An analysis of the Betty Hill "star map"

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

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).

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:

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...

For anyone interested: you can get a copy of A Case for Zeta Reticuli This is a "beta version" PDF of my White Paper.

originally posted by: james1947
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.

But you haven't compared the original ET map with Betty's map, have you?

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.

If you compared it with the ET's map, which you did not.

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

We're missing the most important, ET's map.

originally posted by: james1947
To actually obtain a match that second "orb" needs to be removed as it is an artifact of the GUI Betty was looking at.

How could you possibly know it is an artifact of the GUI Betty was looking at?

Betty doesn't throw it out. It seems like you're just tossing out data you don't like to get a match, which even after tossing that out it still doesn't look the same visually as your star map.

But I find it especially troubling you throw out the largest object on her map. If you don't accept that it could be Betty's interpretation of a planetarium projector as someone suggested (which I haven't ruled out), then I can think of two reasons why it might be drawn larger than the other objects.

One reason for drawing it larger might be if it actually is larger, or another reason might be that it's one of the most important objects on the map.

In either case, Betty doesn't seem to think it's a GUI artifact since she's labeled it as a star, even if you don't like her labels.

If you're throwing out such an important piece of her data, your claims seem even more contrived and unscientific than I already thought, this is ridiculous!

originally posted by: ArMaP

But you haven't compared the original ET map with Betty's map, have you?

Yes, ArMap I have compared it to ET's map.

We're missing the most important, ET's map.

Here's something I'd like you to think about before you respond; "What are the differences between a map of local stars that we make, and a map of local stars ET makes?"

Seriously man, you need to understand that Tau Ceti is in the same place for us as it is for ET.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

How could you possibly know it is an artifact of the GUI Betty was looking at?

Well, being an experienced GUI designer, for more than 20 years, maybe I've seen a thing or two you haven't.

Betty doesn't throw it out. It seems like you're just tossing out data you don't like to get a match, which even after tossing that out it still doesn't look the same visually as your star map.

No, no she doesn't, and that's a good thing as it would have made it a bit more difficult to match, and analyze. Betty would have thought that as something "normal" for what she was looking at, and would thought it important enough to include in her drawing.

Yeah, I know you are visually impaired, especially without the lines, but then Sagan foretold such an thing. Actually, if we remove the expanded Zeta Reticuli, so that it looks more like the stars from our POV; the match is improved. But, that should be logical...

But I find it especially troubling you throw out the largest object on her map. If you don't accept that it could be Betty's interpretation of a planetarium projector as someone suggested (which I haven't ruled out), then I can think of two reasons why it might be drawn larger than the other objects.

One reason for drawing it larger might be if it actually is larger, or another reason might be that it's one of the most important objects on the map.

In either case, Betty doesn't seem to think it's a GUI artifact since she's labeled it as a star, even if you don't like her labels.

If you're throwing out such an important piece of her data, your claims seem even more contrived and unscientific than I already thought, this is ridiculous!

Well firstly man I don't accept Betty's interpretation... it violates several premisses;
1. that the stars be local, say within 33 parsec or so. This allows ET to not be millions of years more advanced, an be something much more logical, 10's to 100's of years.

2. That the important stars (at least) be of reasonable Stellar Class for life as we might know it.

Betty's map satisfies neither of these. Both M. Fish's and my interpretation satisfy both, mine identifies 4 predicted stars.

Betty wouldn't have recognized a GUI, they were still nearly 50 years away, and, labeling it as a star is correct.
So here is where it's at man; if you want to continue with your baseless argument, that's fine; I'm done with it.

originally posted by: james1947
Yes, ArMap I have compared it to ET's map.

Show us their map, then.

Here's something I'd like you to think about before you respond; "What are the differences between a map of local stars that we make, and a map of local stars ET makes?"

None, as I said before.

Seriously man, you need to understand that Tau Ceti is in the same place for us as it is for ET.

I know that, as I said before.

You are the one who appears not to understand that analysing Betty's map is not the same as analysing the map she supposedly saw, as we do not know how close to the original her version is.

You are comparing "evidence A" with "evidence B" and saying that "evidence C", that nobody has seen except Betty, is the same as "evidence B".

originally posted by: ArMaP

"Here's something I'd like you to think about before you respond; "What are the differences between a map of local stars that we make, and a map of local stars ET makes?"
None, as I said before.

You are the one who appears not to understand that analysing Betty's map is not the same as analysing the map she supposedly saw, as we do not know how close to the original her version is.

You are comparing "evidence A" with "evidence B" and saying that "evidence C", that nobody has seen except Betty, is the same as "evidence B".

And, you stated above that ET's maps are the same as our maps. So what's the issue here?

You claim you understand that our star maps are identical to ET's maps of the same stars, yet you fail to understand that we don't actually need ET's version since we can recreate it with great accuracy. So; yes...I'm comparing evidence A with evidence B, knowing that evidence C is identical to evidence B. And, because of that I can accurately, and, scientifically state that the quality of match (accuracy) of Betty's drawing is...shall we say 90.8%...the average of the Blob Analytics (82.5%) and the Computer A.I. (99.1%).


The map you requested...

a reply to: ArMaP

I know that, as I said before.

You are the one who appears not to understand that analysing Betty's map is not the same as analysing the map she supposedly saw, as we do not know how close to the original her version is.

