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.

 

An analysis of the Betty Hill "star map"

page: 11
44
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: james1947

There was the beginnings of a good discussion about the map in another thread before the underbelly of ATS took over. Would be nice if people could be banned from individual threads.

The first several pages are a good read though, let me know what you think.

Link




posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 11:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP

We know it's not accurate but we don't know by how much. And you haven't established a thing, you just stated that as if it was proved.


That is what the Template Matching software told us; the quality of the match. The "Blob Analytics" also tell us how accurate (quality of) the match is. The software method is some more precise.



Even if we accept that debatable 99.1% match, what does it mean if we don't know the accuracy of Betty's map? Suppose her map has only an accuracy of 50%, how can we find a match between the map she saw and a real star map?


IF Betty's map was as bad as 50%, the software would tell us, unless of course we set the bar higher than 50%, in which case there will be no match.



We don't have all the data we need, so any work to try to find a match will always be just a guessing game.


Actually, we have all the data we need; Betty's map (template) and accurate stellar astrometrics (maps).



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 11:31 PM
link   

edit on 21-3-2019 by james1947 because: (no reason given)


(post by Joness777 removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Mar, 22 2019 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: james1947

Betty's map cleaned up

I just noticed from Joness777 re-post of your cleaned up version of Betty's map that it doesn't have the most prominent feature she labeled in her published version of her map, the star she called Baham. How can that not be on your cleaned up version of Betty's map? I assume the large black dot on your cleaned up version is the star Betty labeled as Homan, is that correct? That's the second most prominent object on Betty's map. I drew a red arrow to Baham, which seems like a large omission from your cleaned up map, figuratively and literally.

Betty Hill's map with stars labeled by Betty corresponding to the Pegasus star map she saw and thought was a match to her map:


edit on 2019322 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Mar, 22 2019 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

I just noticed from Joness777 re-post of your cleaned up version of Betty's map that it doesn't have the most prominent feature she labeled in her published version of her map, the star she called Baham. How can that not be on your cleaned up version of Betty's map? I assume the large black dot on your cleaned up version is the star Betty labeled as Homan, is that correct? That's the second most prominent object on Betty's map. I drew a red arrow to Baham, which seems like a large omission from your cleaned up map, figuratively and literally.

Betty Hill's map with stars labeled by Betty corresponding to the Pegasus star map she saw and thought was a match to her map:


1. Betty's attempt isn't a match...period! Firstly she only identifies 8 out of 25 stars, thus no match.
2. To actually obtain a match that second "orb" needs to be removed as it is an artifact of the GUI Betty was looking at. Removing it actually confirms M. Fish's interpretation which, while not a good match in itself, does contain more stars from which to build. M. Fish's version is the most commonly, and widely accepted interpretation. It contains 12 stars, all of the primary stars, contrasted with Betty's 8; what that yields is a 66% match for Betty vs 100% for M. Fish.

M. Fish didn't really do much better, but, what she left was something that could be worked with. In that the POV could be found, and unidentified stars could be identified.

So, your argument dies rather fast.

But, the real "clincher" is that 800lb Gorilla; the four predicted stars that have been identified.

For any "match" to be considered it must account for all 25 stars, Betty didn't / couldn't, and it is seriously doubtful that Betty's map IF it can be completed would account for all of the stars. Perhaps you should read the "Blob Analytics" section of my paper again...

Oh, almost slipped my mind for a moment; If you read the computer analytics area you will see why I removed that second large "dot"...I presume you did read the paper in the first place...



posted on Mar, 22 2019 @ 12:03 PM
link   
For anyone interested: you can get a copy of A Case for Zeta Reticuli This is a "beta version" PDF of my White Paper.




top topics



 
44
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join