Stars of the Hill Map

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: tanka418
Just thought i'd offer this:

Permutations and Combinations
Many problems in probability can be phrased in the language of "how many ways can we pick r objects out of a group of N objects." We now calculate the answer to this question.

If the order of the r objects is important, than the "number of ways to pick r objects out of a group of N objects" is called: the number of permutations of N objects taken r at a time, and denoted by the symbol NPr. What is the numerical value of NPr? For the 1st choice we can choose any one of N objects. For the 2nd choice we can choose any one of the remaining N-1 objects. For the 3rd choice we can choose any one of the remaining N-2 objects, and so on down until for the rth choice we can pick any one of the remaining N-r+1 objects. We therefore find

NPr = N x (N-1) x (N-2) x .... x (N-r+1)

-- www.pas.rochester.edu...

It shows the way the real world probabilities are computed for exercises like this one...

And your point is?

Probabilities =/= Certainties

You've been shown how arbitrary those dots are. We can assign them to so many different things have have a clearer "match" than your "map".

You decided that Fishs map was more accurate than any of the others presented. That's bias because YOU chose it and dismissed other possibilities.

You also dismiss EVERYTHING Betty Hill said (including her more recent attempt at explaining the "map"), but her older "map" is a "template". Again, that's called bias.

Would you please go and find out what "Arbitrary" actually means before you use the word again!

There is nothing arbitrary about this analysis...nothing. Except in your uninformed and prejudice mind.

I would suggest to all of y'all that IF you have an issue with what I'm saying; go and find someone who you know is knowledgeable in these subjects and ask them...you know people like other mathematicians, astronomers, etc. And for god's sake stop thinking you know more that someone you've never met...some of us actually have way more education than they should have...and some of us have experiences you would never attempt.

Seriously...did you, even for a moment, think that maybe I know something you don't?

Oh, and more importantly; You are correct probabilities != certainties...however, in this world we never get certainties. Certainties are like "proof"...and proof never happens outside of mathematics. So all we ever get are varying degrees of probability...perhaps we should listen to nature on this...and go with the greater probabilities...

a reply to: tanka418

So you want to play the "I've got an education and you don't" card?

Sorry, I've got a degree in computer science.

As for "finding someone who know about this stuff"? Point me in the direction of anyone who has knowledge of how an alien of unknown origins would draw a map and show it to human.

I personally don't care if you've been working on this for 2 minutes or 2 years. You've dug yourself a bias ditch.

You can't for 1 second say that the map is even a map. You call it a template, but there's nothing to suggest it was. Betty Hill says it was aliens yet the only proof is her word.

I got a bridge to sell. 1 careful owner.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

So you want to play the "I've got an education and you don't" card?

Sorry, I've got a degree in computer science.

Well actually I didn't want to play that game....however, I'm not impressed! I have two of those (BS, MS), two in electrical engineering (BS, MS) another in Physics and yet another in Mathematics...as I was trying to say; some of us have too much, or it seems that way at times...

Really? A degree in Computer Science? Just where did you come up with that rather non-standard notation for "not equal"?

Say...how much of the original PC BIOS did you write?

As for "finding someone who know about this stuff"? Point me in the direction of anyone who has knowledge of how an alien of unknown origins would draw a map and show it to human.

There is absolutely nothing about that map that indicates "human"...so you statement is foundationless...

I personally don't care if you've been working on this for 2 minutes or 2 years. You've dug yourself a bias ditch.

Right...so you say, yet you can't point it out...You see, the thing is...IF yo actually take an unbiased look at my work you will notice that there is little if any true bias I there. and those "assumptions", and "bias" that you think you see...are the way they are because of good engineering and analysis...

You can't for 1 second say that the map is even a map. You call it a template, but there's nothing to suggest it was. Betty Hill says it was aliens yet the only proof is her word.

A map is a symbolic depiction highlighting relationships between elements of some space, such as objects, regions, and themes.

-- en.wikipedia.org...

