It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Stars of the Hill Map

page: 6
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

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.



You can't separate the two thr map was invented using a chart in a movie about alien abductions. She drew the map and her story changed after thr movie came out.




posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

If it was invented using a chart in a movie, it isnt widely known or at least accepted. Having read a few skeptical right ups like Brian Dunning , they make no mention of this as even a possible source.

If the atterberg map is almost equally as good, I do think it diminishes the Hill map.

Still looking for a way to confirm Tanka's map using another online source.



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

downloaded and its really clear, thanks !
edit on 4-4-2016 by 111DPKING111 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 11:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: tanka418

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.



You can't separate the two thr map was invented using a chart in a movie about alien abductions. She drew the map and her story changed after thr movie came out.


You'll be needing to include links...
Name of the movie,
Bettys early maps (the one she changed)
And, the "chart" from the movie...

That should get us started...

And you are also aware that the "map" is of interstellar space, right?



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 11:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
a reply to: tanka418

downloaded and its really clear, thanks !


np...with the new discoveries I've made recently, I needed to build new images...

Do you know where I can find a good copy of the Attenberg interpretation? I've been looking, but with little luck.

I'm wanting to do an analysis of the alternate interpretations to see how valid they are, and maybe comment on them...



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 02:06 AM
link   
Betty mentioned both stars and planets in her written account:

Logically, she would draw the largest points as planets and the smaller far away points as stars. You can see she put a curved line on both nickel-sized circles to represent the curvature of an object- a planet. Something straight out of any adult art class:


To suggest this is an exaggerated alien parody or caricature map of what this spot in space really looks like, is comical. That explanation happens to explain away the inconsistencies though, don't it? C'mon tanka418, you're appealing to the heavily biased or the gullible and naive. Those that are easily swayed by someone that spins science and mathematics into their claims and uses unsupported excuses. You're also suggesting the thought pattern of aliens is the same as humans.

You get to cherry pick the story:
- You claim the Hill testimony was "deliberately corrupted, misunderstood, filled with 'others' interpretations."
- BUT, you pick to support Betty's mentioning of the words "short and gray" because it fits the abduction lore.

You get to cherry pick the map:
- "her drawing is a crude representation of an artistic representation..."
- BUT, you pick to use it just as a general guide because then it may work with your map.

Can you not see the conditions you have placed in order to get your belief across this was a true account of alien abduction? You've put so many conditions to this incident that the main structure of the map and story falls apart and you can remold it to what you want.

Betty says the leader asks her where Earth is on the map:

Earth isn't even represented at all on your map. Since you say it isn't there, the logical question to Betty would have been where is your sun, not Earth.

I'll point out for a third time the inconsistency of marking our sun as solid lined trade route, i.e. an established explored area with something of value to exchange, mine etc., while Betty and Barney described this encounter as an exploration of our species. It should be drawn as a dashed lined, yet-to-be explored planet/star, not one with multiple single lines.

You're not going to convince me, I'm not going to convince you. Our bias on both sides is probably equal. But it's the claimants responsibility to provide convincing evidence with something as incredible as an alien species abducting humans. I'm not okay with a kinda/maybe match in this situation. To me, it's deserves more than that.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 04:16 AM
link   
Aliens had a 1960's-style pull-down spring-loaded map.
We don't even use those in school anymore.

Harte



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Harte
Aliens had a 1960's-style pull-down spring-loaded map.
We don't even use those in school anymore.

Harte


And lever controls to fly the ship the technology was dated and wasn't advanced at all. I'm betting they used a chalk board to. She was crazy she would take people to the site of her abduction and than claim to see the craft in a field strangely she was the only one who could see it. When asked she said they allow her to see it. This reminds me if thr invisible dragon look it's right there lol.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418


Oh, sorry man; but it's not what I see in the data, rather what the computer sees...


No, it's what Betty Hill sees... and it's not data, it is imagination. You conveniently forget that Ms. Hill herself identified the stars in the map:



As you know, I am working on a critique of the case, so I won't go in to detail here, but obviously, the pattern used to "match" Zeta Reticulum does not match the pattern Ms. Hill indicates here.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418


And you are also aware that the "map" is of interstellar space, right?


Either that, or a live image of the Solar System, as theorized here:

www.kochkyborg.de...



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
Betty mentioned both stars and planets in her written account:



This text you so like to insert as an image...

Where is it from?
Why does it seem substantially different that the Webb report on the nicap site. For instance, the same text on the nicap site, in some instances, is contained in a PDF (portable document format :: fully searchable text), while all that you have posted are "image" data...

