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: 8
23
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 09:04 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.


The primary restrictions I see are...

The stars are relatively close to one another, exploring one star to the next
The stars are in the Goldilocks zone
A binary star is part of the system
The system is in our area of the Galaxy

Im not so sure about the class of star, Tanka is thinking of possible life in the star systems, but maybe it is other resources.

I also dont think if there are a hundred matches, it is insignificant. If other matches can be found, then the map imo really has no significance whatsoever.

It is hard for me to believe an orion or pegasus type constellation is view-able from other locations given the restrictions above, maybe I am wrong on that point though.




posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr



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.


No the statistic doesn't place such restrictions on us, however, logic and common sense does. Logic and sense would like to limit the space to the volume that ET is likely to operate in...for now, 100ly radius...
there are also other constraints on the number of stars we can use, like the size of our dataset. I selected Hipparcos because it is the largest database that I felt comfortable with installing on by servers. I had thought about 2MASS but the database is too large to translate into a form that can be imported into either SQL Server, or Oracle easily... It also wants an open source sql engine, I don't have a problem with that, but the size of the data files is gigabytes. I'd rather not install that on my dev system...

And, the reduced number of stars makes a random "hit" more probable.

And there are other restrictions; for instance, this is supposed to be a "trade and exploration route" map...so the kinds, classes and types, of star are important, as is the distance from home.




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



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418
the probability of a match has been computed at 1 in 1.7e+86...

Please post the calculations then.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 10:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: tanka418
the probability of a match has been computed at 1 in 1.7e+86...

Please post the calculations then.


Already done...on page 3



Again...the first 25 terms of 2826! (factorial) or 1.7E+86...Read my paper its all in there.
-- www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 11:18 PM
link   
The Hill-Wilson map...



There are two stars missing HR 5243; my bad I forgot one star, 54 Leo has no Hipparcos cross reference

There are a total of 24 stars for consideration.
of these stars:
3 are class "A"
3 are class "F"
9 are class "G"
8 are class "K"
1 is class "M"

Two of the class "F" stars are in the "giant" phase (type III)...they are dying.
Two of the class "G" stars are type IV (sub-giant), beginning stages of dying...
1 of the class "G" stars is a type III (giant)
1 class "G" is a close binary
All of the class "K" stars are type III
The class "M" star is a "bright giant" (type II(b))

13 of these stars are with in 46 parsec.

Of the 24 stars only 6 are promising for advancing life (25%), all are within 46 parsec.

Most (6 of 8) of the "blobs" (see white paper) are present though not well formed.

Half of these stars are too far away, most (75%) won't have life of much interest, though research on evolution around giant and sub-giant might be of interest to some...

I'd say this is a "near" match, but, like the barker said; "close but no cigar!"



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 06:31 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418


No the statistic doesn't place such restrictions on us, however, logic and common sense does.


Logic and common sense dictates that Hill's drawing is just a drawing of something she believes she saw under hypnosis. The fact that she was able to project the pattern of lines onto what is essentially a random star field indicates that it is not a map, but a construction of her subconscious.


Logic and sense would like to limit the space to the volume that ET is likely to operate in...for now, 100ly radius...


Why? Logic indicates that beings capable of instantaneously travelling between the stars would not be constrained by distance. Your limit of 100 light years is completely arbitrary. Let's assume Betty really was shown a map on a spacecraft. She herself describes what she sees as stars and planets. What if her interpretation is wrong? What if what she was really seeing was galaxies? Of course, this ties in to the function of the "map," which you still have not explained.



there are also other constraints on the number of stars we can use, like the size of our dataset. I selected Hipparcos because it is the largest database that I felt comfortable with installing on by servers. I had thought about 2MASS but the database is too large to translate into a form that can be imported into either SQL Server, or Oracle easily... It also wants an open source sql engine, I don't have a problem with that, but the size of the data files is gigabytes. I'd rather not install that on my dev system...


In other words, your selection method narrows down the options to an infinitesimally small subset of possibilities, making it completely arbitrary in the face of the problem you are purporting to solve.


And, the reduced number of stars makes a random "hit" more probable.


Exactly what we have been trying to explain to you.


And there are other restrictions; for instance, this is supposed to be a "trade and exploration route" map...so the kinds, classes and types, of star are important, as is the distance from home.


