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: 7
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418


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.


Actually, it proves that Ms. Hill was prepared to project your so-called "template" onto a pattern of stars presented at random. Here is what she saw in the New York Times:



This is how she interpreted it:



Seems to me Ms. Hill should remember what she experienced under hypnosis. She was able to fit your "template" to this randomly presenting drawing of a piece of the sky. Assuming that this sky map was accurate enough to reflect her experience, the "template" should look like this:





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.


How do you know what is relevant? What is the function of this map? It is certainly not intended for navigation: it would need to show everything in space the ship could bump into. In fact, given that everything in space is moving, navigational data would be stored and used in "digital" form, and only visualized on rare occasions. Perhaps the "map" was actually a visualization created especially for Ms. Hill to impress her with the ET's travels. Like this:



Ms. Hill would have seen ads like this, showing a schematic map decorated with figures not to scale. I wouldn't try to make any serious measurements based on the above "map." I certainly wouldn't call the following "map" a "map" at all, despite the title:



What makes you think the Hill map is any different than the above "maps?"


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


In your opinion... but then, it wasn't you, but Ms. Hill herself who "saw" the original. Maybe this was closer to what she saw? More probably, she was just simply projecting her imagination onto something outside her in order to make it more "real."


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...


Where are all the red dwarfs?


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


No, you are mistaking psychology for astrometry. If more than one group of stars can be made to fit the "template," then your "solution" is not unique. Ms. Hill herself was able to apply it to at least one group. and two other groups of researchers have provided alternative candidates. If you believe that Ms. Hill's experience reflects some perceive fact of the "outer world," rather than just some sort of inner experience, then the other hypotheses need to be eliminated.


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...


You need to explain the discrepancy between the two "templates." Ms. Hill should know what she saw, right?



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


Ms. Hill begs to differ.


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.


I'll provide you with a couple of links:

This theory is interesting, not only because it explains the shaded globes in the foreground, but because the perspective is from exactly the opposite point of view to that the Hills' had been travelling along all night. Jupiter and Saturn were directly ahead of them as they drove. The "leader" asked her if she knew where Earth was. In fact, she would be looking directly back at it from beyond the two planets they had been travelling towards! I find that a bit creepy, don't you? It's almost suggestive of "astral projection."

There is another interpretation I need to hunt down; I'll post it later.
edit on 6-4-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001


A whole lot of words, and little point...I'll address most of that later.

For now we'll just get a wee start on that map you say Betty made "fit" the template.


Go an read my paper, pay close attention to the Blob analytics. You should notice right away that this thing you claim is a "fit" to the template is missing several elements of the template, some of the remaining elements are vastly distorted.

Thus that isn't even a remote "fit". Sorry, but, my solution remains unique...I'll post some more on this later.



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418


Sorry, but, my solution remains unique.


Nope. May I present:



The Hill-Wilson star map.

Now all you have to do is prove that your map is a better fit. Note that the Wilson map still can't explain the phases on the globes like the Koch-Kyborg interpretation can.



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418


You should notice right away that this thing you claim is a "fit" to the template is missing several elements of the template, some of the remaining elements are vastly distorted.


Why must I keep explaining that your "template" is based on Ms. Hill's experience, not yours. If she thinks it fits the template, that defines a new template.



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418


You should notice right away that this thing you claim is a "fit" to the template is missing several elements of the template, some of the remaining elements are vastly distorted.


Why must I keep explaining that your "template" is based on Ms. Hill's experience, not yours. If she thinks it fits the template, that defines a new template.


No...



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418


You should notice right away that this thing you claim is a "fit" to the template is missing several elements of the template, some of the remaining elements are vastly distorted.


Why must I keep explaining that your "template" is based on Ms. Hill's experience, not yours. If she thinks it fits the template, that defines a new template.


No...


Right. Because it's obvious that Betty Hill knows nothing at all about the map. Even if she was the only person on Earth that ever (supposedly) laid eyes on it.

Harte



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418



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


Atterberg Map - it is in the second image below the fish map


NICAP has an excellent article by Jeffrey L. Kretsch . Comments from the following are included - Carl Sagan, Steven Soter, Robert Sheaffer, Terence Dickinson, David Saunders, and Michael Peck.

I think the main point of criticism is expressed by Sheaffer - " The problem with trying to interpret Betty Hill's sketch is that it simply fits too many star patterns. Three such patterns have been documented to date. How many more exist undiscovered?"