Thank you by the way for your response...I wanted to get this bit out first. I'll address the rest of your post after I've had a chance to digest what you've said.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Interesting info you have Tanaka. I would be interested in seeing the 3D model if that would be ok. I actually do 3D work and would like to see it in 3D space. Also the equation you use 1:1.71e+86 I will admit I can't seem to get a decent answer of the number since I'm not experienced with the plum scale (I believe that's the right one yes?) I'm use to base 10/power of. None the less I am liking the the info.
edit on 4/5/2016 by Keiyentai because: Typo



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Keiyentai
Interesting info you have Tanaka. I would be interested in seeing the 3D model if that would be ok. I actually do 3D work and would like to see it in 3D space. Also the equation you use 1:1.71e+86 I will admit I can't seem to get a decent answer of the number since I'm not experienced with the plum scale (I believe that's the right one yes?) I'm use to base 10/power of. None the less I am liking the the info.


3D model...I can provide that in pz3, 3ds, obj , or lwo...I use Poser Pro for much of my 3D work. This construct is all Hipparcos stars less than or equal to a distance of 56 parsec from Sol, with Sol as the origin.

The pz3 (poser) file will come with three "dolly cameras"; the POV view from HIP-26737, another from Zeta Reticuli, and the third from Sol...

And no, that is an ordinary power of 10, but, in engineering notation, and of course base 10...
try this:
1 : 1.7 X 10 +86...doesn't render is plain text well...that is 1.7 times 10 to the +86...so basically 1 in 17 followed by 85 zeros (0). Its an obscenely small value...

But, let me know what format you would like for the 3D file, and I'll put it up on my server...

edit on 5-4-2016 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Ok I thought it was roughly 17 by86 as for format I have Poser Pro 11 and also Maya 2015 so the poser file or .obj would work fine. If I still had Lightwave I would go with the .lwo but my copy is way out of date and ironically the first 3D app I used that was a Full 3D package back in 1998. O_o how 3D has changed. I should actually be home with in the next couple of hours. Thanks for letting me take a look at it, not often you see non human models in Poser.



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418


Oh, sorry man; but it's not what I see in the data, rather what the computer sees...


No, it's what Betty Hill sees... and it's not data, it is imagination. You conveniently forget that Ms. Hill herself identified the stars in the map:



As you know, I am working on a critique of the case, so I won't go in to detail here, but obviously, the pattern used to "match" Zeta Reticulum does not match the pattern Ms. Hill indicates here.


Ya know I thought I had already addressed those stars, and, indeed I have...if you look back on page 2 you will find a post detailing those stars. my conclusions were:



Star Class Dist
___________________
Alpheratz A3 97
Algenib B2 390
Baham A2 92
Enif K2 690
Homam B8 204
markab B9 133
Matar G2/F0 167
Scheat M2 196

Of these stars, none are suitable for the kind of life that might make them interesting, or have a "trading" opportunity. Most are the wrong class for advanced sentient life, most are for too young to have life at all. With two exceptions they are too far away to be considered as a candidate for the map, unless it is a map with no logical point or purpose.


Perhaps you should have read more of he thread...

Your other straw, where you say something about a "live image of the Solar System"...rather poor. In that the serious changes are required in the template to allow a match.

The idea of it being a map of the Solar System showing planets and asteroids...the problem is that there are no decent maps of the asteroids extant even today, much less than the 1960's...to that notion just isn't very viable...nor workable.

Here is a modern reconstruction of the "image" Betty saw; with the "dramatic FX" removed.





edit on 5-4-2016 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Keiyentai
Ok I thought it was roughly 17 by86 as for format I have Poser Pro 11 and also Maya 2015 so the poser file or .obj would work fine. If I still had Lightwave I would go with the .lwo but my copy is way out of date and ironically the first 3D app I used that was a Full 3D package back in 1998. O_o how 3D has changed. I should actually be home with in the next couple of hours. Thanks for letting me take a look at it, not often you see non human models in Poser.


Okay...pz3 it is...

wolfmagick.com...

Sorry the ATS editor doesn't want me to post links...

Anyway, that link is to a zip file with two files in it;

1; all stars less than or equal to 46 parsec distance
2; 25 stars I've used to build my model of the "map" itself...

All stars are labeled/nameed with their Hipparcos id, some have flamsteed/bayer designations as well.

Lighting isn't as good as I would like it, but, I haven't been working that...
The ambient color value on most stars is set to black, hence they're lack of luster...there seems to be a bug in the python interpreter in Pro 2012...2009 as well apparently...

The coloring of the stars is done to reflect they're stellar class:

Blue..............class B
blue/white......class A
white.............class F
yellow............class G
orange............class K
red................class M

Core "map" stars may be green...



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
Betty mentioned both stars and planets in her written account:

Logically, she would draw the largest points as planets and the smaller far away points as stars. You can see she put a curved line on both nickel-sized circles to represent the curvature of an object- a planet. Something straight out of any adult art class:



Logically...ET wouldn't include any planets in his map. However, he might, in his "caricature map" exaggerate the size of his home world to assist in getting the point across...



