method that is controversial at best. Because of this nature of "remembering" all we can hope for is an artistic representation of an artistic representation...The fact that certain stars are disproportionately out of scale seems to indicate that this is an artistic representation.

So if it is controversial then surely the map could have been suggested and is in turn not a fact.

How do you know the map is of the stars and not because she lied or hallucinated it due to drugs?

It is purported to be of stars; it matches a collection of very logical and relevant stars, so it doesn't matter IF it was an hallucination...

It only matches stars that you have defined. It also only matches the stars because you have changed the way the map looks.

Why do you only include planets that might hold life yet ignore others?

Actually I don't include any planets, although some of the identified stars have planets.

The class of star is selected because they are more likely to have advanced sentient life...read my paper and you can get a better understanding of "why".

I've already read the paper and it says that the only reason YOU chose those stars is because of the possibility of a planet with life on. That's a pretty big assumption with very little proof to back it up with.

Who says the "aliens" were going to the planets for life and not resources?

Because there would be more than enough resources closer to home, No need to travel 40ly for iron ore...

How do you know they have a "home" and they aren't just travelling about collecting resources where they can? Again, another big assumption on your part.

Why only include planets and not planets and stars as Betty stated?

Because it is illogical, and poor design to include tier 2 on a tier 1 data page...I'm not sure you can understand this but. in GUI design One typically puts tier 1 data on a page with no other data. This allows the user to "drill down" to the detail he is seeking.

That pretty much sums up the whole thread. "The detail he is seeking". See my previous post about confirmation bias.

Thing is tanka, I know you've put a lot of work into this, but it is all based on personal opinion, assumptions and personal interpretation of data. When someone disagrees with your methods you reply with assumptions and opinions. There is no data to back it up. Unfortunately, there won't be any data to back it up unless it happens again, but even then the data (stars and planets) will have changed position to what they were when the Hills got shown the "map".

a reply to: TerryDon79

Funny...

I'm sorry man, but, I'm a professional data scientist / software architect...I use advanced methodologies to prevent that sort of BS...specifically

Also...did you know that the stars I've selected, aren't my selection? While I have my little "changes" that whole thing is Ms. Fish's original selection...just updated with more modern astrometrics...you didn't know that did you...perhaps you should read my paper and the thread...

Now if you are through grasping at straws perhaps we can recover from your distraction and associated BS.

a reply to: tanka418

I've read your paper. How can Fishs interpretation be any more accurate than anyone elses? Again, it's all assumptions and opinions.

There is no data apart from the possibility of the Hills map being correct, as they were the ones who experienced it.

So again, assumptions and opinions, not data and facts.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Why do you dismiss most of Bettys story as BS, but the map is ok?

Because there is so much BS surrounding the story that it is impossible to make a real sense. However, IF the "Map"/"Template" does actually "match" a region of space with reasonable precision, then perhaps the story can gain a small amount of credibility. Having that "match" would also be a very strong indicator that Extraterrestrials have indeed visited the Earth.

So what Betty said under hypnosis was BS? That makes the map BS also.

Why is the map just a template?

Because it was originally seen while Betty was not awake, and later retrieved through post hypnotic suggestion, A method that is controversial at best. Because of this nature of "remembering" all we can hope for is an artistic representation of an artistic representation...The fact that certain stars are disproportionately out of scale seems to indicate that this is an artistic representation.

So if it is controversial then surely the map could have been suggested and is in turn not a fact.

How do you know the map is of the stars and not because she lied or hallucinated it due to drugs?

It is purported to be of stars; it matches a collection of very logical and relevant stars, so it doesn't matter IF it was an hallucination...

It only matches stars that you have defined. It also only matches the stars because you have changed the way the map looks.

Why do you only include planets that might hold life yet ignore others?

Actually I don't include any planets, although some of the identified stars have planets.

The class of star is selected because they are more likely to have advanced sentient life...read my paper and you can get a better understanding of "why".

I've already read the paper and it says that the only reason YOU chose those stars is because of the possibility of a planet with life on. That's a pretty big assumption with very little proof to back it up with.

Who says the "aliens" were going to the planets for life and not resources?

Because there would be more than enough resources closer to home, No need to travel 40ly for iron ore...

How do you know they have a "home" and they aren't just travelling about collecting resources where they can? Again, another big assumption on your part.

