It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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: 13
46
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 12:03 PM

originally posted by: Slichter
My conjecture is that the original map was an "in house" sort of secret thing.

What do you mean by that? Could you expand on your thoughts?

Which begs the question:
Was Betty related to "Rosemary Hill"?

Who's "Rosemary Hill"?

posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 12:18 PM

It matters if we are trying to find what she was shown based on her map, and that's the topic of this thread.

Well this is the "Aliens and UFOs" forum, I think most of us would like to know if her map is from aliens or no.

Riddle me this, if her map is an illustration of alien exploration as seen from Zeta Reticuli, how else did she come by it unless the she made a good copy of the original ET map? What other possible explanation can there be?

posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 12:29 PM

originally posted by: james1947
Well actually ArMap, the images you provided for this are incorrect, as they show a rotation of the camera, and not a difference in Axial Tilt. but, that's okay since Axial Tilt has nothing to do with it. eta: you are showing a change in "roll", not a change in "pitch". Axial tilt is "pitch".

How is that "pitch" or "roll" when we are talking about a planet's rotational axis?

So...now Trigonometry is wrong? I spent all those years learning Mathematics only to find out, in a most inappropriate way, that what I was taught is BS?

No, I'm not saying trigonometry is wrong, read what I really wrote.

But, you see it doesn't matter, since ET is at a different location in space, so the "origin" of ET's map are probably his home star, just like with Terrestrials. And, all of the math is based on that.

Yes, that's what I was saying. That's why I think that on a planet with a different axial tilt that used a similar way of making star maps would result in different declinations for different stars.

If I want to "see" (literally) what the stars look like form ET's home world, I can move a camera there and take a look. AND, if necessary rotate my view until it is the same as ET's, and still preserve the integrity of the Galaxy. Oh, and I will get to see exactly what ET sees, all while using OUR numbers for a star map. The reason is that ET's star map, must necessarily be identical to ours, save for the origin.

And why not declination, if their planet has a different axial tilt and they use a way of making star maps like ours? A civilisation on a planet with a 90º difference in axial tilt when compared to Earth wouldn't result in star maps with a 90º difference in declination?

You seem determined to attempt to dissemble this until nothing remains. But, your "argumentum ad nauseam" is getting old, and accomplishes little...

I'm just trying to make you understand that a match Betty's map and a map we have does not mean our map is the same as the ET's map, and one possible difference is declination.

Unfortunately, you appear more worried with trying to prove you are right than with the truth.

posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 12:39 PM

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
Well this is the "Aliens and UFOs" forum, I think most of us would like to know if her map is from aliens or no.

I know I would.

Unfortunately, I don't think we have enough data to know that, and without enough data we can keep on finding almost perfect matches when we take into consideration different things (or not take into consideration some things).

The above doesn't mean I think we shouldn't stop looking, it means exactly the opposite, that if we find a match we should keep on looking for other matches, based on different approaches, as if we find two matches are the same based on different approaches then it means those matches are more likely to be correct than a match that is not confirmed by any other approach.

Riddle me this, if her map is an illustration of alien exploration as seen from Zeta Reticuli, how else did she come by it unless the she made a good copy of the original ET map? What other possible explanation can there be?

One other possible explanation is telepathy. Unfortunately, we know almost as little about that as we know about extraterrestrial civilisations.

posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 12:58 PM

originally posted by: ArMaP

I'm just trying to make you understand that a match Betty's map and a map we have does not mean our map is the same as the ET's map, and one possible difference is declination.

Unfortunately, you appear more worried with trying to prove you are right than with the truth.

If ET lives in this Galaxy, then his star maps will necessarily be the very same stars we see. There is no logical way for you to argue that "somehow", I guess by magic, that ET maps are different than ours. IF they were ET would NOT be able to navigate interstellar space, and would be bound to his home world.

I don't know how to explain this to you ArMap, perhaps you should go ask an Astronomer if the people of Zeta Reticuli have different stars than we do.

Ya know, you can beat this horse to death, but it will not change anything. Betty's map is a f*ing match to stars in local space. And, ArMaP, that is all the question ever was; "Is Betty's map a match to stars in local space." Yet, somehow you fail to understand that, and keep insisting that ET has different maps than we do, when it more improbable that Betty's map matching anything...including a good copy.

So, anyway, we're done. You have no point to make, and I have better things to do, other than try to explain how wrong you are. If you truly don't understand the Astronomy, and Astrophysics here; please, go ask an Astrophysicist.

How is that "pitch" or "roll" when we are talking about a planet's rotational axis?