Yep...what I got is a map...fits the definition rather well...guess you missed that one too...you not firein' on all cylinders, man...

And no...we have a bit more than just Betty's word that it was extraterrestrials; we have the map as well, and it is of a region of interstellar space that Betty could not possibly have any knowledge of...

You might want to take a week or so and rethink this, you seem to have missed several important things...

a reply to: tanka418

Wow!

You've dug yourself in hard, haven't you?

All of this "proof" is from Betty Hill. You have her word that it is true and nothing more.

There's nothing about the map that points to it being human? You mean apart from being drawn by a human? I also thought you said it was a template? But you've also said it's accurate, but that can't be right because if it was accurate then you wouldn't need to drastically change it, would you?

You have inserted bias into this "map" in every possible way. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not true. Most people can't see their own bias.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

Wow!

You've dug yourself in hard, haven't you?

All of this "proof" is from Betty Hill. You have her word that it is true and nothing more.

Please pay attention...maybe it will sink in a little...

I have far more than Betty's word...I have that improbable map...

There's nothing about the map that points to it being human? You mean apart from being drawn by a human? I also thought you said it was a template? But you've also said it's accurate, but that can't be right because if it was accurate then you wouldn't need to drastically change it, would you?

And, in reality, I haven't changed the original all that much...although you can't see the reality here, it remains that to make the template fit real world stars took significantly less than 1% distortion...Course you foolishly assumed that I hadn't thought of that...your bad.

You have inserted bias into this "map" in every possible way. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not true. Most people can't see their own bias.

And just because you say it is doesn't make it so either...So...either point out said bias or stfu! And, it better not be something already addressed!

Knock off the insults immediately.

Discuss the topic not each other. This is your only warning.

Do not reply to this post.

a reply to: tanka418

I've already pointed out the bias.

You're not listening so there's no point trying to show you (again). I'm done. Have fun.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

I've already pointed out the bias.

You're not listening so there's no point trying to show you (again). I'm done. Have fun.

No...actually you accused me of bias back on page 13, and have not pointed any bias what-so-ever...

You also accused me of making assumptions; yet you fail to recognize that that is part of what a scientific inquisitor does; make assumptions about something observed in nature, and then using empirical data, try to "prove" or "disprove" those assumptions. It is all part of the process...

Perhaps if you weren't trying so hard to find fault with me, my processes, my data, my theory, and allowed the data to speak for itself...

ETA: Look; I'm just trying to get a straight answer from you...you know, in case there something I overlooked...

a reply to: tanka418

No...actually you accused me of bias back on page 13, and have not pointed any bias what-so-ever...

Your data set is biased against class M stars, for reasons that have been explained several times. This renders it useless for your purposes.

You also accused me of making assumptions;

Pointing out a fact is not an accusation.

yet you fail to recognize that that is part of what a scientific inquisitor does; make assumptions about something observed in nature,

First, it is necessary to make observations. Once enough observations have been made, a pattern can be deduced. Only once a pattern has been found can hypotheses, and the accompanying assumptions, be formed. Nothing, absolutely nothing, in the Hill case has anything to do with nature. Betty Hill saw something in a dream. There is no reason to believe it has anything at all to do with waking reality.

and then using empirical data, try to "prove" or "disprove" those assumptions. It is all part of the process...

www.sciencebuddies.org...

Perhaps if you weren't trying so hard to find fault with me, my processes, my data, my theory, and allowed the data to speak for itself...

The Hill "map" contains no data. It is a drawing based on a dream.

ETA: Look; I'm just trying to get a straight answer from you...you know, in case there something I overlooked...

Every page of this thread contains lists of things you have "overlooked."

a reply to: tanka418

Would you please go and find out what "Arbitrary" actually means before you use the word again!

We have been using arbitrary in a precise manner. Here is the definition:

arbitrary
[ahr-bi-trer-ee]
adjective

1.subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion:
an arbitrary decision.

2.decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.