You are comparing "evidence A" with "evidence B" and saying that "evidence C", that nobody has seen except Betty, is the same as "evidence B".

No doubt this is true, BUT even if it was the ET map, is there any significance to it at all? Does it have a good match that is unique?

Or are there multiple solutions for the map that make it of no significance, no matter the source? If there is only 1 solid match for it, you dont find that significant?


Tanka claimed in the other thread

1.The point of view is about 200 ly from Earth...about 150ly past Zeta Reticuli and in that general direction.
2. I selected only "F", "G", and "K" class stars...so, if we don't consider other factors like variability, binary star, etc. all are theoretically capable of sustaining advanced life.
3. The map is what we would expect from an explorative sense, closest stars of interest(life) first.

The assumptions may or may not be good, if would be good to see what stars are being skipped. I wish I had more time to devote to this, unlike the Ramey note in Roswell, I think this can be proven one way or another.

originally posted by: 111DPKING111

No doubt this is true, BUT even if it was the ET map, is there any significance to it at all? Does it have a good match that is unique?

Or are there multiple solutions for the map that make it of no significance, no matter the source? If there is only 1 solid match for it, you dont find that significant?

Please allow me...

Yes, it does have a good match; according to Computer Vision Template Matching software, the match is 99.1% A manual, "Blob Analysis" returns 82.5%.

And, Yes, it is a very unique match. Mathematically; the probability of even one match, is 1.0e-94, a second match would be 1.0e-188. These probabilities are, for any practical purpose, impossible.

The assumptions may or may not be good, if would be good to see what stars are being skipped. I wish I had more time to devote to this, unlike the Ramey note in Roswell, I think this can be proven one way or another.

The stars skipped; Mainly Class "M" stars, however these are mainly small rather cold (for a star) stars with very close in habitable zones. Typically planets in the habitable zone are tidally locked, so they have a hot side and a cold side, and no "warm" mix. Although some of those planets could support Human life.

Other stars are Class "A", class "B", and class "O" stars; these are increasingly hot stars, and typically burn out quickly, and thus don't afford any life that might form on its planets much time for evolution.

It is the warmer class "K" to cooler class "F" stars that provide the best environment for life as we know it.

a reply to: james1947

I really like your map above, it would be extremely helpful if you removed all the really distant stars(noise). I think people are led to believe that you are arbitrarily connecting dots when many of the dots on the map are not close(relevant) at all.

The most difficult part of this discussion, as in the previous thread, is the drive by posting with people ignoring the hard data.

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
a reply to: james1947

I really like your map above, it would be extremely helpful if you removed all the really distant stars(noise). I think people are led to believe that you are arbitrarily connecting dots when many of the dots on the map are not close(relevant) at all.

The most difficult part of this discussion, as in the previous thread, is the drive by posting with people ignoring the hard data.

Thank you.

Actually most of the "noise" created by more distant stars is already removed. The "maps" I'm currently building are a view of a sphere around our Sun extending out 150 light years, or 46 parsec. I originally used a 33 parsec model (107 light years), but at 107 ly I couldn't contain the POV, as it is at 122 ly, so I increased it to 46 parsec.

ETA: the 46 parsec view has 5804 stars, the 33 parsec view has 2826 stars.

originally posted by: james1947
And, you stated above that ET's maps are the same as our maps. So what's the issue here?

The issue is that we do not know which stars were shown on the ET map Betty saw.

Yes, the stars are the same for us or for anyone else, but we cannot know what was shown to Betty.

Imagine I have a map, and you know that the map shows an area of the United States.

Then someone else looks at the map and draws a copy of my map. I will even ignore the possibility of that third person forgetting some details of the map, as I will make my hand-drawn version just after looking at my original map.

Here's my hand-drawn version of the map.


Now, we know that the relative positions of the cities are the same for you, for me and for anyone else. But you don't know the map's scale, if I used a standard method of representing things on a map or how accurate my hand-drawn map is. As you don't know that, you don't know if you are looking for that specific number of cities, for those relative positions, etc. As you do not have access to the original map you don't really know if whatever final result you reach is the same as in the original map, you can only find map similar to the hand-drawn map.

PS: it would be interesting if you could find a match between the above map an reality.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: james1947
And, you stated above that ET's maps are the same as our maps. So what's the issue here?

The issue is that we do not know which stars were shown on the ET map Betty saw.

Yes, the stars are the same for us or for anyone else, but we cannot know what was shown to Betty.

Yes ArMaP, we DO know which stars Betty was shown, we have gone to great lengths to identify them. Using accepted astrometric data, mathematics, we have determined not only the identity of all 25 stars, but, the Point of View as well.

We did this by actually looking at the data. We built 3D scale models of the local stars and found the single location from which that specific configuration of stars can be seen. We then identified the stellar bodies we found.

originally posted by: james1947
Yes ArMaP, we DO know which stars Betty was shown, we have gone to great lengths to identify them. Using accepted astrometric data, mathematics, we have determined not only the identity of all 25 stars, but, the Point of View as well.

No, that result is from Betty's map, not from the original.

We did this by actually looking at the data. We built 3D scale models of the local stars and found the single location from which that specific configuration of stars can be seen. We then identified the stellar bodies we found.

"That configuration" being the one on Betty's map, the only one we have seen.

As long as you do not understand that you are working with the wrong data you will always be fooling yourself.