Why? What is the function of this map? Setting aside your assumptions about what kind of stars (or planets, or galaxies) aliens would find "interesting," what do you think these aliens used these maps for? They were useless for navigation. Let me give you some examples:

The function of this map is not to indicate the presence of giants in the state of Florida. Its function is to make people who enjoy hiking or water sports to vacation in the easily recognized state of Florida. It doesn't need to indicate the geographical coordinates or population of the cities the airline serves, because it is not meant to inform, but persuade. In the pre-internet era, travelers would consult with a professional travel agent for actual information. (Note how Chicago is separated from Florida by a clump of giant trees. It looks like you should be able to walk from Chicago to Fort Lauderdale in an afternoon!)



The function of this "map" is to inspire children with a sense of awe, and hopefully use their imagination to encourage a career in science. Everything about the image itself is wildly inaccurate: the size of the orbits, the relative size of the planets, even the visual representation of the planets themselves is horrible. But that doesn't matter; its primary purpose is not to inform, but inspire.



Now what is the function of this map? It cannot be used for navigation. Is it something they keep on hand to show to hitchhikers?


edit on 8-4-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
Logic and common sense dictates that Hill's drawing is just a drawing of something she believes she saw under hypnosis. The fact that she was able to project the pattern of lines onto what is essentially a random star field indicates that it is not a map, but a construction of her subconscious.


Your little "fact" doesn't mean anything.

And, you and another seem to think that this can happen randomly, yet you offer absolutely no evidence that it has, while, I have provided mathematical evidence that suggests that this is anything but random.

Since my evidence only requires mathematics, and yours has yet to generate any data what-so-ever...I re-issue the challenge you abandoned in another thread; produce a random match...

Get a page with 25 dots on it and match it to Hipparcos stars within 33 parsecs of the POV...Should be easy right?

And of course, the alternative is to simply drop your random assertion...

However, please don't expect me to accept just "any ole" random match...there will be some rules; like you need 25 stars (dots) in your attempt, and of course, you can't produce the original "page of dots"...that will have to be either me or a disinterested third party...



Why? Logic indicates that beings capable of instantaneously travelling between the stars would not be constrained by distance. Your limit of 100 light years is completely arbitrary.


Well gee, man...I was using logic and common sense, then you with a single line of text, throw all of that out...

Since when has ET been capable of travelling "instantaneously"? Seems to me that travelling between stars is something that should take some measurable amount of time...And that would indicate that the greater probability of a visit would be from species in local space; hence 100ly.

If you don't like the constraints...you can always give up! Take your illogical, ill-thought notions elsewhere...



Let's assume Betty really was shown a map on a spacecraft. She herself describes what she sees as stars and planets. What if her interpretation is wrong? What if what she was really seeing was galaxies? Of course, this ties in to the function of the "map," which you still have not explained.


So...how does Betty's interpretation affect the math?
In other places Betty says that it is a map of trade and exploration routes...which is the commonly accepted interpretation. That being the case...the interpretation is just fine the way it is: "A trade and exploration route map".

The maps function is as an appliance to demonstrate and reveal ET's trade and exploration routes...


In other words, your selection method narrows down the options to an infinitesimally small subset of possibilities, making it completely arbitrary in the face of the problem you are purporting to solve.



Not sure what your logic is here...You know as well as anyone that we can not use the set of "all stars"; 1. because we don't have that data. 2. not all stars are appropriate for this kind of map. 3. not all stars are appropriate to the context.

I like that "
infinitesimally" small...I suppose you can say this IF we ignore context, but that wouldn't lead us to any interesting data would it...course it would allow your ideas to at least begin to work.

Tell me; just how is 1.7e86 infinitesimally small?


"And, the reduced number of stars makes a random "hit" more probable.
"

Exactly what we have been trying to explain to you.



Yes....when are you going to actually show something...do the math, show how this can be explained with completely random data...


Why? What is the function of this map?


Actually, to this inquiry, the maps intended function is kind of irrelevant; the fact that it exists is quite enough. It has been stated many times that the map was of ET's trade and exploration routes. So, that will have to do for now.

You are trying to over complicate this and turn it into something other than originally intended...so please stick to the subject and context...stop trying to obfuscate, and convolute this into something that suits your desires, and leave it at something that can actually approximate reality.

Next...you need to show us that the "map" is indeed random...