Actually, ArMap, those are the three degrees of freedom One experiences in 3D space. Has little to do with Axial Tilt.

edit on 24-3-2019 by james1947 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 01:19 PM

One other possible explanation is telepathy. Unfortunately, we know almost as little about that as we know about extraterrestrial civilisations.

Isnt telepathy akin to saying magical fairies told Betty what to draw? Do you really consider telepathy a possibility for the origin of Betty's Map(assuming it does show a unique exploration route)

*** If *** the map is genuine, then I stand by the claim she must have gotten it from aliens. If you cant accept that, then the thread truly doesnt matter.

@Slicher "Not sure what purpose this thread even serves anymore"

Well it would be nice to get 10 or so pages of doing what Arbitrageur was doing back on page 3, working on determining the uniqueness/validity of the map.

@James1947
Enjoyed the PDF , I will try to see if I can get any interest in your work outside of ATS.

Are you aware of any software that would allow us to see the map like Jeep3r tried to do with Celestria back on page 4?

There are some interesting attempts out there to do it through the browser:

stars.chromeexperiments.com...
theskylive.com...|23.643391289983935|dec|7.825750798792807|fov|56
www.skymaponline.net...
www.3dgalaxymap.com...#!/GalaxyMap/0/0/0
in-the-sky.org...

posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 01:35 PM

originally posted by: 111DPKING111

One other possible explanation is telepathy. Unfortunately, we know almost as little about that as we know about extraterrestrial civilisations.

Isnt telepathy akin to saying magical fairies told Betty what to draw? Do you really consider telepathy a possibility for the origin of Betty's Map(assuming it does show a unique exploration route)

Actually, I would accept that there was an amount of telepathy involved, But then I've experienced Telepayhy with some that are close, and on a rare occasion with a stranger. But, I wouldn't consider it an acceptable form of communication...yet.

Well it would be nice to get 10 or so pages of doing what Arbitrageur was doing back on page 3, working on determining the uniqueness/validity of the map.

Well, some of Arbitrageur's argument wasn't valid, but, any attempt to determine the uniqueness is. And, I'll admit that I take the easy way out there by relying on the Mathematics...and the math says this is absolutely unique.

@James1947
Enjoyed the PDF, I will try to see if I can get any interest in your work outside of ATS.

Are you aware of any software that would allow us to see the map like Jeep3r tried to do with Celestria back on page 4?

There are some interesting attempts out there to do it through the browser:

stars.chromeexperiments.com...
theskylive.com...|23.643391289983935|dec|7.825750798792807|fov|56
www.skymaponline.net...
www.3dgalaxymap.com...#!/GalaxyMap/0/0/0
in-the-sky.org...

Well this actually presents technical issues of its own. First, I would like to have a "navigator" that works behind a browser, that is not an easy task since we are working with 3D. While there are supposed to be ways to put DirectX/3D into a browser, I wouldn't be able to produce anything that was a true "cross-browser" webapp.

So...for now, IF anyone has a flavor of Poser, I'll happily provide the "PZ3" (poser 3D file).

I'm am working on Version 2.0 of Betty's map; in as much as the "drill down" on objects, it should be something like that...

edit on 24-3-2019 by james1947 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 01:58 PM

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
Isnt telepathy akin to saying magical fairies told Betty what to draw?

No.

Do you really consider telepathy a possibility for the origin of Betty's Map(assuming it does show a unique exploration route)

I do. Like people that experienced abduction events believe them, I, that have experienced telepathy (although limited to only two persons) believe in the possibility of telepathy being used.

*** If *** the map is genuine, then I stand by the claim she must have gotten it from aliens. If you cant accept that, then the thread truly doesnt matter.

I don't have any problem accepting that possibility. In fact, if we can find a convincing match to a star map as seen from another planet that would be a great indication of an ET source of information.

posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 02:07 PM

originally posted by: james1947
If ET lives in this Galaxy, then his star maps will necessarily be the very same stars we see.

The same stars, yes, drawn in the same way, maybe not.

There is no logical way for you to argue that "somehow", I guess by magic, that ET maps are different than ours. IF they were ET would NOT be able to navigate interstellar space, and would be bound to his home world.

See above.

I don't know how to explain this to you ArMap, perhaps you should go ask an Astronomer if the people of Zeta Reticuli have different stars than we do.

Again, I never said that.

Ya know, you can beat this horse to death, but it will not change anything. Betty's map is a f*ing match to stars in local space.