Im not sure this is true using updated star maps, but even using the bogus star maps, it is still noteworthy that multiple matches were found.
edit on 6-4-2016 by 111DPKING111 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 07:02 PM
link   
The binary system in all this is interesting, there would be so much more interest in space travel if we had a sister star 1 light year away with intelligent signals coming from one of its planets.



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: 111DPKING111

Agreed.



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: 111DPKING111

about the Sheaffer quote:
" The problem with trying to interpret Betty Hill's sketch is that it simply fits too many star patterns. Three such patterns have been documented to date. How many more exist undiscovered?"

I havent had time to study all various maps, but even in Fish's map, she doesnt produce as good a match as you have and says several of the stars (The bottom 8) are undiscovered. The Atterberg map doesnt appear to contain the shevron at the bottom. And the bottom right star cluster looks like a poor match.



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

Actually, it proves that Ms. Hill was prepared to project your so-called "template" onto a pattern of stars presented at random. Here is what she saw in the New York Times:



Perhaps, but my hypothesis remains unaffected by this willingness of Betty's to find some degree of acceptance, by accepting the scientific and astrometric improbable.

This:





Is not


I trust you can see the obvious differences...



Seems to me Ms. Hill should remember what she experienced under hypnosis. She was able to fit your "template" to this randomly presenting drawing of a piece of the sky.


No, no she didn't...

There are template elements missing, and another is vastly distorted.



How do you know what is relevant? What is the function of this map?


It is stated that the map is of "trade and exploration routes"...so there ya are...

Relevant stars would be those stars that either had trading opportunities, or presented something of interest. Both of these elements rule out stars beyond "near by" space...I followed Ms. Fish's "lead" on this and limited my searches initially to 33 parsec, and expanded it to 46 (150ly)

The logic here is that ET, or indeed any, exploring species would have the most interest in stars capable of supporting life beyond simple microbes. Thus, typically only class "F", "G", and "K" are considered since they are the most probable to be "interesting".

I tried to cover this in my paper.



What makes you think the Hill map is any different than the above "maps?"


I like what you did with those two images, they are good examples of what the Hill map/template is. You say we can't make any precise measurements from these maps, however, as distorted, and exaggerated as they are they do identify known points which we can plot and arrive at a vastly more precise version of the same map. Kind of like a "re-sample" of an image or dataset. This will allow us to rebuild the original view...in this case we have something like this for the Hill map.





Where are all the red dwarfs?



Well now...I thought I said, several times, I'm using Hipparcos data.
It simply does not contain all those 1000's of small cold objects that aren't very likely to harbor anything of interest...

Actually we could have use a dataset called 2MASS (2 micron all sky survey), except that it won't import easily into a modern SQL data engine (server), it is very large, contains millions of stars...


If more than one group of stars can be made to fit the "template," then your "solution" is not unique. Ms. Hill herself was able to apply it to at least one group. and two other groups of researchers have provided alternative candidates. If you believe that Ms. Hill's experience reflects some perceive fact of the "outer world," rather than just some sort of inner experience, then the other hypotheses need to be eliminated.


Yes, Ms. Hill tried to show a match, again unsuccessfully. As for the others...we'll deal with them in their own time...


You need to explain the discrepancy between the two "templates." Ms. Hill should know what she saw, right?


Really??? She was desperate; she wanted/needed a solution and didn't have the data nor the expertise to find one, so she started grasping at straws... Unfortunately she wasn't properly equipped to find a solution.
End of story.


This theory is interesting,


Now this One, seems interesting...would be math heavy and time consuming to validate. I can find ephemeris for 1961, for the planets, not so sure about the asteroids, though I may find that archived at the US Navy Astronomy site.

Visually, it not a better match than mine...and of course mine has something none of the others have: a defined POV.



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418


You should notice right away that this thing you claim is a "fit" to the template is missing several elements of the template, some of the remaining elements are vastly distorted.


Why must I keep explaining that your "template" is based on Ms. Hill's experience, not yours. If she thinks it fits the template, that defines a new template.


No...


Right. Because it's obvious that Betty Hill knows nothing at all about the map. Even if she was the only person on Earth that ever (supposedly) laid eyes on it.

Harte


No...lol Because the template had already been defined...the template I'm using...And, because that interpretation uses 8 data points and the template I use has 21+ data points...



