Stars of the Hill Map

originally posted by: lostgirl
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!

but but then you couldnt fly into the thread and declare the OP doesnt know what hes talking about! Gotta be cool like Fonzy.

Tanka,

When I said:

Computers don't see, they detect and collect measurements/calculations based on the model it was programmed to work from.

You could have responded by making the argument that the quote above is exactly how human's see also, just that humans use carbon based biology and not actual machinery and not digital software.

Then we could have just both agreed that it was only a semantics issue and moved on. I mean, I think we all know how computers generally work. We are using them to argue with each other right now. Right?

But back to the topic of the thread. Like I said before I genuinely do appreciate the work you've put into plotting these star charts because it is interesting. And I think that most of the people that have posted in this thread think that the Betty/Barney Hill case is also interesting enough to be worthy of scientific inquiry & open discussion.

So let's all just drop the computer's do/don't see argument and agree to take the thread forward from here on out.

I'll still post my Psy-Op theory, eventually. Life in the real world is still taking up most of my time. It should slow down this weekend.

And also, if somebody else want's to get the Psy-Op theory started with their own data that would be cool, too.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
So let's all just drop the computer's do/don't see argument and agree to take the thread forward from here on out.

Works for me...I was thinking that that question was off topic. But after thinking about it more I decided that it was a valid line of discussion. After all I do use computer vision methodology in my analysis...unfortunately few seem interested in "how" / "why" this template is unique, and unique enough to be paradigm shifting.

Although, many of the arguments and objections have caused me to return to my data, and 3D models to verify my interpretations, and refine the system.

a reply to: tanka418

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...

I believe when you evaluate the claims of someone, it's important for their history past and present make up part of that evaluation. What may be perceived as a scientific approach may have a lot more background bias involved than you're aware of. It's as simple as that.

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...
So we have ET distorting his image

I guess the Mort Drucker of alien cartographers?

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

Another pointless attempt tanka418 and I've grown bored with this going back and forth. The bottom line: You make huge assumptions and jump to conclusions and do it with ridiculous arrogance and conviction. "Just you terrestrials" wait and see, huh?

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

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

Another pointless attempt tanka418 and I've grown bored with this going back and forth. The bottom line: You make huge assumptions and jump to conclusions and do it with ridiculous arrogance and conviction. "Just you terrestrials" wait and see, huh?

Yes I am aware that it is probably senseless to try to get you to actually address this data and instance with science, but,, I have to try...

And, that "ridiculous arrogance and convection"? is the result of science...sot it isn't really arrogance though the convection is properly sensed.

So, tell us; what is your objection to using science? Do you not believe in science? Or do you simply have trust issues with things you don't want to understand?

You talk of becoming "bored" with this...yet, you have not contributed at all to this discussion beyond getting me to check my data...So just how "bored" do you think everyone else is with your; "I've made up my mind; science won't change it!" sort of attitude?

I mean; hell man, you can't even make an argument for using the less relevant aspects of this. And you speak of my arrogance...

By the way: If you should think of something that can actually affect this analysis; please let me know...

One of the more serious issues with this interpretation was the Point Of View...just "where" in the cosmos was this viewed from. A property that would be quite handy to know...

In Betty's template, there is no indication of "where" this POV is located, other than in a place that can "see" all of the requisite stars. Even in Ms. Fish's work there is no indication of where this elusive place is.

In my original work on this I limited the stars to those within 33 parsec (3.26ly) or about 107.5ly. I noticed that the POV is outside this range, but didn't do anything about it, almost as if this POV wasn't necessary. I sort of felt that I could easily find a "view" that would work for "illustration" purposes...and while true, omitting this wee bit of data was actually depriving me (us) of valuable additional data.

Today I added about 3000 more stars and extended the range of my 3D models to 46 parsec (149.96ly), a process that required that I build a shell of stars and add them to my existing 3D model...not difficult, but, a bit time consuming.

I had marked my POV guess and after adding the new stars I used the "camera" positioned at the POV to look around. The logic here is that if ET were going to have such a "map" that it almost must have some real world "object" (pov) closely associated with it.

Enter HIP-26737...a Class "G", 7.7 billion old star that is a short 122.35ly from Earth, and only a short distance from my guess.

One of the objections that has been raised is that Ms. Fish selected for a very narrow range of stellar class. And indeed this is relevant right up to the time that One actually confronts the stars, then One comes to terms with the idea that there aren't enough "M" class stars to "fit the bill", making Ms. Fish's intentional bias non-significant.

The point I'm working toward is that Ms. Fish had no influence on the stars beyond 33 parsec...in that she did not select them. It was remarked once that; "if ET were going to give us a map, it would be like the Hill map". With the POV also being a "G" class star, this idea is significantly reinforced, and the probabilities become orders of magnitude smaller that this "template" is a random thing.

So...there we have it...the location of the maps Point of view; HIP-26737...RA:85.2166, Decl: -31.35, Dist: 37.53 parsec (122.3478ly)

Now then...y'all do understand that the probability of that star being where I needed it to be is virtually non existent!...
1.9841e-90...(imagine this number with 89 "0's" in front of it)

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: tanka418

I believe when you evaluate the claims of someone, it's important for their history past and present make up part of that evaluation. What may be perceived as a scientific approach may have a lot more background bias involved than you're aware of. It's as simple as that.

