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: 19
51
<< 16  17  18    20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Betty and Barney Hill's hypnotist stated that he believed they were recalling dreams while under hypnosis, not accurate memories - which was performed two years later.



Occam's razor simply states that of any given set of explanations for an event occurring, the simplest one is most likely the correct one.




Using hypnosis to extract hidden or vague memories may not be reliable. Although there is a widespread belief that hypnosis produces accurate memories, researchers found that hypnosis does not work well as a memory-recovery method. In addition, people who have been hypnotized tend to feel confident that their memories are accurate, contributing to the persistence of false memories.


www.hopkinsmedicine.org...



Myth 2: Hypnosis can help people remember the exact details of a crime they witnessed. While hypnosis can be used to enhance memory, the effects have been dramatically exaggerated in popular media. Research has found that hypnosis does not lead to significant memory enhancement or accuracy, and hypnosis can actually result in false or distorted memories.


www.verywellmind.com...

The point being, is that using references from hypnotic trances may not be the right way to further investigate abductions/contact.




posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: james1947

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Hunkadinka
Maybe someday you'll see the light at the end of the Hill tunnel.

Oh, that's not going to happen with our boy here. He's on a mission. Abducted by the map and statistical analysis.


Actually, no, I'm not on a "mission". You simply have decided I am; therefore, I am?

You have misunderstood this whole thing from the beginning. All I have done here is post an hypothesis along with some evidence that I thing gives enough support to elevate my hypothesis to the status of theory. Like any good researcher, I update these findings; you know as new information or process becomes available.

With these new posts, all I was really doing is admitting an error, and presenting the new/revised mathematics. Yet, again, you misunderstand.

Like I said to Hunkadinka; you should read the white paper.



I don't mean to gang up on you or deride you but you have picked a losing subject. Whatever research you've wasted your time it's similar to the Drake Equation in which he starts with 1 (us on Earth) and winds up with 1 'cause his theory doesn't add up to a hill of beans. We are it in the universe until we find out if UFOs or UAVs have living beings in them and then we can have an answer as to where they're from if out there or in here.

Betty Hill was extremely engaged in UFOlogy and then there's always "The Bellero Shield".



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight
Betty and Barney Hill's hypnotist stated that he believed they were recalling dreams while under hypnosis, not accurate memories - which was performed two years later.



Occam's razor simply states that of any given set of explanations for an event occurring, the simplest one is most likely the correct one.



Using hypnosis to extract hidden or vague memories may not be reliable. Although there is a widespread belief that hypnosis produces accurate memories, researchers found that hypnosis does not work well as a memory-recovery method. In addition, people who have been hypnotized tend to feel confident that their memories are accurate, contributing to the persistence of false memories.


www.hopkinsmedicine.org...


Myth 2: Hypnosis can help people remember the exact details of a crime they witnessed. While hypnosis can be used to enhance memory, the effects have been dramatically exaggerated in popular media. Research has found that hypnosis does not lead to significant memory enhancement or accuracy, and hypnosis can actually result in false or distorted memories.


www.verywellmind.com...


The point being, is that using references from hypnotic trances may not be the right way to further investigate abductions/contact.


As a good ex-hypnotist I can say this with confidence. Successful hypnosis depends on the hypnotist's skills. In UFOlogy you had unqualified people such as Budd Hopkins, David M. Jacobs, et al. They led their subjects because none of them had/have clinical hypnotherapy training. The Hill's Dr Simon was trained psychiatrist and his results could be trusted. The author I learned most from was Milton H. Erickson (Mike Mandel: "Erickson documents his experiments and experiences, effectively demonstrating why he’s still lightyears ahead of all other hypnotists to this day."). He took hypnosis to a different level and he was one of the most respected.

When I see documentaries on TV where a hypnotist is used I have to laugh at their amateur methods and I would never bet on their results, they leave a lo to be desired. But hypnosis in the proper hands can be an effective tool for getting into people's memory banks.

edit on 4-9-2019 by Hunkadinka because: To correct grammar.



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 11:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight
Betty and Barney Hill's hypnotist stated that he believed they were recalling dreams while under hypnosis, not accurate memories - which was performed two years later.