3.having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical:
an arbitrary government.

4.capricious; unreasonable; unsupported:an arbitrary demand for payment.

5.Mathematics. undetermined; not assigned a specific value: an arbitrary constant.

www.dictionary.com...

Your assumptions meet all but the second definition.

There is nothing arbitrary about this analysis...nothing. Except in your uninformed and prejudice mind.

Several people have made the same sort of "analysis" using different assumptions and reached different conclusions. How is that possible?

I would suggest to all of y'all that IF you have an issue with what I'm saying; go and find someone who you know is knowledgeable in these subjects and ask them...you know people like other mathematicians, astronomers, etc.

You have been arguing with people who are knowledgeable in these subjects.

Oh, and more importantly; You are correct probabilities != certainties...however, in this world we never get certainties. Certainties are like "proof"...and proof never happens outside of mathematics. So all we ever get are varying degrees of probability...perhaps we should listen to nature on this...and go with the greater probabilities...

But the are certainties. It is certain that the drawing you have been "analyzing" appeared in a book called "The Interrupted Journey." You admit you have not read this book. If you had, you would be certain that the drawing was seen in a dream. You would know for a fact that Betty Hill identified it with stars in Pegasus. You would know for certain that Betty believed it showed stars and planets.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418

Your data set is biased against class M stars, for reasons that have been explained several times. This renders it useless for your purposes.

And, I have pointed out why that bias is not only welcome, but exploited in order to remove the noise of small cold class "M" stars.

If you think that the Hipparcos dataset is "useless" for my research than you must also assert that it is useless for use in modern Astronomy, astrophysics, astrobiology, etc....is that what you are saying?

First, it is necessary to make observations. Once enough observations have been made, a pattern can be deduced. Only once a pattern has been found can hypotheses, and the accompanying assumptions, be formed. Nothing, absolutely nothing, in the Hill case has anything to do with nature. Betty Hill saw something in a dream. There is no reason to believe it has anything at all to do with waking reality.

Yet observations have been made, patterns deduced, appropriate assumptions made; a Hypothesis derived, and proven...

www.sciencebuddies.org...

lol, your wee link in kind of cute; problem is...I've done ALL of that...

The Hill "map" contains no data. It is a drawing based on a dream.

Perhaps, but it is a drawing that is so highly improbable, and contains a high quality match to interstellar space
...a fact you have tried to debunk very unsuccessfully...it is a fact, and one that despite your best efforts remain...a fact.


You have tried to show several things about this "match" none of which were based in science or truth...mostly just you needy imagination trying in vain to prove something that from your position is unprovable...

This is contrasted with my rather easy to find (now) match to the template in the Hipparcos stars...my match is quite precise, and of high fidelity...

Every page of this thread contains lists of things you have "overlooked."

Well not quite true now is it!? However, isn't that what a thread like this is about? The discovery of "holes" in One's hypothesis?

As opposed to the useless banter you would prefer.

originally posted by: DJW001
We have been using arbitrary in a precise manner. Here is the definition:
arbitrary
[ahr-bi-trer-ee]
adjective

1.subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion:
an arbitrary decision.

2.decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.

3.having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical:
an arbitrary government.

4.capricious; unreasonable; unsupported:an arbitrary demand for payment.

5.Mathematics. undetermined; not assigned a specific value: an arbitrary constant.
www.dictionary.com...

Your assumptions meet all but the second definition.

And you are deceiving yourself!!!

You prejudicially assume that my assumptions are without foundation, when you know they are not...The assumptions I've made were all based on sound science, astronomy, etc. and of course logic and reason...

Unlike your notions that are based on prejudice...

You have been arguing with people who are knowledgeable in these subjects.

Wow...really???!! Then where is the truly authoritative statements made by an astronomer that anything I said in this hypothesis is wrong?

Reality check...I have not been arguing with anyone more knowledgeable than I on the astronomy, and especially on the mathematics involved...all you have managed to do is display your lack of scientific knowledge...as can be evidenced by your "control group" remarks...