So, anyway, we're done. You have no point to make, and I have better things to do, other than try to explain how wrong you are. If you truly don't understand the Astronomy, and Astrophysics here; please, go ask an Astrophysicist.

I do have a point, but you appear to dance around the subject and focus on something I never said.

Actually, ArMap, those are the three degrees of freedom One experiences in 3D space. Has little to do with Axial Tilt.

I know that those three degrees of freedom apply to things like aeroplanes, but I never saw them applied to astronomy.

posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 02:14 PM

originally posted by: james1947
Well this actually presents technical issues of its own. First, I would like to have a "navigator" that works behind a browser, that is not an easy task since we are working with 3D. While there are supposed to be ways to put DirectX/3D into a browser, I wouldn't be able to produce anything that was a true "cross-browser" webapp.

I don't know how good they could be (or even if they would work as you want), but you could look at WebGL (a JavaScript API that tries to replicate OpenGL) and Unity (a cross-platform game development system that uses as main language C# and that uses WebGL for browser compatibility).

posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 02:46 PM

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: james1947
Well this actually presents technical issues of its own. First, I would like to have a "navigator" that works behind a browser, that is not an easy task since we are working with 3D. While there are supposed to be ways to put DirectX/3D into a browser, I wouldn't be able to produce anything that was a true "cross-browser" webapp.

I don't know how good they could be (or even if they would work as you want), but you could look at WebGL (a JavaScript API that tries to replicate OpenGL) and Unity (a cross-platform game development system that uses as main language C# and that uses WebGL for browser compatibility).

Actually, I'd rather stick with DirectX, since I can be relatively sure that it is already installed on a users system. As for the OpenGL solution, I don't think that JavaScript is an appropriate language for such an API (professional opinion). I have thought of the Unity libraries, but, that will require several week of "learning curve", and, right now...I'm supposed to have a "paying" gig...(X -- crossed-fingers)

What I am currently working is a system that will display Betty's "basic" map, and allow drill down to ALL stellar bodies currently cataloged. Which is far easier. I have a class that can draw planetary orbits along with Habitable Zones that will work for any star. My drawing method is actually better than what you would get from most Astronomers (you may not want to know "why"). The only thing in the way now is deciding just 'how' I want to show it...it is all cross-browser compliant.

eta: I haven't seen any browser 3D actually work as well as I would want it to.

edit on 24-3-2019 by james1947 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 03:15 PM

originally posted by: ArMaP

The same stars, yes, drawn in the same way, maybe not.

Ya know, I'll bet that ET draws these sort of thing, pretty much the same way; Ya get the RA, Decl, and dist...feed it to a Trigonometric meth that return objectZ, objectY, and objectZ. Place thim into a 3D space...

Also, IF ET's method builds the same stars, then just how are they different. Oh, I forgot, you aren't saying that, right?

"I don't know how to explain this to you ArMap, perhaps you should go ask an Astronomer if the people of Zeta Reticuli have different stars than we do.
Again, I never said that.

Actually, ArMap, you are saying just that! While you don't say it directly, either your inability to grasp the realities here, or some actual lintent, you are saying that ET has different stars than we do.

We, both, know this is not the case. SO, WHY do you keep saying it?

Well, since I've produced two methods that say it is a high-quality match, and no one has produced anything to the contrary...

I do have a point, but you appear to dance around the subject and focus on something I never said.

You mean calling you on you erroneous implication?

Actually, ArMap, those are the three degrees of freedom One experiences in 3D space. Has little to do with Axial Tilt.

I know that those three degrees of freedom apply to things like aeroplanes, but I never saw them applied to astronomy.

Well, what can I say...perhpas if you thought things through a little better... I got that truth shoved into my face when I started working with Poses back in the 90's. It's kind of a property of cameras, or for that matter, "Points of View"...you see, while it is not a property of Astronomy, per se', it is a property of the camera you are using to view the stars with.

Now, IF we are done with this wee bit of wishful thinking of yours, please do not come up with another faux "point".

posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 03:21 PM
This seems like the best online star map so far, if someone knows of a better one, please post it.

stars.chromeexperiments.com...

If you click on the map and move the slider on the right up, it gives a really good interface for looking at the stars surrounding our own sun. Couldnt pull Zeta Reticuli into view though, or at least they didnt name it, it probably is in view.

posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 04:21 PM

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
This seems like the best online star map so far, if someone knows of a better one, please post it.

stars.chromeexperiments.com...

If you click on the map and move the slider on the right up, it gives a really good interface for looking at the stars surrounding our own sun. Couldnt pull Zeta Reticuli into view though, or at least they didnt name it, it probably is in view.