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 09:59 AM
link   
There are a couple here, and I'm sure others will arrive, that think this can be a random event. And, of course it is my assertion that it is not, and can not be, random.

For my part, I need to produce data that shows this can not be a random event; which I've done in the form of mathematics, and probability.

Those who wish to insist this is random need to produce their own data to support their position...

To that end...the production of a 25 star (point) page that matches Hipparcos stars within 33 parsec of a POV should work just file. However any wanting to accept this challenge should post here first so that we can arrange for that page of 25 dots.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 12:01 PM
link   

edit on 8-4-2016 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: DJW001

Now what is the function of this map? It cannot be used for navigation. Is it something they keep on hand to show to hitchhikers?



I was thinking about this, and it seems to me that several uses for a map of this kind should be rather obvious, but, alas, I guess not so much...

How about: opening screen of a mission planning system?


I'm mentioning this because you said something, can't remember what, that made be think you were trying to dictate GUI design that ET might be using. Oh...I remember, perhaps it wasn't you, but; all that BS about the "pull down maps"...ya know current terrestrial computer operating systems can do that...it's all in that "Gesture recognition" stuff...

Anyway, just a couple of things I wanted to mention...

ETA: Also wanted to mention that it would be kind of illogical for ET to have both planets and stars in a single display. The two actually exist at different scales. i.e. when viewing stars One typically has an interstellar view, where as when viewing planets, a closer view is required which removes the stars, and replaces them with planets...

So, we would have a view that was only stars, or a view that is only the planets of a specified star. We wouldn't have both in the same view...



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 03:09 PM
link   
So on the topic of Psychological Warfare, I've been researching this case and the data I've found is quite overwhelming. It's overwhelming to the point where I am beginning to suspect that all the official info on this case has been intentionally diluted. The Betty/Barney Hill case was investigated by intelligence agencies and covered in a report entered into Project Blue Book.

I'm going to start here with this link from skeptic report. Don't let the name fool you, there is some very useful data in that link.

Apparently there was something unidentified picked up on radar by an Air Force base not far from where the abduction took place.

I know Tanka has been a proponent of the ET abduction theory since the inception of this thread. And honestly, it isn't without merit. But I still believe the star data to be largely irrelevant.

I think the most damning evidence in this case is all the documented paranormal effects on the witnesses. The fact that they were hypnotized by the military long after their abduction suggests (to me at least) a huge red flag in the validity of the data that was extracted from their hypnosis. I believe Betty & Barney Hill were the victims of an experiment with Psychotronic Devices. And I believe that certain intelligence agencies, in cooperation with some media agencies, intentionally distorted facts about this case to make it sound completely ludicrous to the public.

I'm still assembling data and trying to organize it according to its relevance to this case. But meanwhile check out some of these links:

ufotrail.blogspot.com...

www.mindjustice.org...

www.justiceforallcitizens.com...

www.psychotronicgenerators.com... (this one is REALLY wild, don't know what to make of it)

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...



Now discuss!



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Either later tonight or over the weekend I will have access to my main computer and be able to check out the 3D map. Then since Poser has somewhat limited abilities when it comes to making anything complex besides human models and basic prop scenes. I can use the data you have on your page and import it in along with the info in the PZR file in to Maya or possibly Universe SandBox 2 since they just added new feature for using equations to create new systems etc etc. Would also be able to give it more "in depth" view I guess. I'll post the results when I have them. Sorry about the wait it's just been a hectic week with my son having Spring Break and training my soon to be service dog. Either way I am hoping to have at least something either later today or at latest this weekend since my fiance and son will be able to watch the dog so I can do work on my main rig with out getting interrupted or worry about a 12 week old puppy going "ooh new wires! *chomp*" on my dev/gaming rig which has a few thousand worth of parts. The GPU alone is $1K



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Hi Tanka. Nice thread and lots for me to read


And well done for now letting them beat you down!



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 06:12 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418


ETA: Also wanted to mention that it would be kind of illogical for ET to have both planets and stars in a single display. The two actually exist at different scales. i.e. when viewing stars One typically has an interstellar view, where as when viewing planets, a closer view is required which removes the stars, and replaces them with planets...

So, we would have a view that was only stars, or a view that is only the planets of a specified star. We wouldn't have both in the same view...