Occam's razor simply states that of any given set of explanations for an event occurring, the simplest one is most likely the correct one.


Occam, as a general rule, is okay. Unfortunately, there are a plethora of instances where Occam fails utterly (I'm thinking of software engineering here). I have seen many instances where the simple and direct do not work; this is just such an instance.



The point being, is that using references from hypnotic trances may not be the right way to further investigate abductions/contact.


While I would agree, in a general way, there are going to be instances where the use of hypnosis unveils important "data"...such as this instance.

On a "post hypnotic suggestion" Betty drew what she called a "star map" that she had seen on the Extraterrestrial craft. That "star map" as it turns out is a 91% match to today's "local stars" (stars within 33 parsesc) when viewed from specific area of interstellar space. In addition to this match of 25 stars in a field of 2800+, there is the prediction of 4 stars not known in 1962, and, were not in any catalog until 1991.

I have already outlined the probability of Betty doing by coincidence...it is virtually impossible.

Now then, anything else that Betty may have said, did, thought, etc., in other words; her entire psychology, has absolutely no affect on these calculations, the "pattern matching", the positions, class of star, number of planets, and other physical properties of the stars. It just don't happen...



posted on Sep, 5 2019 @ 12:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hunkadinka

originally posted by: james1947

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Hunkadinka
Maybe someday you'll see the light at the end of the Hill tunnel.

Oh, that's not going to happen with our boy here. He's on a mission. Abducted by the map and statistical analysis.


Actually, no, I'm not on a "mission". You simply have decided I am; therefore, I am?

You have misunderstood this whole thing from the beginning. All I have done here is post an hypothesis along with some evidence that I thing gives enough support to elevate my hypothesis to the status of theory. Like any good researcher, I update these findings; you know as new information or process becomes available.

With these new posts, all I was really doing is admitting an error, and presenting the new/revised mathematics. Yet, again, you misunderstand.

Like I said to Hunkadinka; you should read the white paper.



I don't mean to gang up on you or deride you but you have picked a losing subject. Whatever research you've wasted your time it's similar to the Drake Equation in which he starts with 1 (us on Earth) and winds up with 1 'cause his theory doesn't add up to a hill of beans. We are it in the universe until we find out if UFOs or UAVs have living beings in them and then we can have an answer as to where they're from if out there or in here.

Betty Hill was extremely engaged in UFOlogy and then there's always "The Bellero Shield".


Actually what I have here is nothing like the Drake Equation. Drake has 7 variables; 2 of which are fairly well known, 2 that are theoretical, and the rest is pure guess work.

I have a drawing of 25 (supposedly) stars that Betty drew. This "map" of her's is a match to 25 local stars (within 33 parsec). Regardless of "how" Betty got this "map"; it shows Extraterrestrial influence. Betty drew 25 stars that she could not have seen with her own eyes as the location is 122 light years from Earth. Since the drawing is so accurate; Occam's Razor would seem to indicate that the easiest way for Betty to have this "memory" would be that she saw the original on ET's craft.

Again; you really should read the white paper.
Link: wolfmagick.com...



posted on Sep, 5 2019 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Something I don't think y'all are getting.

This isn't about "how" Betty drew her map; the hypnosis, and other psychological issues, actually have no bearing on this.

What this is about is the "map"; Betty's impossible drawing. Her map is a match to local stars when viewed from HIP-26737, every one of the stars included are stars that would be of interest to Human explorers, and perhaps traders (one day). Betty's drawing predicts the existence and relative position of 4 stars that were not known in her time.

Given any collection of 25 "dots" on a piece of paper, there is no expectation of a match to any collection of stars within 33 parsec.

I strongly urge all of to read the White Paper



posted on Sep, 5 2019 @ 12:31 AM
link   
a reply to: james1947

You've been beating the same horse for so many years Tanka418, don't you think it's time to give it up?



posted on Sep, 5 2019 @ 08:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: james1947
This isn't about "how" Betty drew her map; the hypnosis, and other psychological issues, actually have no bearing on this.

They have, if you attribute a source of that information to something.