Demonstrate please...I would like to know what you're speaking of...

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

Another pointless attempt tanka418 and I've grown bored with this going back and forth. The bottom line: You make huge assumptions and jump to conclusions and do it with ridiculous arrogance and conviction. "Just you terrestrials" wait and see, huh?

This forum is already practically dead, imo due in large part to garbage like this. I feel the Bob Lazar threads are a total waste of time as well, but so what, if people want to keep talking about it, so be it. I usually make a post or two and leave the thread, if I post at all. You dont have to convince the OP he is wrong and you are right for the earth to keep spinning.

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

This forum is already practically dead, imo due in large part to garbage like this. I feel the Bob Lazar threads are a total waste of time as well, but so what, if people want to keep talking about it, so be it. I usually make a post or two and leave the thread, if I post at all. You dont have to convince the OP he is wrong and you are right for the earth to keep spinning.

Most would be quite hard pressed to convince me this is wrong. Especially when I get small, and rather pleasant surprises from the data. Like the discovery of a class "G" star, of appropriate age for advanced life, at a location that is also very appropriate for the original point of view.

Although, he may have a point, if he would just articulate it, it could be evaluated.

For instance; it is difficult to see how the application of science might bias the result. Such has been said, but no model presented. I would like to point out that Betty's original drawing is a sort of "fixed" mechanical sort of thing, at least in it origins. That being true, logically there is no amount of psychology, interpretation of report, etc. that can affect the probability of that collection of dots matching any collection of near by stars. Thus the probability of random is fixed and can not be affected by Betty's story.

On the other hand; IF betty's template did have a match in the stars near Earth, then the probabilities of the story are greatly affected, and have a significantly greater probability of being real.

I've seen, computed, those probabilities, evidenced by my white paper (which already needs updating), so I actually have good, tangible cause to invest a bit more confidence in Betty's story...

a reply to: tanka418

just a little background on the first interpretation of the map, from this wiki page

In 1968, Marjorie Fish of Oak Harbor, Ohio read Fuller's Interrupted Journey. She was an elementary school teacher and amateur astronomer. Intrigued by the "star map", Fish wondered if it might be "deciphered" to determine which star system the UFO came from. Assuming that one of the fifteen stars on the map must represent the Earth's Sun, Fish constructed a three-dimensional model of nearby Sun-like stars using thread and beads, basing stellar distances on those published in the 1969 Gliese Star Catalogue. Studying thousands of vantage points over several years, the only one that seemed to match the Hill map was from the viewpoint of the double star system of Zeta Reticuli.

Distance information needed to match three stars, forming the distinctive triangle Hill said she remembered, was not generally available until the 1969 Gliese Catalogue came out.

If this is in fact the group of stars the picture represents, there is no way in my mind it was implanted by the hypnotist as it took an extended period of time looking at 3D models which she constructed herself to come up with it. Some of the data wasnt even available.

It could be argued that the points represent something else(if anything at all), from the same wiki page

In 1993, two German crop circle enthusiasts, Joachim Koch and Hans-Jürgen Kyborg, suggested that the map depicted planets in the Solar System, not nearby stars. The objects in the map, they said, closely match the positions of the Sun, the six inner planets and several asteroids around the time of the incident.[32] This would parallel other abduction accounts where witnesses claim to be shown such depictions, though admittedly often elaborate and unmistakably the Solar System

Interesting argument, unfortunately it is nothing more than hand waving at the moment without seeing the details of it. I doubt this argument, but I did see another page where the points seemed to line up with a map of the invasion of Normady that hung in hotel where the NAACP held its meetings in the 60s. Whether it was this map or something else, it cant be dismissed completely.

a reply to: tanka418

Ive been looking for some maps to make this clearer, and there is some interesting stuff out there.

Maybe something like this map , where the zetas are the center.

One map with potentially habitable stars, then another map with all the stars around the zetas.


A nice clear map with the star names of your interpretation would be helpful as well, like the one below of the fish map

a reply to: tanka418

It looks like there has been some work on this, have you ever looked at

Charles A. Huffer publishes his detailed critique of Betty Hill’s Star Map and Marjorie Fish’s interpretation of it in his complimentary review of Captured, Kathleen Marden’s book about her Aunt and Uncle Betty and Barney Hill and their pivotal alien abduction experience.

or

Brett Holman's critique

I havent found either one of the readily available online, but will see what I can turn up next week.

a reply to: tanka418

Have you ever considered Atterberg map? From the same wiki page as before

the Skeptic Robert Sheaffer, in an accompanying article said that a map devised by Charles W. Atterberg, about the same time as Fish, was an even better match to Hill's map and made more sense. The base stars, Epsilon Indi and Epsilon Eridani, plus the others were also closer to the Sun than the Hill map

a reply to: tanka418

For the 2 zetas, Ectoplasm8 pointed out the following earlier

When Betty's map shows two large stars/planets with multiple lines drawn to and from it as a central point, yeah, they should be reflected on your map. If it can't be done by tilting your map, that means it would have to be a version that's close to these objects. The problem is once you get in that close, you lose all of your other stars

If the map is real, I think the zetas are blown up on the map and not to scale, thats just me though.

a reply to: Harte

The Fish map was from the Zeta point of view, which makes sense to me at least. Not being from that point of view increases the likelihood of this being a fluke of some sort.

a reply to: 111DPKING111

Ive been looking for some maps to make this clearer, and there is some interesting stuff out there.