To suggest this is an exaggerated alien parody or caricature map of what this spot in space really looks like, is comical. That explanation happens to explain away the inconsistencies though, don't it? C'mon tanka418, you're appealing to the heavily biased or the gullible and naive. Those that are easily swayed by someone that spins science and mathematics into their claims and uses unsupported excuses. You're also suggesting the thought pattern of aliens is the same as humans.



I presume you know what a "theory" is:


a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained:


Now then; of course it explains things, that is what a theory is supposed to do. After the stating of the theory it is typically up to the originator to provide supporting data...let me know where I've failed.

I don't find anything "comical" at all...the reality, that you refuse to accept, is that this map (betty's) really is "what this spot in space really looks like"...like it or not. And, anybody with reasonably functioning eyes can easily see that.

"unsupported excuses"...there ya go again with the foundationless BS...be specific man, or keep your peace...



You get to cherry pick the story:
- You claim the Hill testimony was "deliberately corrupted, misunderstood, filled with 'others' interpretations."
- BUT, you pick to support Betty's mentioning of the words "short and gray" because it fits the abduction lore.



I also "claim" that the "story" has no affect on the probabilities of the map being "random". The being random is required by your hypothesis.

You speak as if I had tried to cast those things in stone or something...



You get to cherry pick the map:
- "her drawing is a crude representation of an artistic representation..."
- BUT, you pick to use it just as a general guide because then it may work with your map.



You have no idea why I choose that...so you try to invent something...your bad!

I choose the map because all of the surrounding BS can not affect the probabilities of it being random. It doesn't matter how much BS is heaped on it, it is a mechanical representation of a distribution of stars. The relationships of each star is fixed in space and may therefore be analyzed to see if there is any correlation with reality...it turns out there is...hence my paper and this thread.




Can you not see the conditions you have placed in order to get your belief across this was a true account of alien abduction? You've put so many conditions to this incident that the main structure of the map and story falls apart and you can remold it to what you want.


Again you are mistaken. I'm not trying to "prove" alien abduction. I'm proving that Betty's map wasn't random, and is in fact a map of select stars in near by space...



Earth isn't even represented at all on your map. Since you say it isn't there, the logical question to Betty would have been where is your sun, not Earth.



I'm not at all sure what this is supposed to mean...no Earth isn't represented on the maps, per se', however Sol is.



I'll point out for a third time the inconsistency of marking our sun as solid lined trade route, i.e. an established explored area with something of value to exchange, mine etc., while Betty and Barney described this encounter as an exploration of our species. It should be drawn as a dashed lined, yet-to-be explored planet/star, not one with multiple single lines.



On this I think we shall kind of agree...it is rather curious...



You're not going to convince me, I'm not going to convince you. Our bias on both sides is probably equal. But it's the claimants responsibility to provide convincing evidence with something as incredible as an alien species abducting humans. I'm not okay with a kinda/maybe match in this situation. To me, it's deserves more than that.


Nor am I trying to convince you. I'll be honest here, I think you a border line idiot at times, who refuses to use common logic and sense...I suspect you think the same of me at times. But, you are far superior for discussing these thing than any of those who might be called "beleivers", they will mostly agree, while you challenge everything. I need that challenge to sort out this stuff...some have talked about the rigors of science; well here it is...like it or leave...it can be harsh, but it always leads to truth and understanding.

I have provided what I feel should be compelling data. I disagree vehemently with your "kinda/maybe" characterization. And, I have provided data that explains "why" this is a much stronger match than you give it credit for.

Thanks for this response...wonderful stuff...



edit on 5-4-2016 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Awesome I'll pull the zip when I get on my computer. I can figure the lighting that's actually one of my strong points in 3D lighting and shadows. If you want when I get a look at it I can see if I can make the lighting easier to view things. Either way will definitely check it out when I can pull it from my computer after I get stuff done.



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418


Ya know I thought I had already addressed those stars, and, indeed I have...if you look back on page 2 you will find a post detailing those stars. my conclusions were:



Star Class Dist
___________________
Alpheratz A3 97
Algenib B2 390
Baham A2 92
Enif K2 690
Homam B8 204
markab B9 133
Matar G2/F0 167
Scheat M2 196

Of these stars, none are suitable for the kind of life that might make them interesting, or have a "trading" opportunity. Most are the wrong class for advanced sentient life, most are for too young to have life at all. With two exceptions they are too far away to be considered as a candidate for the map, unless it is a map with no logical point or purpose.