Why only include planets and not planets and stars as Betty stated?

Because it is illogical, and poor design to include tier 2 on a tier 1 data page...I'm not sure you can understand this but. in GUI design One typically puts tier 1 data on a page with no other data. This allows the user to "drill down" to the detail he is seeking.

That pretty much sums up the whole thread. "The detail he is seeking". See my previous post about confirmation bias.

Thing is tanka, I know you've put a lot of work into this, but it is all based on personal opinion, assumptions and personal interpretation of data. When someone disagrees with your methods you reply with assumptions and opinions. There is no data to back it up. Unfortunately, there won't be any data to back it up unless it happens again, but even then the data (stars and planets) will have changed position to what they were when the Hills got shown the "map".

You are truly funny, but, I'm not going to waste any more time with someone who doesn't want to understand...

So...If all that is what you want to believe, you go right ahead...But, please do it somewhere else...

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Why do you dismiss most of Bettys story as BS, but the map is ok?

Because there is so much BS surrounding the story that it is impossible to make a real sense. However, IF the "Map"/"Template" does actually "match" a region of space with reasonable precision, then perhaps the story can gain a small amount of credibility. Having that "match" would also be a very strong indicator that Extraterrestrials have indeed visited the Earth.

So what Betty said under hypnosis was BS? That makes the map BS also.

Why is the map just a template?

Because it was originally seen while Betty was not awake, and later retrieved through post hypnotic suggestion, A method that is controversial at best. Because of this nature of "remembering" all we can hope for is an artistic representation of an artistic representation...The fact that certain stars are disproportionately out of scale seems to indicate that this is an artistic representation.

So if it is controversial then surely the map could have been suggested and is in turn not a fact.

How do you know the map is of the stars and not because she lied or hallucinated it due to drugs?

It is purported to be of stars; it matches a collection of very logical and relevant stars, so it doesn't matter IF it was an hallucination...

It only matches stars that you have defined. It also only matches the stars because you have changed the way the map looks.

Why do you only include planets that might hold life yet ignore others?

Actually I don't include any planets, although some of the identified stars have planets.

The class of star is selected because they are more likely to have advanced sentient life...read my paper and you can get a better understanding of "why".

I've already read the paper and it says that the only reason YOU chose those stars is because of the possibility of a planet with life on. That's a pretty big assumption with very little proof to back it up with.

Who says the "aliens" were going to the planets for life and not resources?

Because there would be more than enough resources closer to home, No need to travel 40ly for iron ore...

How do you know they have a "home" and they aren't just travelling about collecting resources where they can? Again, another big assumption on your part.

Why only include planets and not planets and stars as Betty stated?

Because it is illogical, and poor design to include tier 2 on a tier 1 data page...I'm not sure you can understand this but. in GUI design One typically puts tier 1 data on a page with no other data. This allows the user to "drill down" to the detail he is seeking.

That pretty much sums up the whole thread. "The detail he is seeking". See my previous post about confirmation bias.

Thing is tanka, I know you've put a lot of work into this, but it is all based on personal opinion, assumptions and personal interpretation of data. When someone disagrees with your methods you reply with assumptions and opinions. There is no data to back it up. Unfortunately, there won't be any data to back it up unless it happens again, but even then the data (stars and planets) will have changed position to what they were when the Hills got shown the "map".

You are truly funny, but, I'm not going to waste any more time with someone who doesn't want to understand...

So...If all that is what you want to believe, you go right ahead...But, please do it somewhere else...

So you're failing to address a valid argument by ignoring it?

You know that comes under confirmation bias? Of course you do, you're a "professional data scientist / software architect".

I guess that means you're immune to confirmation bias lol

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Why do you dismiss most of Bettys story as BS, but the map is ok?

Because there is so much BS surrounding the story that it is impossible to make a real sense. However, IF the "Map"/"Template" does actually "match" a region of space with reasonable precision, then perhaps the story can gain a small amount of credibility. Having that "match" would also be a very strong indicator that Extraterrestrials have indeed visited the Earth.

So what Betty said under hypnosis was BS? That makes the map BS also.

Why is the map just a template?

Because it was originally seen while Betty was not awake, and later retrieved through post hypnotic suggestion, A method that is controversial at best. Because of this nature of "remembering" all we can hope for is an artistic representation of an artistic representation...The fact that certain stars are disproportionately out of scale seems to indicate that this is an artistic representation.