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: 111DPKING111

Atterberg Map - it is in the second image below the fish map



Thank you...I am planning to build accurate models of these other interpretations, so...I'll be working on the Wilson and the Attenberg interpretations over the next few days...



I think the main point of criticism is expressed by Sheaffer - " The problem with trying to interpret Betty Hill's sketch is that it simply fits too many star patterns. Three such patterns have been documented to date. How many more exist undiscovered?"



The affect of multiple matches shouldn't be over valued. the probability of a match has been computed at 1 in 1.7e+86...If we were to find 100 more matches we would have 101 in 1.7e+86...so the probability actually changes very little...

But in any case; we shall see, what we shall see...



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
The binary system in all this is interesting, there would be so much more interest in space travel if we had a sister star 1 light year away with intelligent signals coming from one of its planets.


That is one of the interesting features about Zeta Reticuli. It is a binary star where the stars are separated by a rather large distance, though, less than 1ly. Both stars are "G" class and about the same age as Sol. Giving a higher probability that they have advanced life.

Zeta 2 reportedly has a debris disk, though none is reported for Zeta 1. It would seem reasonable that with a similar star that close, any civilization would be interested in exploring...if it too had life...



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 02:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418
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...

No, but a woman who was fabricating a map would. She went as far to mention planets and stars in her 1961 written account, which happens to fit perfectly into what she drew. Large foreground planets with contour lines CHECK - distant pin point stars CHECK. Complete with nonsensical multiple lines drawn back and forth to show multiple trips. Exactly what you would expect Betty to draw to stress thoroughly travel routes in a non-technical way. Add "trade and exploration" solid and dashed lined routes, which is a human type of notation and symbol, as with the silk road, and it looks very human, outside of your "random alignment of chance points."



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.

No Earth, then why does the "alien" ask Betty where Earth is when it's not even on the map? "Where is your sun?" is a more logical question.


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...

Huh?? The only connection to this map is the claim of alien abduction. So to try and convince this map isn't random, is to try to convince this abduction happened. Are you playing word games now or trying to weasel out of the story?


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...

Really? Stooping to immature name calling? You're obviously far too emotionally attached to this map. It's like you're reaching out for some kind of validation and when someone doesn't agree with you, you stomp your feet and lash out with condescending comments. Not only here, but in the Starchild thread also. You probably should get that into check.

You're hyperfocused on this map. You have to remember (pay attention because this is another point where "common logic and sense" comes into play) if the map is factual as you claim, so is the Hill testimony and "BS" comments. Then the entire incident needs to be taken into account and reviewed. Something you avoid. You don't even recognize the maps I've posted, along with others, which shows your lack of research.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
No, but a woman who was fabricating a map would. She went as far to mention planets and stars in her 1961 written account, which happens to fit perfectly into what she drew.

...

Add "trade and exploration" solid and dashed lined routes, which is a human type of notation and symbol, as with the silk road, and it looks very human, outside of your "random alignment of chance points."


You're really stuck on that "fabrication", and "random" thing aren't you? In spite of overwhelming probabilities against such an instance...Ya know, 1 chance in a number so large it doesn't have a name is rather overwhelming particularly in probability...what's even more amazing; If this same probability appeared in any other aspect of your life you would take to opposite view...it is the logical, sensible, realistic view, yet you steadfastly refuse to accept what is a reality, in this single instance...

As for the "solid and dashed" routes...I think of that more as an intelligent, sentient type of notation, rather than just Human...seems to make more sense...



No Earth, then why does the "alien" ask Betty where Earth is when it's not even on the map? "Where is your sun?" is a more logical question.


Does the "alien" ask that question? Or is that Betty's Orexin deprived interpretation of the events?




Huh?? The only connection to this map is the claim of alien abduction. So to try and convince this map isn't random, is to try to convince this abduction happened. Are you playing word games now or trying to weasel out of the story?


Bad logic here...There is a fact about this I think you are trying to exploit in your favor...The fact that IF we think of this as an "alien abduction", as contrasted to a "map"...then you can trivialize the map and make it of significantly lesser import. Which is wrong in view of the probabilities involved. One needs to realize that no amount of Betty's story can affect the probabilities involved...so you really do need to trivialize the map.

On the other hand; If we approach this as an exercise on the map, its construction, and mathematical probabilities. Then we affect the credibility of the story, and trivialize nothing...which seem a more intelligent approach...