In that case, knowing how we got that information is important, even if it's not important for the (possible) match between the stars on Betty's map and reality



posted on Sep, 5 2019 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: james1947

The problem I have here is that Betty's original drawing was redrawn and assessed by Marjorie Fish and Marjorie eliminated all red dwarfs because in her estimation, the creation of life would not be possible around a red dwarf...not the reality today. So, I am sure you understand my hesitation in using Marjorie's redrawn map as a legitimate reference source.



Under hypnosis Betty was able to redraw the map the alien leader had shown her. Betty was vague about what the map actually showed; sometimes she referred to as showing stars and planets. Her sketch was reproduced in books and magazines. In the late 1960s, a teacher called Marjorie Fish (1932-2013) tried to compare the map with real nearby stars and see if any matched. This would not be an easy task as there were about a thousand stars within 50 light years of the Sun. To make things easier, Fish made a series of sensible assumptions based on how similar to us the aliens seemed, suggesting their home planet was very similar to Earth. Based on data that was accurate at that time, she eliminated

All non-main sequence stars (habitable planets are unlikely to survive their star’s transition to red giant)

All variable stars (it is difficult to see how life could arise on their planets because the huge temperature variations)

Stars of class F4 or higher (these would have much shorter lifetimes than our Sun, so less time for life to arise)

Multiple star systems where the stars were too close together (stable planetary orbits seem impossible)

M class red dwarfs (potential planets would be tidally locked, Fish and others assume this would prevent complex life arising, but this is not universally agreed)




As one of her hobbies, Marjorie made an investigation into the Betty Hill map by constructing a 3-D star map in the late 1960’s using several databases. She found a pattern that matched Mrs. Hill’s drawing well, which generated international interest. Later, after newer data was compiled, she determined that the binary stars within the pattern were too close together to support life; so as a true skeptic, she issued a statement that she now felt that the correlation was unlikely.


armaghplanet.com...



posted on Sep, 5 2019 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: james1947

The problem I have here is that Betty's original drawing was redrawn and assessed by Marjorie Fish and Marjorie eliminated all red dwarfs because in her estimation, the creation of life would not be possible around a red dwarf...not the reality today. So, I am sure you understand my hesitation in using Marjorie's redrawn map as a legitimate reference source.


Well, actually I didn't use Marjorie's interpretation as a "reference" source, I used Betty's original drawing (or rather the image currently passed off as that). Marjorie Fish's interpretation only gave me a starting point for observations onto my own 3D recreation of ALL stars known to the Hipparcos mission within 33 parsec (about 100ly).

So my stuff is yet another "redraw" of Betty's map...the difference is that I used more modern astronomical data than Marjorie did. The fact that we each "redrew" Betty's map is that Betty's map could not be an exact match. There are several reasons for this beginning with how ET got his data, how he referenced the stars relative to his home world, and a plethora of others. So, Betty's memory of this would also contain inaccuracies, and what we are left with are two very good matches of Betty's original drawing to what was the best astronomical data of the time.

You should read the "Criteria" bit in my white paper; it attempts to explain "why" certain stars are selected, and others not.

For instance your Red Dwarf objection; while it is true that Red Dwarf stars might evolve life of some sort, it is unlikely that that evolution would go much beyond the ability to survive the active variability of many Red Dwarfs. Most of these planets will be tidally locked and only have a small region about its equator where life is even possible.

But les look at these other items...



To make things easier, Fish made a series of sensible assumptions based on how similar to us the aliens seemed, suggesting their home planet was very similar to Earth. Based on data that was accurate at that time, she eliminated

All non-main sequence stars (habitable planets are unlikely to survive their star’s transition to red giant)


Good call; non-main sequence stars are all dying stars. Though some questions I have are; "how long does this dying process take?" "Could outer planets which were not in the habitable zone, come to be in a new habitable zone as the star expands?" And, "Could that environment be stable enough, long enough for a civilization to arise?"



All variable stars (it is difficult to see how life could arise on their planets because the huge temperature variations)


Another good call. Unfortunately back in that day; they might have mistaken a star with planets for a variable star.