Indeed...The simplified image below is actually an example. This image, unlike ALL others of the Hill map has a feature that is quite unique; An established Point of View. All of the others left us guessing where it was being viewed from, and guess as we might, I've never seen a real answer to that question.

I built the image below by including more stars. Originally I built my 3D models to use only stars within 100 ly (33 parsec), figuring that that should be more than enough space. Unfortunately I allowed my "Terrecentric" thinking to influence my models. The 33 parsec was indeed appropriate, however, Sol as the center was not.

In my models I expanded the search to 46 parsec (about 150ly), and lo and behold; a star appeared at 122 ly that was almost "on top" of the pov I was using (it was a guess).

It should be noted that while the images I post, and those of others are essentially "flattened" 3D, so when moving the pov around, some stars move faster than others (near ones), so the "image" can be destroyed rather quickly. There is a "window" of sorts, however, through which this "template" can be observed, though I have not measured it yet...

A nice clear map with the star names of your interpretation would be helpful as well,

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
a reply to: tanka418

For the 2 zetas, Ectoplasm8 pointed out the following earlier

When Betty's map shows two large stars/planets with multiple lines drawn to and from it as a central point, yeah, they should be reflected on your map. If it can't be done by tilting your map, that means it would have to be a version that's close to these objects. The problem is once you get in that close, you lose all of your other stars

If the map is real, I think the zetas are blown up on the map and not to scale, thats just me though.

Yep...

Which is "why" the hill drawing can only be used as a template...

The problem is that IF we situate ourselves in a place where we can "see" everything properly; the two Zetas appear as a single star. Thus it is logical to think that the "Zeta" stars are artificially large...

As I said; Betty's drawing is an artistic representation of an artistic representation of interstellar space. Still reasonably accurate, in that One should be able to recognize "where" it is, but not a pixel by pixel match to what it represents...

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
a reply to: tanka418

For the 2 zetas, Ectoplasm8 pointed out the following earlier

When Betty's map shows two large stars/planets with multiple lines drawn to and from it as a central point, yeah, they should be reflected on your map. If it can't be done by tilting your map, that means it would have to be a version that's close to these objects. The problem is once you get in that close, you lose all of your other stars

If the map is real, I think the zetas are blown up on the map and not to scale, thats just me though.

Yep...

Which is "why" the hill drawing can only be used as a template...

The problem is that IF we situate ourselves in a place where we can "see" everything properly; the two Zetas appear as a single star. Thus it is logical to think that the "Zeta" stars are artificially large...

As I said; Betty's drawing is an artistic representation of an artistic representation of interstellar space. Still reasonably accurate, in that One should be able to recognize "where" it is, but not a pixel by pixel match to what it represents...

So your saying it's a template and the actual star positions could vary?? Or in other words it's interpretation right. Betty made several maps all different I looked into this because I was very interested however when you look at the story it just falls apart. I mean look at his story it starts out as the alien looking likea wraromg a lather jacket anf black scarf, and a nice little hat. a bad 50s movie with a leather jacket or a Frenchman you choose. Later it transforms into a bald big eyed space gorilla.

Her story changed almost on every retelling for the first couple of years as well. And then there is just the odd details which date thr technology involved. For example the claim that they watched a guy through binoculars pull a lever and wings extended from the craft. Come on aline have the tech to fly millions of miles to get here and they have to pull a lever like they were on a sub in the 1920s like Nemo in 20 thousand leagues. This tells us immediately the technological advancement were based off television in thr 50s. I mean even star trek would have Scotty pulling levers to activate anything on the enterprise. Her original description was of aliens with huge noses like Jimmy Durante. Claimed that had jet black hair and otherwise looked human.Later on they transform into greys with no nose as she gets more familiar with alien lore. Finally want to see her abduction story go on Netflix watch invaders from mars you'll also see a star chart in that that looks remarkably similar to hers but of course they didn't see the movie I'm sure.

originally posted by: dragonridr
So your saying it's a template and the actual star positions could vary?? Or in other words it's interpretation right. Betty made several maps all different I looked into this because I was very interested however when you look at the story it just falls apart. I mean look at his story it starts out as the alien looking likea wraromg a lather jacket anf black scarf, and a nice little hat. a bad 50s movie with a leather jacket or a Frenchman you choose. Later it transforms into a bald big eyed space gorilla.

You do understand that we're not evaluating the story, only this specific map (template)...

And this template is quite remarkable...precisely the sort of thing ET would give someone as a view on their domain.