Sorry man, but that is just your delusions showing...

And the rest of your post is irrelevant...it doesn't matter where the map has been published, nor what Betty may have thought in an Orexin deprived state...what matters is whether or not the "template"/"map" matches known stars...an it does.

The bottom line here is that I have shown (provided evidence) that this match is real, and highly improbable...you have demonstrated nothing at all, as shown by your general lack of evidence...

originally posted by: DJW001
www.sciencebuddies.org...

Ya know...perhaps if your science sources were a bit more "mainstream"...You know, like University of California, Stanford, University of Texas, etc. instead of "ScienceBuddies", you might go further...just a thought!

Not that I have anything against sciencebuddies.org...its just that we aren't in the 5th grade any more...

a reply to: tanka418

Wow...really???!! Then where is the truly authoritative statements made by an astronomer that anything I said in this hypothesis is wrong?

Once again, you need to do research before you start on a project:

The computer star map includes the Sun and 14 stars selected from a list of the 46 nearest stars similar to the Sun, derived from the Gliese catalog. It is not clear what criteria were used to select precisely these 14 stars from the list, other than the desire to find a resemblance to the Hill map. However, we can always pick and choose from a large random data set some subset that resembles a preconceived pattern. If we are free also to select the vantage point (from all possible directions for viewing the projection of a three dimensional pattern), it is a simple matter to optimize the desired resemblance. Of course such a resemblance in the case of selection from a random set is a contrivance -- an example of the statistical fallacy known as “the enumeration of favorable circumstances.”

Pattern Recognition Figure 2The presence of such a fallacy in this case appears even more likely when we examine the original Hill drawing, published in “The Interrupted Journey” by John Fuller. In addition to the prominent points that Betty Hill connected by lines, her map also includes a number of apparently random dots scattered about -- evidently to represent the presence of background stars but not meant to suggest actual positions. However, three of these dots appear in the version of the Hill map used in the comparison, while the others are absent. Thus some selection was made even from the original Hill map, although not to the same extent as from the Gliese catalog. This allows even greater freedom to contrive a resemblance.

Finally, we hear from “The Interrupted Journey” that Betty Hill first thought she saw a remarkable similarity between her UFO star map and a map of the constellation Pegasus published in the New York Times in 1965 to show the position of the quasar CTA-102. How many star maps, derived from the Gliese catalog or elsewhere, have been compared with Betty Hill’s before a supposed agreement was found? If we suppress information on such comparisons we also overestimate the significance of the result.

The argument on “The Zeta Reticuli Incident” demonstrates only that if we set out to find a pattern correlation between two nearly random data sets by selecting at will certain elements from each and ignoring others, we will always be successful. The argument cannot serve even to suggest a verification of the Hill story -- which in any case is well known to be riddled with internal and external contradictions, and which is amenable to interpretations which do not invoke extraterrestrial intelligence. Those of us concerned with the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence must take care to demand adequately rigorous standards of evidence. It is all too easy, as the old Chinese proverb says, for the imprisoned maiden to mistake the beating of her own heart for the hoof beats of her rescuer’s horse.

Stephen Soter and Carl Sagan [Emphasis mine. --DJW001]

originally posted by: DJW001

Once again, you need to do research before you start on a project:

Sorry man, but inadequate...I have researched this, you obviously have not...

And really??!!!?? Carl Segan?!!???

The computer star map includes the Sun and 14 stars selected from a list of the 46 nearest stars similar to the Sun, derived from the Gliese catalog. It is not clear what criteria were used to select precisely these 14 stars from the list, other than the desire to find a resemblance to the Hill map. However, we can always pick and choose from a large random data set some subset that resembles a preconceived pattern. If we are free also to select the vantage point (from all possible directions for viewing the projection of a three dimensional pattern), it is a simple matter to optimize the desired resemblance. Of course such a resemblance in the case of selection from a random set is a contrivance -- an example of the statistical fallacy known as “the enumeration of favorable circumstances.”