Stars of class F4 or higher (these would have much shorter lifetimes than our Sun, so less time for life to arise)


Another good call. Although we should also exclude stars colder than a Class K6. These colder stars will probably have life, just like the hotter F4 - F0 stars. But, that life will probably not evolve into complex, intelligent, civilized life.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that complex, intelligence, or civilized is impossible, just less than probable.



Multiple star systems where the stars were too close together (stable planetary orbits seem impossible)


Actually it seems that stable planetary orbits are possible in some near binaries, but, those planets would have perhaps catastrophic events on a very regular basis, evolution under such circumstance might be difficult and long.

Oh the other hand there are many binary stars that have stable planetary systems around each; Zeta Reticuli comes to mind.

And of course finally; Ms. Fish did include a binary star, one that may not be so friendly to advanced life...but it was an exploratory star according to the map.



M class red dwarfs (potential planets would be tidally locked, Fish and others assume this would prevent complex life arising, but this is not universally agreed)


Well, perhaps they are right. M class stars are typically small and cold, and yet can be very active. Many of these stars with confirmed planets have planetary orbits that are closer than Mercury is to Sol (less than about 40,000,000 miles). Things like variability, can cause virtually all life to be wiped out in an instant. Solar flares, actually a form of variability, can cause life to be destroyed, or severely damaged. Thus, and through a mechanism like this, life is never given the chance to evolve.

An exception would be the "hotter" Class M stars; an M0, or M1 might have planets far enough away to not only avoid the tidal thing, but also avoid much of the expelled solar mass...perhaps some complex life there...



posted on Sep, 5 2019 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: clubheadjobby
a reply to: james1947

You've been beating the same horse for so many years Tanka418, don't you think it's time to give it up?


Should One simply "give up" on a perceived truth?

Oh, and I'm not "beating" that Horse; I trying to "lead it to water."

ETA: Seriously, I'm not beating a dead horse here; like any real researcher, I update my work when new information, or material becomes available. There are also "new" thoughts about this, when I think of it, that may be applicable. So, yeah, I update my work.


edit on 5-9-2019 by james1947 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2019 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: james1947
This isn't about "how" Betty drew her map; the hypnosis, and other psychological issues, actually have no bearing on this.

They have, if you attribute a source of that information to something.

In that case, knowing how we got that information is important, even if it's not important for the (possible) match between the stars on Betty's map and reality


I agree completely with you ArMaP. However, others, seem to be confused, they seem to think it is important to the match, when in fact it is not.

This matching process is a mechanical thing, carried out mainly by computer (this was done with the intent of eliminating Human error). The data used is all public data, the methods for the most part is simple Trigonometry for star locations, the matching process; conventional computer pattern matching (computer vision/AI).

So, none of the back story can affect this process...seriously the process is simple; does Betty's original drawing match any collection of 25 stars within 33 parsec.

And, of course, it does! And, for what it's worth; Marjorie Fish's half match was spot on.

ETA: A note on the back story; there are elements in Betty's drawing that predict the existence and relative positions of 4 stars. These are stars that were not known until the Hipparcos mission in the early 1990's. The only source for such accurate information would be an "off-world" source i.e. Extraterrestrials.

edit on 5-9-2019 by james1947 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2019 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: james1947

James - you were outed a few posts ago as a sock of 'Tanka418'. I think it's important for your Betty Hill paper to gain a picture of its author, I'm sure you agree. In the same way that, aside from the star map, you dismiss much of the Hills' other testimony as unreliable, I'm genuinely intrigued to hear your updated thoughts on some fascinating assertions (forget links, let's keep things tidy and focused) you yourself made years ago on ATS, such as:


ET has already addressed the UN; held meetings with G8 and G20, as well as any global governments.


And the other claim that:


A major Extraterrestrial / UFO event will occur within a two week window centered on April 11, 2014e.v. This is a prediction I'm making today: Sunday Jan. 26, 2014e.v... While I must observe all four powers of the pyramid for now, if all works out I will give complete detail shortly after the event.


Now the dust has settled, with the benefit of hindsight, are you able to provide details in 2019 as to what exactly happened or did not happen on those occasions, what the consequences were, and how or IF they connect to your conclusions regarding ET visitation in the Hill case?




edit on 5-9-2019 by ConfusedBrit because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2019 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: james1947

originally posted by: clubheadjobby
a reply to: james1947

You've been beating the same horse for so many years Tanka418, don't you think it's time to give it up?