I tried that, didn't like it much; while the interface is good, my impression was that there too few stars.

And, to view Betty's map you need to go to "HIP-26737" its a star about 122ly from here, then look back at our Sun. Some of the stars will be around 120ly or so, so I don't know if they will be visible on that App.

posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 05:45 PM

originally posted by: james1947
Ya know, I'll bet that ET draws these sort of thing, pretty much the same way; Ya get the RA, Decl, and dist...feed it to a Trigonometric meth that return objectZ, objectY, and objectZ. Place thim into a 3D space...

Also, IF ET's method builds the same stars, then just how are they different. Oh, I forgot, you aren't saying that, right?

Right, I'm not saying the stars are different, I am saying that they may see them in a different way, not only because of the difference in point of view but also because of other differences like axial tilt of their planet or the angle between their planet's orbit and, for example the galaxy's equator. You know, things that make the Earth have something like a north star and do not happen in other planets like Venus. That different way most likely results in maps drawn according to what they see (in the same way our maps are made according to what we see), so we would need to apply some transformation to them to see the stars as we see them on our own maps.

Actually, ArMap, you are saying just that! While you don't say it directly, either your inability to grasp the realities here, or some actual lintent, you are saying that ET has different stars than we do.

Or my inability to express what I'm thinking. If I am saying that, I would like to know where I'm saying it, so I can learn how to say it as I should. As I say in my signature, "correct me if I'm wrong", but preferably tell me how to do it right.

Well, what can I say...perhpas if you thought things through a little better... I got that truth shoved into my face when I started working with Poses back in the 90's. It's kind of a property of cameras, or for that matter, "Points of View"...you see, while it is not a property of Astronomy, per se', it is a property of the camera you are using to view the stars with.

I may be wrong, but I don't think astronomers and astrophysicists use camera properties to describe planetary motions and positions.

Now, IF we are done with this wee bit of wishful thinking of yours, please do not come up with another faux "point".

I will not keep on trying to show where I think you are wrong, if that makes you happy. I just wanted to help you get a better result, as I think you are going in the wrong direction.

posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 08:36 PM

originally posted by: ArMaP

Right, I'm not saying the stars are different, I am saying that they may see them in a different way, not only because of the difference in point of view but also because of other differences like axial tilt of their planet or the angle between their planet's orbit and, for example the galaxy's equator. That different way most likely results in maps drawn according to what they see (in the same way our maps are made according to what we see), so we would need to apply some transformation to them to see the stars as we see them on our own maps.

You should that just because the Point Of View, or Axial tilt, inclination do not have an effect on position. Yes, the numbers are different, but when put through the trigonometric grinder, that celestial is always in the same place, regardless of POV, or who did the computations.

Unless of course you think that ET could accurately position these celestial bodies with the use of Math. I think that unlikely.

Or my inability to express what I'm thinking. If I am saying that, I would like to know where I'm saying it, so I can learn how to say it as I should. As I say in my signature, "correct me if I'm wrong", but preferably tell me how to do it right.

I'll try to be more clear.

I may be wrong, but I don't think astronomers and astrophysicists use camera properties to describe planetary motions and positions.

True, camera properties don't affect astrometrics. But, when we start talking about "viewing" these stars, a camera gets involved. So...Yaw and pitch are important, roll isn't.

I will not keep on trying to show where I think you are wrong, if that makes you happy. I just wanted to help you get a better result, as I think you are going in the wrong direction.

No, actually that wouldn't make me "happy", maybe less frustrated. You see, I have difficulty explaining what I see as a very fundamental "thing".

I don't know of any other logical direction to go with this: I started out to find the reality of Betty's map, and I found what appears to be a very high quality match. That combined with the other properties of this "thing", the mathematics, kind of indicate Extraterrestrial influence.

By-the-way: to get that view my camera is setup:
roll: -115 degrees
pitch: 5 degrees
yaw: -19 degrees

posted on Mar, 24 2019 @ 10:35 PM

Its got the wrong point of reference, but I think it is setup for this task.

Seeing it was chrome experiment, I thought it might be open source. If so, it shouldnt be overly difficult to change the point of view. Tools look like they are available, but looks like you would need to ask the author for the code base.

Or maybe he would be willing to rework the data for us, I think all the work is already done.