So if it is controversial then surely the map could have been suggested and is in turn not a fact.

How do you know the map is of the stars and not because she lied or hallucinated it due to drugs?

It is purported to be of stars; it matches a collection of very logical and relevant stars, so it doesn't matter IF it was an hallucination...

It only matches stars that you have defined. It also only matches the stars because you have changed the way the map looks.

Why do you only include planets that might hold life yet ignore others?

Actually I don't include any planets, although some of the identified stars have planets.

The class of star is selected because they are more likely to have advanced sentient life...read my paper and you can get a better understanding of "why".

I've already read the paper and it says that the only reason YOU chose those stars is because of the possibility of a planet with life on. That's a pretty big assumption with very little proof to back it up with.

Who says the "aliens" were going to the planets for life and not resources?

Because there would be more than enough resources closer to home, No need to travel 40ly for iron ore...

How do you know they have a "home" and they aren't just travelling about collecting resources where they can? Again, another big assumption on your part.

Why only include planets and not planets and stars as Betty stated?

Because it is illogical, and poor design to include tier 2 on a tier 1 data page...I'm not sure you can understand this but. in GUI design One typically puts tier 1 data on a page with no other data. This allows the user to "drill down" to the detail he is seeking.

That pretty much sums up the whole thread. "The detail he is seeking". See my previous post about confirmation bias.

Thing is tanka, I know you've put a lot of work into this, but it is all based on personal opinion, assumptions and personal interpretation of data. When someone disagrees with your methods you reply with assumptions and opinions. There is no data to back it up. Unfortunately, there won't be any data to back it up unless it happens again, but even then the data (stars and planets) will have changed position to what they were when the Hills got shown the "map".

You are truly funny, but, I'm not going to waste any more time with someone who doesn't want to understand...

So...If all that is what you want to believe, you go right ahead...But, please do it somewhere else...

So you're failing to address a valid argument by ignoring it?

You know that comes under confirmation bias? Of course you do, you're a "professional data scientist / software architect".

I guess that means you're immune to confirmation bias lol

Yeah, on the confirmation bias, or indeed any other form of bias...you come back when you have proof that such "bias" exists...

I'm really tired of going over stuff that has already been addressed, I'm not sorry that you missed it, but that is on you, not me...So why don't you go back a few pages and catch up...and in the mean time cut the BS!!!

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Why do you dismiss most of Bettys story as BS, but the map is ok?

Because there is so much BS surrounding the story that it is impossible to make a real sense. However, IF the "Map"/"Template" does actually "match" a region of space with reasonable precision, then perhaps the story can gain a small amount of credibility. Having that "match" would also be a very strong indicator that Extraterrestrials have indeed visited the Earth.

So what Betty said under hypnosis was BS? That makes the map BS also.

Why is the map just a template?

Because it was originally seen while Betty was not awake, and later retrieved through post hypnotic suggestion, A method that is controversial at best. Because of this nature of "remembering" all we can hope for is an artistic representation of an artistic representation...The fact that certain stars are disproportionately out of scale seems to indicate that this is an artistic representation.

So if it is controversial then surely the map could have been suggested and is in turn not a fact.

How do you know the map is of the stars and not because she lied or hallucinated it due to drugs?

It is purported to be of stars; it matches a collection of very logical and relevant stars, so it doesn't matter IF it was an hallucination...

It only matches stars that you have defined. It also only matches the stars because you have changed the way the map looks.

Why do you only include planets that might hold life yet ignore others?

Actually I don't include any planets, although some of the identified stars have planets.

The class of star is selected because they are more likely to have advanced sentient life...read my paper and you can get a better understanding of "why".

I've already read the paper and it says that the only reason YOU chose those stars is because of the possibility of a planet with life on. That's a pretty big assumption with very little proof to back it up with.

Who says the "aliens" were going to the planets for life and not resources?

Because there would be more than enough resources closer to home, No need to travel 40ly for iron ore...

How do you know they have a "home" and they aren't just travelling about collecting resources where they can? Again, another big assumption on your part.

Why only include planets and not planets and stars as Betty stated?

Because it is illogical, and poor design to include tier 2 on a tier 1 data page...I'm not sure you can understand this but. in GUI design One typically puts tier 1 data on a page with no other data. This allows the user to "drill down" to the detail he is seeking.