You're hyperfocused on this map. You have to remember (pay attention because this is another point where "common logic and sense" comes into play) if the map is factual as you claim, so is the Hill testimony and "BS" comments. Then the entire incident needs to be taken into account and reviewed.


While you are wrong about me being "hyperfocused" here, you are right about the credibility of the story...Again, another reason and compelling force to show that the map is just random BS...fortunately you can't as the mathematics won't allow you...thus, the entire incident needs to be reevaluated, and reviewed...perhaps with some of the new knowledge that has been gained in a variety of areas.



Something you avoid. You don't even recognize the maps I've posted, along with others, which shows your lack of research.


Not true...I've acknowledged your other "maps" and given my opinions. And, for the most part, the other maps don't "pan" out....like the NYT interpretation and Betty's acceptance and object names. When actually plotted against interstellar space...doesn't work out so well, not to mention the absence of template features, and other identifying attributes.

I haven't done any work on the Attenberg, nor the Wilson maps yet...start that today...However, IF what we've seen so far is an indication (and it probably is), then these maps too will find their way to the "round file"...but, we shall see...



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

Probability of a match Is easy when you have billions of stars in a galaxy and can have any viewing angle you so choose. I could make her map show cities even. The map isnt 3d making odds of a match even greater we have no idea of the distances. Look at fishe she used stars that we know now we're a lot further apart than assumed at the time.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: tanka418

Probability of a match Is easy when you have billions of stars in a galaxy and can have any viewing angle you so choose. I could make her map show cities even. The map isnt 3d making odds of a match even greater we have no idea of the distances. Look at fishe she used stars that we know now we're a lot further apart than assumed at the time.


Well actually, there isn't a lot of difference between the Gliese data Ms. Fish used, and the Hipparcos data I used...course, I guess if you haven't read my paper you wouldn't know that...but it is true. The only star that "moved" noticeably was Kappa Fornacis...and it was kinda radical...

As for finding a match being easy...show us!!!

Put 25 dots on a piece of paper, then go find the location in space where those dots match the positions of Hipparcos stars...

Here is a prediction: You never find a single match...even IF you tried for the rest of your life, it is unlikely you will find a match...

And as for the distances; a little logic, common sense will tell you all the stars in the map need to be "close" say within 100 ly...

So then, show us how you took 25 random dots and found a match to "F", "G", and "K" class stars within 100ly...you should be done in no time... Oh, by the way; we have to place some constraints on the 25 "dots"...You will need to get a moderator to supply your page of "dots"...so we have some small assurance that the dots are indeed random...

You understand that the probability is vanishingly small for a random match...right?!!? 4.1520445e-87

Oh...I guess nobody told you...we aren't using billions of stars...only 2826 (Hipparcos stars within 33 parsec) IF we used all the stars we would become overwhelmed by them, never find a match...the probabilities are so great that there wouldn't be enough nanoseconds in the life span of the Universe to generate a match! Oh wait...I did state that we are using Hipparcos stars within 33 parsec...you should have read the paper...



edit on 7-4-2016 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

Then why do you keep quoting a statistic based off finding a match?? The statistic doesn't restrict itself to 33 parsecs that is self imposed by you. Even having 2826 stars you can find a match same as I could using cities in the US. When all you have to find is general shapes with no distance data and point if view unknown your odds greatly increase. Now if you put restrictions saying it has to be viewed from earth at a specific time then the odds of a match would be low. Your data set is far from rigid when basing it off dots made on paper. I could choose any stars in almost any pattern and a tribute it to a 2 d drawing of a 3 d universe.
edit on 4/7/16 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: tanka418

Then why do you keep quoting a statistic based off finding a match?? The statistic doesn't restrict itself to 33 parsecs that is self imposed by you. Even having 2826 stars you can find a match same as I could using cities in the US. When all you have to find is general shapes with no distance data and point if view unknown your odds greatly increase. Now if you put restrictions saying it has to be viewed from earth at a specific time then the odds of a match would be low. Your data set is far from rigid when basing it off dots made on paper. I could choose any stars in almost any pattern and a tribute it to a 2 d drawing of a 3 d universe.


So do it! Words are cheep, Oh, you might want to read some more; there is a specific point of view now, but I wont hold ya to it...

By the way, I tested two other interpretations, both thought they "had" it, neither is as good a match as mine...

Good luck...



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join