Exactly; it proves that it is not a map, nor does it have a logical purpose. Remember when I tried to warn you of the danger of "front loading?" This happens when you choose a data set designed to yield a specific result. Out of the set of all stars, you chose yellow stars and tried to fit some into the pattern, as a result, you were able to conclude that all the stars on the "map" could have habitable planets. This is like choosing the set of all bald headed left handed men, or all cities starting with the letter "N," then doing some sort of operation. If one out of five left handed bald headed men did jail time, can you conclude that this is related to their hair or handedness? If 5% of the cities starting with "N" have populations over one million, can you conclude anything? No, you need to establish a control group. In the case of bald lefties, you would need to compare the statistics to the general population. If 20% incarceration is not unusual, then there is no relevant correlation to handedness. Where is your control group?

If the same pattern can be traced using random stars, it means your "solution" is not unique. It is just a random hit, which you have front loaded to look significant (like trying to prove bald lefties have criminal tendencies in the above example.)


Your other straw, where you say something about a "live image of the Solar System"...rather poor. In that the serious changes are required in the template to allow a match.


Have you tested it? I have... you have to be a bit above the ecliptic, but it is every bit as good a match as your star field. It explains why the bodies in the foreground are clearly depicted as discs showing a phase.


The idea of it being a map of the Solar System showing planets and asteroids...the problem is that there are no decent maps of the asteroids extant even today, much less than the 1960's...to that notion just isn't very viable...nor workable.


Ah... you may be starting to catch on. We actually have excellent ephemerides for all of the bodies allegedly shown in the drawing. You can't "map" bodies in motion though, can you? All you can do is show their position at a given instant of time. Why would a space traveler have a static map that does not show all of the little bodies they might bump in to as they travel through space?

I have much, much more to say on this, but I need to leave for work.


edit on 6-4-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418

Exactly; it proves that it is not a map, nor does it have a logical purpose.


Well...firstly; No it has proven nothing...except that anyone can enter into this discussion, and without benefit of knowing what is being discussed, can make a complete fool of themselves.

Ya know, I stopped at stellar class, and "fitness" for inclusion in the "map"...after all ET wouldn't put stars in his map that were not relevant. As none of those stars are.

I also didn't go into the actual position of those stars, which, as it turns out, don't line up very well either.



Remember when I tried to warn you of the danger of "front loading?" This happens when you choose a data set designed to yield a specific result. Out of the set of all stars, you chose yellow stars and tried to fit some into the pattern, as a result, you were able to conclude that all the stars on the "map" could have habitable planets.


You are not paying attention; IF you will notice there are more than just "yellow" stars in the map...in fact, when I entered the query to "find" the stars...there was no criteria specified on the stellar class...so I got everything...



This is like choosing the set of all bald headed left handed men, or all cities starting with the letter "N," then doing some sort of operation. If one out of five left handed bald headed men did jail time, can you conclude that this is related to their hair or handedness? If 5% of the cities starting with "N" have populations over one million, can you conclude anything? No, you need to establish a control group. In the case of bald lefties, you would need to compare the statistics to the general population. If 20% incarceration is not unusual, then there is no relevant correlation to handedness. Where is your control group?



"Control group?" Seriously?!? I think you are confusing this with some other area of inquiry...

No, seriously nan, you illustration here is non-relevant, non-applicable...And, it would appear as though you are trying to confuse the field here with BS...



If the same pattern can be traced using random stars, it means your "solution" is not unique.


Well that is where I'm in luck...that "pattern" can't be traced by random stars...so the solution remains unique...




Have you tested it? I have... you have to be a bit above the ecliptic, but it is every bit as good a match as your star field. It explains why the bodies in the foreground are clearly depicted as discs showing a phase.


Have you now?!!!? Could you please link the procedure used to make those computations? And could you please link your source to the astrometric data you used.



Ah... you may be starting to catch on. We actually have excellent ephemerides for all of the bodies allegedly shown in the drawing. You can't "map" bodies in motion though, can you? All you can do is show their position at a given instant of time. Why would a space traveler have a static map that does not show all of the little bodies they might bump in to as they travel through space?


Uh-huh...you will need to link the astrometric data you used. And yes we can't "map" a body in motion, so...your astrometric data will have to be for the day in question.

And a space traveler, as has already been stated, wouldn't use a map like this for navigation, so that remark is kind of moot.

Other things you will also need is your POV...without that it is quite difficult to check your work...

You will also need to identify all the bodies in your map, and, your map will need to conform to the template...so far, you map does not...Don't know if you realize this or not, but your "map" has additional elements, as well as some missing ones.

So here is an exercise you should seriously consider; produce your own interpretation of the map...as I have done...so that we can "see" the "match". And of course by that I mean that you should produce your own drawing of this...

You might also want to work on the logic of ET providing a map of this nature...it seems just a bit illogical to me...

ETA: Raising the "bar" just a little; You should also include in your "map" a listing of all bodies referenced, along with their relevant astrometric data...as I did in my paper.







edit on 6-4-2016 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join