Stars of the Hill Map

originally posted by: tanka418
"Computers don't see." Is that a fact!??!

Yes, it is.

You speak like you know about computers and their programming...do you?

I can't speak for the member this was directed at, but I do know a significant bit about computers and how they function, and I now write code for a living. The fact that you even suggest that 'computers can see' makes it quite evident that you have no clue what you're talking about.

originally posted by: tanka418
An alternate view was requested so I put together this view of the stars of the "square root symbol" as viewed from Zeta Reticuli. Here we get to see how they might be seen from the Gray's homeworld. "Map" stars are 2X scale, and green in color.

If you could do this with the other maps AND perhaps show other close stars in blue, that would help. Or just remove all distant stars so there is as little noise as possible.

a reply to: tanka418

Tell me...why is it that you have to be so hostile about this?

Its just some peoples personality, stay on target ! Lets see some more maps.

originally posted by: tanka418
"Computers don't see." Is that a fact!??!

Yes, it is.

You speak like you know about computers and their programming...do you?

I can't speak for the member this was directed at, but I do know a significant bit about computers and how they function, and I now write code for a living. The fact that you even suggest that 'computers can see' makes it quite evident that you have no clue what you're talking about.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: tanka418
Stars of the Hill map

Sure is a lot of fudging going on to make that even vaguely fit the map.

Why would aliens have a map that shows the view of these supposed stars from Earth?

Harte

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: tanka418
"Computers don't see." Is that a fact!??!

Yes, it is.

You speak like you know about computers and their programming...do you?

I can't speak for the member this was directed at, but I do know a significant bit about computers and how they function, and I now write code for a living. The fact that you even suggest that 'computers can see' makes it quite evident that you have no clue what you're talking about.

Real quickly here;

If an architect asks you to code up an object, and asks me to code up a different one, for a system that will use both objects.

Do you need to know how my object works, internally, for you to successfully code your object?

So...on the issue of "computers seeing": www.pbs.org...
Y'all might want to actually research this a bit more...then perhaps you will begin to come up to speed in this area. Try Google!

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: tanka418
"Computers don't see." Is that a fact!??!

Yes, it is.

You speak like you know about computers and their programming...do you?

I can't speak for the member this was directed at, but I do know a significant bit about computers and how they function, and I now write code for a living. The fact that you even suggest that 'computers can see' makes it quite evident that you have no clue what you're talking about.

Real quickly here;

If an architect asks you to code up an object, and asks me to code up a different one, for a system that will use both objects.

Do you need to know how my object works, internally, for you to successfully code your object?

That would be entirely dependent on how said objects are utilized by the system and how they interact with one another. I fail to see how this is relevant to the topic.

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
That would be entirely dependent on how said objects are utilized by the system and how they interact with one another. I fail to see how this is relevant to the topic.

It was a fundamental "employment question" used over the past 30 years to see IF the candidate had knowledge of object oriented programming principals.

You failed...

I know the whole paradigm of Object Oriented Programming can be a bit daunting, but, cheer up, with experience and time you'll get the 'hang' of it...

So...on the issue of "computers seeing": www.pbs.org...

Y'all might want to actually research this a bit more...then perhaps you will begin to come up to speed in this area. Try Google!

Now then...this really is quite off topic...

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
If you could do this with the other maps AND perhaps show other close stars in blue, that would help. Or just remove all distant stars so there is as little noise as possible.

Well maybe some of that...you see the other stars aren't really "noise", and the color used in the images is actually "data". In that the rendered color denotes the "class" of the star. Thus class "G" is yellow, class "K" is orange, and class "B" is blue...colors are not arbitrarily assigned.

I've been updating some of my 3D images, to insure precision, and adding cameras to give other views. The process isn't quire automated so it does take some hours to compile a "view"

In this image the "map" stars are somewhat larger than "normal" and colored Green...this is to make it easier to "find" them...

originally posted by: Harte
Why would aliens have a map that shows the view of these supposed stars from Earth?

Harte

One of the most serious (IMO) is the lack of a "point of view" location. We are left guessing where that pov is for (in) the original.

Some of my most recent work has been an attempt to find that pov location, and of course it is not Earth...

In any case; I've found that this pov location is near: RA(deg) = 79.3, Decl = -34.8, Dist = 105.74ly

And yes my past guesses were just that; guesses...this location is a "measured" thing.

Ugh. This is becoming tiring and repetitive but...

originally posted by: tanka418

I/m not sure what your point is here; today's descriptions are wholly irrelevant.

Are you making the connection of "small gray men" with the Hill incident to other abductions with grays? Because Betty's initial description didn't fit into that stereotype. You mention in other posts these grays were "short, gray skinned, bald heads, large wrap around eyes, small ears, and almost absent noses." That's mighty close to the stereotype. When you look at the screen grab passage I posted from Walter Webbs report, you see a month or so after their encounter in 1961, aka the "first expression", she described them different than the popular gray. I don't recall of hearing many cases of gray aliens wearing blue uniforms, with dark/black hair, large Jimmy Durante noses, who spoke English with a foreign accent.

Now then...IF you wish to disprove / debunk my work...use science not rhetoric, not BS, but real, actual, science! Please do not try to discredit me with your BS and willed failure to comprehend...it is dishonest, and dishonorable.

Use science to debunk the existence of the stars you noted and the possibility that there may be a surrounding planet(s) around Zeta 1 or 2 that can harbor life? I don't think anyone would deny the possibility. However, your map and argument relies on the visual connection to Betty's map, as I've repeatedly said. That's my issue and as I've shown, there isn't a direct match. Even with the conditions you place on her map.

Tell me...why is it that you have to be so hostile about this?