Just like you wouldn't put people, forests, cities, and entire countries in the same scale map:



Betty herself says that the "map" showed stars and planets. The "bodies" in the lower right certainly look like neighboring planets, one of which has an inhabited moon. Perhaps this is a tourist map, designed to show how popular their home planet is as a vacation destination. That explanation makes much more sense than any other that has been proposed.

As someone else has pointed out, we have the technology now, which the aliens apparently lacked in the 1960's, to create a Virtual Reality environment that would allow us to explore any mapped region of space by walking through it. Voice commands could be used to feature whatever element we desired. We could order the computer to color code stars by spectral type, or draw vector arrows to show their proper motion over a set period of time. It seems to me that would be a much more logical way to decide on a future course.
edit on 9-4-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 06:34 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418


There are a couple here, and I'm sure others will arrive, that think this can be a random event. And, of course it is my assertion that it is not, and can not be, random.


What event? Are you talking about forcing a pattern onto a random array of points? There is a 100% certainty that it can be done if allowed a large enough degree of freedom.


For my part, I need to produce data that shows this can not be a random event; which I've done in the form of mathematics, and probability.


No, you have not.

If you remove the lines, these...





...look nothing like this:




Those who wish to insist this is random need to produce their own data to support their position...


At least three other examples have been provided, and you have rejected each one on purely arbitrary grounds. You even rejected Betty Hill's interpretation, and she is the only one who actually "saw" the map!


To that end...the production of a 25 star (point) page that matches Hipparcos stars within 33 parsec of a POV should work just file. However any wanting to accept this challenge should post here first so that we can arrange for that page of 25 dots.


Once again, let me remind you that your Hipparcos data does not match the drawing. Your 33 parsec constraint is just plain silly. We do not know what the scale of the map is, if it is a map, and if it has a scale. What if the two globes in the "foreground" are the Magellenic Clouds, and the dots represent globular clusters? This is a "logical" interpretation because globular clusters contain older population stars, which means the civilizations there would be more advanced, and therefore capable of interstellar trade. (If this sounds like a flimsy rationalization, now you know what your logic looks like to others.)
edit on 9-4-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-4-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
What event? Are you talking about forcing a pattern onto a random array of points? There is a 100% certainty that it can be done if allowed a large enough degree of freedom.


There ya go again calling it "random" and without any evidence what-so-ever. When I presented my challenge to produce a 25 point match to Hipparcos in another thread, you almost jumped at the opportunity, then quit...probably because you realized you couldn't meet the challenge.

Anyway, man; you either need to prove / demonstrate that this is random, or, STFU with the "random" BS!




"For my part, I need to produce data that shows this can not be a random event; which I've done in the form of mathematics, and probability."

No, you have not.



Well...actually, Yes I have...I know its hard for you to accept, but, a probability of 5.8823e-87 is virtual proof of non-random...like it or not...



If you remove the lines, these...





...look nothing like this:





You will kind of need to supply some evidence for this as well...using my drawings, and Bretty's doesn't seem to work well...probably because they are so much alike...

And of course you saying they are not alike kind of does nothing to the evidence I submitted in my paper that they are alike/ Seriously man, if I or indeed anyone attempted this kind of BS with you, you'd have a virtual cow. So...please don't be do disingenuous as to try to use something you would not accept!




At least three other examples have been provided, and you have rejected each one on purely arbitrary grounds. You even rejected Betty Hill's interpretation, and she is the only one who actually "saw" the map!


Arbitrary?!??!!! Perhaps you should go and learn what the word means...The grounds I "rejected" the others on may be a lot of thing, arbitrary is not on the list!

Now let's see here...I rejected Betty's interpretation because it contained stars that were not of an appropriate class, did not contain enough stars, and generally failed to come close enough to the required shapes. Oh yes, didn't contain enough of the original template shapes.

The Wilson map wasn't totally rejected, but, it was determined that my interpretation was a better match. I'll be rejecting the Atterberg interpretation because it contains inappropriate stars in key places, and because the existing "map" is not legible...

Anther of the "maps"...the one that shows local planets has not been rejected at all, but, rather placed on hold because the analysis of the drawing is difficult, and will require additional software to analyze it...I haven't written that code as yet.