Going to start and check out some of the installed apps.
edit on 24-3-2019 by 111DPKING111 because: grammar

posted on Mar, 25 2019 @ 08:32 AM

I was reading about another contactee who asked a Grey where they came from, here it is:

Erik’s conversation with a Grey is as follows: "We go on the deck. I ask him, 'Are you from the Pleiades?' The Being adamantly replies, 'No.' I ask him where he is from. We look in the sky to see the Big Dipper. He says, 'See the Ursa Major?' I reply “Yes”. The Being then tells me, 'The star cluster to the right and below. The one with the triangle to the left and the little stars in between...we're from that one. “The fourth planet from our sun." This is the difference between conjecture and actual personal knowledge since it was voluntarily given by a Grey giving personal directions!--which clearly trumps Fish's theory, by the sheer fact that it was voluntarily given to an inquisitive lifelong chosen/experiencer who also asked: Where do you come from?

Now I don't know if Betty and Barney Hill's aliens/craft matched Erik and Kay Wilson's aliens/craft but if we can assume these people's experiences are true, then why not believe that the Greys are from Ursa Major?

If you are willing and open-minded james1947, could you do another analysis using that star cluster to the right and below in Ursa Major - then the one with the triangle to the left and the little stars in between...the fourth planet from our sun?

Is this a tall order?

www.hillwilsonstarmap.net...
edit on 13CDT08America/Chicago03380831 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 25 2019 @ 10:11 AM

originally posted by: james1947
I seriously do not want to get into a shouting match about computer vision and A I. It won't be productive.

But, you can not do a simple pixel comparison of two unequally sized images and expect any serious results when One should be doing a template match ...

The two are vastly different...
The tool we are talking about is exhaustive template matching from aforgenet.

The documentation says it does pixel matching, you deny this yet I confirmed with the developer this is what it does on the aforgenet forum.

www.aforgenet.com...

Exhaustive Template Matching
The routine implements exhaustive template matching algorithm, which performs complete scan of source image, comparing each pixel with corresponding pixel of template.

That's what it does, like the match I got using pixel matching with two completely different looking star patterns of 99.5% because most pixels were white.

It is clearly not doing what you think it does. If you don't believe me, and you don't believe the documentation, do you believe the developer of aforgenet?

www.aforgenet.com...

Q: is there any likelihood it can compare 2 images?
A: It can not compare two images. You can get a difference between two images of the same size, which may give some indication of how similar the images are. But there are no any sophisticated template matching algorithms implemented.

So all this bullsnip you've been giving me about "template" is explicitly denied by the developer of the tool you are using.
I wanted to confirm if this is still the case with the latest version, so yesterday I asked the developer if this is still true:

Q (from me): "Your post saying it can not compare two images is several years old now.

Is it still true that the latest exhaustive template matching cannot compare two images in any sophisticated way?

From the documentation it sounds like it's a simple pixel to pixel comparison."

Answer from the developer of the tool you're trying to use: "Nothing has changed since then. Still true."

You've used the wrong tool for what you're trying to do, when the developer says it can't compare two images. Your 99.1% number only means something like 99.1% of the pixels are white in both images, just like in my 99.5% number:

It was not me who didn't understand the software you're using, but you who doesn't understand it, the documentation saying it's doing pixel matching is correct, confirmed by the developer.

By the way even if you did find an appropriate image matching software application to use for pattern recognition, I would still expect far more documentation than you provided of the application's capabilities. As others also suggested earlier in this thread, the way to evaluate the capability of an image matching algorithm is to make several different images which vary from the original to varying degrees and see how well the match numbers correlate with a visual assessment.

For example a more sophisticated approach to a dot matching pattern might be to calculate the dot positions on the star map from Earth-based catalogs. Then have the algorithm attempt to identify the corresponding dots and do some kind of deviation analysis to see how much they vary from the baseline, or template, or whatever you want to call it. But the tool you used doesn't do any type of sophisticated analysis like that.

edit on 2019325 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Mar, 25 2019 @ 11:03 AM

And, I'm guessing that you still do not understand that in this exercise we are not comparing two images.

But, if it makes you happy...I'll just find another library.
You see, I've already shown that the template (Betty's map) is a match, though it was done in a manual/mechanical way. You might want to get out in front of this by checking out OpenCV, and all others you find.

Although you might want to also use your own, built in, template matching equipment, and be truthful...

eta: DUDE!!! Thanks for "busting" that!!!! I've found in OpenCV a far superior library. And, with the addition of EMGU.CV I have a cross platform solution to several other future projects...this will work on Windows, Apple (IoS), Android, Linux...I have a Raspberry project that can use this thing...Again Thank you...Oh, by the way, I'll probably come out of this with far better results than before...

edit on 25-3-2019 by james1947 because: (no reason given)

46