That pretty much sums up the whole thread. "The detail he is seeking". See my previous post about confirmation bias.

Thing is tanka, I know you've put a lot of work into this, but it is all based on personal opinion, assumptions and personal interpretation of data. When someone disagrees with your methods you reply with assumptions and opinions. There is no data to back it up. Unfortunately, there won't be any data to back it up unless it happens again, but even then the data (stars and planets) will have changed position to what they were when the Hills got shown the "map".

You are truly funny, but, I'm not going to waste any more time with someone who doesn't want to understand...

So...If all that is what you want to believe, you go right ahead...But, please do it somewhere else...

So you're failing to address a valid argument by ignoring it?

You know that comes under confirmation bias? Of course you do, you're a "professional data scientist / software architect".

I guess that means you're immune to confirmation bias lol

Yeah, on the confirmation bias, or indeed any other form of bias...you come back when you have proof that such "bias" exists...

I'm really tired of going over stuff that has already been addressed, I'm not sorry that you missed it, but that is on you, not me...So why don't you go back a few pages and catch up...and in the mean time cut the BS!!!

The bias is in your own words.

You have said that the story the Hills used is BS as they were under the influence of drugs, yet the map is OK (I really don't understand the logic in this one)
You have changed the map completely.
You set your own parameters for what stars to use (loosely based off of Fishs interpretation).

All of what you have stated here and in your paper is opinion and assumptions. There's not a single fact.

Confirmation bias is EXACTLY what it is.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

The bias is in your own words.

Ahhh, so the bias is, in reality, your interpretation...

You have said that the story the Hills used is BS as they were under the influence of drugs, yet the map is OK (I really don't understand the logic in this one)

Once Betty drew her "map", and it became a part of an "official" record, it became kind of "fixed". At that point nothing Betty could possibly say, or do, would alter the mathematical probability that her "map" would match. The mathematical probability is another "fixed" value. Now, since the story cant affect the "map", it no longer matters what the story is...except, that IF the "map" should happen to match, the credibility of the story just became significantly greater.

So do you understand that the story has no affect on the probability of a match?

You have changed the map completely.

No...I have not...Betty's original has been fitted to reality, without the difficulties of accurately drawing because it is all done by computer. Thus Betty's map is a rough approximation, while my map is the same thing with real stars at the appropriate points.

You set your own parameters for what stars to use (loosely based off of Fishs interpretation).

I can only guess that you know nothing about the stars that MS. Fish selected or why...course if yo read my paper you have an understanding of "why"

All of what you have stated here and in your paper is opinion and assumptions. There's not a single fact.

Confirmation bias is EXACTLY what it is.

Well that's not true either, now is it?!!? And yes...you are sort of right about my paper, but then that what a theory is...opinion and some amount of assumption.

Perhaps the real issue here is you don't understand the scientific process...

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: TerryDon79

The bias is in your own words.

Ahhh, so the bias is, in reality, your interpretation...

I'm not the one making a connection from a map by ignoring everything and changing the map.

You have said that the story the Hills used is BS as they were under the influence of drugs, yet the map is OK (I really don't understand the logic in this one)

Once Betty drew her "map", and it became a part of an "official" record, it became kind of "fixed". At that point nothing Betty could possibly say, or do, would alter the mathematical probability that her "map" would match. The mathematical probability is another "fixed" value. Now, since the story cant affect the "map", it no longer matters what the story is...except, that IF the "map" should happen to match, the credibility of the story just became significantly greater.

So do you understand that the story has no affect on the probability of a match?

But her story was also part of an official record. Also, without the story the map wouldn't exist. That means the story does matter.

You have changed the map completely.

No...I have not...Betty's original has been fitted to reality, without the difficulties of accurately drawing because it is all done by computer. Thus Betty's map is a rough approximation, while my map is the same thing with real stars at the appropriate points.

Because you and a few others say so? YEC have a lot of people saying it's true, doesn't make it true.

You set your own parameters for what stars to use (loosely based off of Fishs interpretation).

I can only guess that you know nothing about the stars that MS. Fish selected or why...course if yo read my paper you have an understanding of "why"

Yes, I do know about the stars that she selected. Again, another assumption/guess.