"To that end...the production of a 25 star (point) page that matches Hipparcos stars within 33 parsec of a POV should work just file. However any wanting to accept this challenge should post here first so that we can arrange for that page of 25 dots. "

Once again, let me remind you that your Hipparcos data does not match the drawing. Your 33 parsec constraint is just plain silly. We do not know what the scale of the map is, if it is a map, and if it has a scale. What if the two globes in the "foreground" are the Magellenic Clouds, and the dots represent globular clusters? This is a "logical" interpretation because globular clusters contain older population stars, which means the civilizations there would be more advanced, and therefore capable of interstellar trade. (If this sounds like a flimsy rationalization, now you know what your logic looks like to others.)


Oh really?!!!?? My data doesn't match the drawing? Please show how it doesn't match. And, please don't insult us with some crap about how it's not a pixel by pixel match...even my Wolf understands why that would never be the case.

"Globular clusters" grasping at straws again...do globular clusters really contain older population stars? got a reference? And, where is your data on the longevity of sentient species? There is absolutely no reason to think that an older star might have an older civilization. After all it took Sol 4.6 billion years to produce a space faring species and civilization...and, its only an "almost" at this point. Older stars by not have a more advanced civilization. its most recent may have destroyed itself, much like we think Human kind might do...any day now. Or, that ancient civilization may have simply dies out, and not been replaced yet. No, I'm sorry, man, but, older star just gives it the possibility to have multiple advanced civilizations. seems to me that your logic kinds broke down a little there...




Betty herself says that the "map" showed stars and planets.


Yep, Betty said this. She also said the map was of "trade and exploration routes". I've already explained "why" there would not me a combination of planets and stars...if yo choose to reject the logic, that's on you, and is your error.

If you wish to assert that the map is actually of planets and stars; you will need to provide verifiable data that that is the case...you haven't done that, and, that single attempt to show such, isn't really viable data due to issues in validating that data. (Basically...I have provided other data that indicates otherwise, that is easier to validate, and is a better match to the preexisting data.)



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418
if yo choose to reject the logic, that's on you, and is your error.

I'm not posting much, but I'm still following this thread and have read every post (most more than once), and I still have not seen any logic in your argument. I've seen arbitrarily chosen data points skewed to fit your presumptuous conclusion, I've seen data points that don't fit your presumptuous conclusion discarded as irrelevant, and I've seen a hell of a lot of confirmation bias. Unbiased data and logic though? Not so much.



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: tanka418
if yo choose to reject the logic, that's on you, and is your error.

I'm not posting much, but I'm still following this thread and have read every post (most more than once), and I still have not seen any logic in your argument. I've seen arbitrarily chosen data points skewed to fit your presumptuous conclusion, I've seen data points that don't fit your presumptuous conclusion discarded as irrelevant, and I've seen a hell of a lot of confirmation bias. Unbiased data and logic though? Not so much.


Uh-huh...

Your opinion serves only you...

Now, if you'd care to point out these alleged "presumptions", perhaps we could determine IF that is what they truly are...

Also, would you please drop the willful ignorance of logic and reason...

What data have I thrown out? Be specific.

Sorry man, but those things you think you see, either aren't there at all, or they are wholly imagined...



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Maps... Shmaps...

It's all about the Psychotronic Devices now, guys. Get with the times.



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

It is pointless arguing with someone who does not understand the tools he needs. You still do not understand the difference between data, information, and interpretation. You do not understand that any constraint you place on an interpretation that goes beyond what is present in the information is arbitrary. You just don't "get" that we do not have enough information to eliminate all possible interpretations. You have been unable to address any of the issues presented to you:

How do we know Betty saw the "map" anywhere but in a hypnotic trance? How do we know she reproduced it accurately? (As I recall, you don't understand that it is pointless trying to make precise measurements of inaccurate representations.)

Why did she specifically mention both stars and planets? Why did you arbitrarily decide she only saw stars depicted, even though I provided you with an example of a map that depicted a continent, cities, and human beings all at once? (Betty took some care to depict the objects in the "foreground" as spheres shining by light reflected from the upper left... that should be where their "sun" is.)

Betty herself was struck by the resemblance between what was essentially a random grouping of stars and what she believed she saw. This proves that it is possible to project your template on random groupings. Bizarrely, you rejected her identification because they did not meet your arbitrary criteria, then acknowledged the pattern was not identical, while refusing to change your theories base on the new data.

If I can show you how easy it is to project that "template" on to a star field, will you admit that your interpretation holds no merit?
edit on 9-4-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
23
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join