It would appear that Carl spoke without knowing what he was talking about...and you talk about not doing research! HA!

In Marjorie's work the criteria for star selection is stated, and is almost identical with mine...mine enjoys a little greater confidence due to more modern research and Astronomy.

Carl continues to ignore the mathematics involved...ya know its starting to sound like these aren't real Carl Sagan statements, but, be that as it may...the whole thing is rather disingenuous and ill-thought, it shows a serious lack of knowledge of the subject matter.

Pattern Recognition Figure 2The presence of such a fallacy in this case appears even more likely when we examine the original Hill drawing, published in “The Interrupted Journey” by John Fuller. In addition to the prominent points that Betty Hill connected by lines, her map also includes a number of apparently random dots scattered about -- evidently to represent the presence of background stars but not meant to suggest actual positions. However, three of these dots appear in the version of the Hill map used in the comparison, while the others are absent. Thus some selection was made even from the original Hill map, although not to the same extent as from the Gliese catalog. This allows even greater freedom to contrive a resemblance.

Gotta love those straws,
right???

Those extra dots scattered around...did you notice, in my analysis, how I included those items, though that older stuff in my paper needs some revision.

Anyway...did you notice that. I took all of those objects (blobs) into account, and...the interpretation actually relies somewhat on those stars...

Oh did I mention they have been identified...along with the star that is at the point of view...

Using Carl was not only a dishonor to him, but rather disingenuous on your part...Boo - Hiss...
And of course it only shows what older, less informed opinions can be...

So...you outta straw yet? You should be, there really isn't anything you can say to debunk this, it is what I've said it is...

Betty's "map" is a match to selected stars in interstellar space viewed from: HIP-26737 RA: 85.21669, Decl:-31.350, Dist: ~122.3478ly and looking at HIP-22451

The match is actually quite precise, with estimated much less than 1% difference.

ETA: I'm doing a search of space near the stars (points) identified originally by Ms. Fish...the 12 or so stars that constitute the core. This search is specifically to look for any and all class "M" stars near by...say within 12 arc-min.

I'll publish that soon..

a reply to: DJW001


Wanted to address your emphasis...

we can always pick and choose from a large random data set some subset that resembles a preconceived pattern.

This may be true. Unfortunately we are not talking about a "resemblance" here, but rather a high quality match...And we are not using a random dataset either, but rather the Hipparcos dataset.

Of course such a resemblance in the case of selection from a random set is a contrivance -- an example of the statistical fallacy known as “the enumeration of favorable circumstances.”

While true, we are not talking about that kind of statistic. We are talking about the probability of an event occurring; in this case, the production of a drawing that so precisely matches interstellar space.

if we set out to find a pattern correlation between two nearly random data sets by selecting at will certain elements from each and ignoring others, we will always be successful.

And again; this isn't what's happening here. Here we have two datasets our template's dataset in its entirety, and the dataset known in Astronomy as Hipparcos...we did limit these stars to those within 46 parsec (150ly)...

Computer template matching methods were then employed to look for and test our match...As for the reduction in the number of stars; I have paid the price of such an action in the vastly improved probabilities that this whole thing is a random event. However, the remaining probabilities still strongly indicate that this is not random in any way...

a reply to: tanka418

Sorry man, but inadequate...I have researched this, you obviously have not...

Seriously? Apparently you did not even bother to click on the link I provided for you.

And really??!!!?? Carl Segan?!!???

Do you have a problem with Carl Sagan?

It would appear that Carl spoke without knowing what he was talking about...and you talk about not doing research! HA!

Yes, what would the most eminent exobiologist of the last century know about the subject?

In Marjorie's work the criteria for star selection is stated, and is almost identical with mine...mine enjoys a little greater confidence due to more modern research and Astronomy.

In other words, you cherry picked the data.