What part of my post is hostile? Because when someone makes outrageous claims like having telepathic communication with aliens, verifiable evidence should be provided to back it up? That's not hostility, that's holding someone accountable for these wild claims. I generally ignore and chuckle to myself at some of the things you say. For example, you seem to think you're the foremost authority on "aliens" with a silly arrogant attitude of the topic. You do this while having zip to support your own claims. You're also condescending at times, as you have been on this page, on the topic of your choice. Your conviction can be quite funny but usually not worth mentioning otherwise. Sorry, but how can I have hostility towards someone I can't even take seriously?

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
Ugh. This is becoming tiring and repetitive but...

Yes it is isn't it; perhaps IF you could understand that these details you insist on bringing up have no affect on the probabilities of the template...thus they are, for the most part irrelevant.

Use science to debunk the existence of the stars you noted and the possibility that there may be a surrounding planet(s) around Zeta 1 or 2 that can harbor life? I don't think anyone would deny the possibility. However, your map and argument relies on the visual connection to Betty's map, as I've repeatedly said. That's my issue and as I've shown, there isn't a direct match. Even with the conditions you place on her map.

No...use science to disprove / debunk my hypothesis...that is what you should be doing IF you disagree...

Now, to that end; what is your issue with the "visual" connection? I'm fully aware that the whole thing depends on that "visual connection" that is why I went to great lengths to find and show that connection.

Just how is there no "direct match"? Or do you expect the match to be exact? You do understand that with the manner in which the template was communicated, an exact match isn't going to happen, thus Betty's map must be considered a "template" with the possibility of a less than exact match...the fidelity of the match we get (if there is one) then becomes a part of the overall equation.

The original to Betty's template was necessarily an artistic representation. It would be rather impractical for ET tp try to navigate using something like that, so...their "maps" are like mine...an artistic representation...

Betty's production of her map was the a post hypnotic suggestion; thus is can not be considered anything other than an artistic representation.

So we have ET distorting his image, and Betty adding even more distortion to the final "template". And you expecting . . . what? An exact match? That seems a but illogical doesn't it?

But, what we end up with is a match of the template with Stars of the Hipparcos dataset, within 33 parsec (< 33)...I've already told you what the probability for that is...virtually non existent!

What part of my post is hostile?

The tone...

Because when someone makes outrageous claims like having telepathic communication with aliens,

And those comments are / were off topic. You are trying to condemn me for other things that you refuse to attempt understanding of, simply because you don't like what I said...

You continue to attempt to debunk /discredit me wholly without addressing the current hypothesis. Which, at the moment is the only applicable topic.

So...if you have something that addresses the hypothesis, please continue...

By the way; I should thank you. Reactions like yours, that I tend to characterize as "jack ass" seem to be more productive for me. They do tend to compel me to recheck my data, and that Sir; is always a good thing. And I do indeed thank you for that.
(and yes my reaction and characterization are out of logical proportion...so much for being a thinking sentient)

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

The fact that you even suggest that 'computers can see' makes it quite evident that you have no clue what you're talking about.

Really? With facial recognition software where its at, you dont think modern software can recognize a few dots?

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

The fact that you even suggest that 'computers can see' makes it quite evident that you have no clue what you're talking about.

Really? With facial recognition software where its at, you dont think modern software can recognize a few dots?

Facial recognition barely scratches the surface...

Some of the applications I have for Computer Vision, in addition to this project, is the recognition of worm hole signatures in high resolution images of space. Also the recognition of "gravity lensing", and some other stuff for my telescope. All with the intent of building an instrument that can help search for exoplanets.

Something my naysayers are missing is that this hypothesis was made possible by me collecting libraries so that I can enable my telescope...

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

The fact that you even suggest that 'computers can see' makes it quite evident that you have no clue what you're talking about.

Really? With facial recognition software where its at, you dont think modern software can recognize a few dots?

Of course it can. It does so, however, by recognizing patterns, shapes, color/alpha values, and edges; It doesn't "see" anything.

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

The fact that you even suggest that 'computers can see' makes it quite evident that you have no clue what you're talking about.

Really? With facial recognition software where its at, you dont think modern software can recognize a few dots?

Of course it can. It does so, however, by recognizing patterns, shapes, color/alpha values, and edges; It doesn't "see" anything.

And, you think you do something more?

Your notions are obviously biased...some sort of biological bias perhaps? In any case you ideas are primitive...as I suggested; you might want to come up to speed concerning computer vision.

ETA:

See

verb (used with object), saw, seen, seeing.

1. to perceive with the eyes; look at.

2. to view; visit or attend as a spectator:
to see a play.

3. to perceive by means of computer vision.

4. to scan or view, especially by electronic means:
The satellite can see the entire southern half of the country.

-- www.dictionary.com...


As anyone can easily "see" the use of the word "see" in this context is entirely appropriate...you are wrong...computers are indeed capable of "seeing".

a reply to: tanka418

Excellent rebuttal!

I wonder whether you will get an apology?

I don't understand why some people have to waste thread 'space' nit-picking over semantics and details that have nothing to do with the essential point of the OP!

originally posted by: Harte
Why would aliens have a map that shows the view of these supposed stars from Earth?
Harte

I don't have a problem with that. My GPS map always shows the roads from where I am, not from some random place out in the sky.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Harte
Why would aliens have a map that shows the view of these supposed stars from Earth?
Harte

I don't have a problem with that. My GPS map always shows the roads from where I am, not from some random place out in the sky.

Really?!!? It might seem that your GPS is smarter than you...as it references itself to something relevant to you...

Kind of like the map... Earth wouldn't be a relevant reference...and that point out in space; not so random after all...

Here is another view on those stars; this time from Earth...