All of what you have stated here and in your paper is opinion and assumptions. There's not a single fact.

Confirmation bias is EXACTLY what it is.

Well that's not true either, now is it?!!? And yes...you are sort of right about my paper, but then that what a theory is...opinion and some amount of assumption.

Perhaps the real issue here is you don't understand the scientific process...

Oh I know the scientific process.

What you have is a hypothesis based on a single bit of data that is backed up by no information. It's ALL opinions and assumptions. We haven't verified the Hills accounts of abductions therefore we can't start to argue the validity of the map.

Let's say you get a 98% match for the map. What would it ACTUALLY prove? All it would prove is that you've matched some dots to stars. It doesn't validate the map, story or aliens (which is what you're trying to do).

originally posted by: TerryDon79
I'm not the one making a connection from a map by ignoring everything and changing the map.

No, you are the One who is misinterpreting what I've said...the question is; is it deliberate?

I've ignored nothing, changed nothing...any of that is your misunderstanding.

But her story was also part of an official record. Also, without the story the map wouldn't exist. That means the story does matter.

Again you fail to understand...
I didn't say the story didn't matter; I said it has no affect on the probability of a random match. Please try to pay attention...

Yes, I do know about the stars that she selected. Again, another assumption/guess.

Perhaps, but one that is shared by virtually every astronomer, astrobiologist on the planet. It is rather accepted that every Sol-like star has an Earth like planet in its HZ...so that "assumption" is so outlandish as you want.

Oh I know the scientific process.

What you have is a hypothesis based on a single bit of data that is backed up by no information. It's ALL opinions and assumptions. We haven't verified the Hills accounts of abductions therefore we can't start to argue the validity of the map.

Again you fail...the validity of the map can't be determined by the story, it can only be validated by the stars themselves...as I have done.

Let's say you get a 98% match for the map. What would it ACTUALLY prove? All it would prove is that you've matched some dots to stars. It doesn't validate the map, story or aliens (which is what you're trying to do).

You are missing on all cylinders aren't you? If we find a match for the map the probability of it being random is almost non existent, and the probability that the map was given to Betty by an extraterrestrial becomes very great. Thus the story receives significant validation,

a reply to: tanka418

And all of that just proves even more that you have confirmation bias.

You also contradicted yourself a few times. You've said Hills story is BS, yet if the dots fit it validates their story. Which is it?

Also, why are you using Fishs map over Bettys map (the one where she connects it to the constellation Pegasus, Charles Atterbergs map (which uses nearby stars), the one done by 2 German UFOlogists (who matched it with our solar system) or Yari Danjos map (who find the "aliens home" in Alpha Centaur)? How have you decided that those other maps aren't good enough? Atterbergs map is actually A LOT closer to the original drawing than Fishs map is.

The map is nothing more than an exercise in futility. As I've already shown, you can find a match just about anywhere with any set of parameters you choose.

a reply to: tanka418

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.

You're right. It would be illogical for "ET" to create a map using both planets and stars. It would be illogical for ET to draw multiple lines to show multiple trips. It would be illogical for ET to designate human-like trade and exploration routes. It would be illogical for ET to ask where Earth is on a map where it isn't displayed. It would be illogical for ET to list our sun as a trade route given Betty's description of this being an exploration. The funny thing is, it would be very logical, and human, for a woman with limited knowledge of astronomy to create a map like this to try and fool the naive into thinking this is alien.

Yes yes... I know. Your map is a match to Betty's "crude interpretation of an alien interpretation."

I would also like to point out that when Betty originally saw the image, she was under the influence of an Orexin antagonist; in essence she wasn't awake when she saw the original image...she wasn't asleep either.

WRONG... Betty's map was first mentioned in her Nov 1961 written account which was the result of her dreams. This was only two months after the claimed abduction. Through her hypnosis 3 years later, the map was mentioned and Dr. Simon suggested she draw it. This was after March 14, 1964.

Doctor
Well, if you remember some of this after you leave me, why don't you draw it, try to draw the map. Don't do it if you feel concerned or anxious about it. But if you do, bring it in next time, all right?
Betty
I'll try to.

She drew the map on her own a week or two later and it was not influenced during hypnosis or by drugs. In fact, if you read her 1961 account, she draws what she described 3 years earlier from her dreams. Planets, stars, lines, etc.