Carl continues to ignore the mathematics involved...ya know its starting to sound like these aren't real Carl Sagan statements, but, be that as it may...the whole thing is rather disingenuous and ill-thought, it shows a serious lack of knowledge of the subject matter.

No, you do. If you had bothered to click on the link, you would have read this:

For the degree of resemblance between the two maps, Saunders claims that DR = 11 to 16 bits, which he admits is only a guess -- but we will let it stand. For the selection factor, he at first takes SF = log102C = 37.8 bits, where C represents the combinations of 46 things taken 14 at a time. Realizing that the size of this factor alone will cause SS to be negative and wipe out his argument, he makes a number of ad hoc adjustments based essentially on his interpretation of the internal logic of the Hill map, and SF somehow gets reduced to only 3.9 bits. For the present, we will let even that stand in order to avoid becoming embroiled in a discussion of how an explorer from the star Zeta Reticuli would choose to arrange his/her/its travel itinerary -- a matter about which we can claim no particular knowledge. However, we must bear in mind that a truly unprejudiced examination of the data with no a priori interpretations would give SF = 37.8 bits.

It is Saunders’ choice of the vantage point factor VP with which we must take strongest issue, for this is a matter of geometry and simple pattern recognition. Saunders assumes that free choice of the vantage point for viewing a three-dimensional model of 15 stars is worth only VP = 3 bits. He then reduces the information content of directionality to one bit by introducing the “constraint” that the star Zeta Tucanae be occulted by Zeta Reticuli (with no special notation on the Hill map to mark this peculiarity). This ad hoc device is invoked to explain the absence of Zeta Tucanae from the Hill map, but it reveals the circular reasoning involved. After all, why bother to calculate the statistical significance of the supposed map correlation if one has already decided which points represent which stars?

Certainly the selection of vantage point is worth more than three bits (not to mention one bit). Probably the easiest circumstance to recognize and remember about random projections of the model in question are the cases in which two stars appear to be immediately adjacent. By viewing the model from all possible directions, there are 14 distinct ways in which any given star can be seen in projection as adjacent to some other star. This can be done for each of the 15 stars, giving 210 projected configurations -- each of which would be recognized as substantially different from the others in information content. And of course there are many additional distinct recognizable projections of the 15 stars not involving any two being immediately adjacent (For example, three stars nearly equidistant in a straight line are easily recognized, as in Orion’s belt). Thus for a very conservative lower bound, the information content determined by choice of vantage point (that is, by being allowed to rotate the model about three axes) can be taken as at least equal to VP = log102(210) = 7.7 bits. Using the rest of Saunders’ analysis, this would at best yield SS = Zero to 4.4 bits -- not a very impressive correlation.

www.gravitywarpdrive.com...

Gotta love those straws,
right???

You are not using that expression properly.

Using Carl was not only a dishonor to him, but rather disingenuous on your part...Boo - Hiss...

Sorry, but Carl Sagan knew what he was talking about.

And of course it only shows what older, less informed opinions can be...

You mean like your retro opinions about the suitability of red dwarfs?

So...you outta straw yet? You should be, there really isn't anything you can say to debunk this, it is what I've said it is...

Yes, you are definitely using that expression wrong. I am not misrepresenting your position at all, I am pointing out its arbitrariness.

Betty's "map" is a match to selected stars in interstellar space viewed from: HIP-26737 RA: 85.21669, Decl:-31.350, Dist: ~122.3478ly and looking at HIP-22451

The match is actually quite precise, with estimated much less than 1% difference.

It also matches up to random dots and cities in England!

originally posted by: DJW001

Do you have a problem with Carl Sagan?

Only that your misunderstood use of his words dishonors him.

I mean seriously man...you have never taken an honest look at this...

"In Marjorie's work the criteria for star selection is stated, and is almost identical with mine...mine enjoys a little greater confidence due to more modern research and Astronomy. "

In other words, you cherry picked the data.

That is a very dishonest assertion, you know full well that there has been no cherry picking here, and yet you attempt to use it...

No, you do. If you had bothered to click on the link, you would have read this:

"For the degree of resemblance between the two maps, Saunders claims that DR = 11 to 16 bits, which he admits is only a guess -- but we will let it stand. For the selection factor, he at first takes SF = log102C = 37.8 bits, where C represents the combinations of 46 things taken 14 at a time. Realizing that the size of this factor alone will cause SS to be negative and wipe out his argument, he makes a number of ad hoc adjustments based essentially on his interpretation of the internal logic of the Hill map, and SF somehow gets reduced to only 3.9 bits. For the present, we will let even that stand in order to avoid becoming embroiled in a discussion of how an explorer from the star Zeta Reticuli would choose to arrange his/her/its travel itinerary -- a matter about which we can claim no particular knowledge. However, we must bear in mind that a truly unprejudiced examination of the data with no a priori interpretations would give SF = 37.8 bits.
"

Yeah...gotta love it...do you have any idea what is being said in all that? Did you know that it is seriously incomplete, and lacking basic declarations and definitions? No course not!

You are wholly ignorant of the fact that all that has nothing to do with the methodology used in my instance. Perhaps you should have paid closer attention...

Sorry, but Carl Sagan knew what he was talking about.

Yes probably most of the time, but you don't...

And Carl was wrong in that instance, as he obviously did not have all the facts...withholding important fact is a way for people like you to get what they want out of an unsuspecting authority...

You mean like your retro opinions about the suitability of red dwarfs?

Obviously you do not understand all the issues involved...

I am not misrepresenting your position at all, I am pointing out its arbitrariness.

No...actually you completely misunderstand what I've done, and because of that lack of understanding you misrepresent it. The "arbitrariness" you think you see is a manifestation of your lack of understanding.

Betty's "map" is a match to selected stars in interstellar space viewed from: HIP-26737 RA: 85.21669, Decl:-31.350, Dist: ~122.3478ly and looking at HIP-22451

The match is actually quite precise, with estimated much less than 1% difference.

It also matches up to random dots and cities in England!

Yes it does...and probably other places too, but, ya know, they just aren't cataloged stars, now are they?

Do you know why that remark of your was so disingenuous? . . . because you already know that we are matching to Hipparcos stars, and not to cities, or anything else...

You do this kind of thing all the time, you work in circles, make statements you know are false, you attempt to imply falsehood in every aspect. You have said a whole lot of thing, but you have not demonstrated that the template could be anything other that what it appears...see highlighted above!

You haven't honestly demonstrated anything in all this time...

a reply to: tanka418

Please stop answering objective observations with personal attacks. What you call "pattern matching to data set with logical constraints" is just a roundabout way of saying "cherry picking." All of the stars you have forced into Betty's drawing were selected by you to meet your preconceived-- and therefore arbitrary-- criteria. Please respond to the following list of objections without accusing me of being an idiot, as you seem compelled to do:

1. Why do you assume that Betty's story is anything other than a dream? It is filled with the illogic of dreams. The aliens operate their craft with their back to the windshield. Does that make sense?

2. If you believe Betty is misinterpreting things that really happened, what makes you think she understands that she was being shown a map? What if the alien was playing a joke on her, and was showing her an ET board game?

3. Why do you think Betty took such care to draw the bodies in the foreground as planets, specifying that the map showed stars and planets in her account of the incident? If you reject one part of her testimony, why do you retain other parts? Isn't that the definition of cherry picking?

4. Why would the aliens have a roll-up 3D map? Wouldn''t some sort of VR be more reasonable?

5. Why does the technology described always sound like it is the product of an unsophisticated imagination? Levers on the wall, needles, roll up maps....

6. What is the purpose of the map? "Trade routes" is a title, not a function.

7. Why does the leader show Betty the map and ask her if she knows where Earth is?

Once you have answered these questions, you can begin to evaluate whether there is any point to trying to match Betty's dream to "the real world. Then we can look at the lengthy list of arbitrary assumptions you have made about the map itself.