Should One simply "give up" on a perceived truth?

Oh, and I'm not "beating" that Horse; I trying to "lead it to water."

ETA: Seriously, I'm not beating a dead horse here; like any real researcher, I update my work when new information, or material becomes available. There are also "new" thoughts about this, when I think of it, that may be applicable. So, yeah, I update my work.



James, you sound like a nice, sincere and dedicated person and you have the ability to shrug off criticism that has led others to less than friendly interchanges. A plus on your side. Stay that way.

You are better off giving up on a non-perceived truth. In order to quantify your "results" you need a source. Betty Hill is not it. The Hills may have seen a UFO but their sighting has been explained by better, more informed minds. Their abduction tale reeks of construction because she was well-learned about UFOs. Nothing in their tale reflects reality, only fantasy. No alien abduction, no map.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 12:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hunkadinka

originally posted by: james1947

originally posted by: clubheadjobby
a reply to: james1947

You've been beating the same horse for so many years Tanka418, don't you think it's time to give it up?


Should One simply "give up" on a perceived truth?

Oh, and I'm not "beating" that Horse; I trying to "lead it to water."

ETA: Seriously, I'm not beating a dead horse here; like any real researcher, I update my work when new information, or material becomes available. There are also "new" thoughts about this, when I think of it, that may be applicable. So, yeah, I update my work.



James, you sound like a nice, sincere and dedicated person and you have the ability to shrug off criticism that has led others to less than friendly interchanges. A plus on your side. Stay that way.

You are better off giving up on a non-perceived truth. In order to quantify your "results" you need a source. Betty Hill is not it. The Hills may have seen a UFO but their sighting has been explained by better, more informed minds. Their abduction tale reeks of construction because she was well-learned about UFOs. Nothing in their tale reflects reality, only fantasy. No alien abduction, no map.


What if Galileo had given up on his discoveries, just because they went against "conventional and established" wisdom? How about if Newton?

Sorry man, but, "giving up" simply isn't the way of truth.

No, to "quantify" my results I need the probability of there being at least one match; that came back as : 0.00 ... zero. The probabilities are the same regardless of the source. However, since Betty is the one who drew it, and she attributed it to Extraterrestrials, logic, probability, and even common sense would seem to strongly suggest that Betty and at least some of her story are true.

So, I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but; alien abduction, and a damn map!.

Now I will admit that a significant amount of Betty's story is confabulation, but, this single bit is absolutely what she claims it to be.


edit on 6-9-2019 by james1947 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2019 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: james1947

Then there is the mathematical fact that IF we increase the number of stars the probability of finding a good match decreases.

You want to call this a mathematical "fact."
You have provided no evidence or (in the case of mathematics) proof of this "fact."
It is my opinion that your fact actually states the reverse of the actual fact here.
More stars would increase the probability of finding a match, not decrease it.

Harte



posted on Sep, 15 2019 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: james1947

Then there is the mathematical fact that IF we increase the number of stars the probability of finding a good match decreases.

You want to call this a mathematical "fact."
You have provided no evidence or (in the case of mathematics) proof of this "fact."
It is my opinion that your fact actually states the reverse of the actual fact here.
More stars would increase the probability of finding a match, not decrease it.

Harte


Maybe, perhaps, it would help IF you actually read the damn White Paper.
That way, you see, you would have some, at least remote, idea of what I'm trying to say. But, I guess you and the others are way "too smart" for that. Jeez!

Again:



We need to find the probability of this as a random event.
As we have a collection of 25 out of 2826 stars our probability is:

C(n,r) = n!/r!(n-r)!
p1 = 1/C(n,r)

Where:
C(n,r) Number of combinations of r objects out of n.
p1 Probability of a match.
n Number of objects to select from.
r Number of objects selected.

This probability is however a bit out of context, we need to find the probability that at least one (1) match might be found. That probability is:

p = 1-(1-p1)^(C(n,r))

Where:
p is the probability of finding at least 1 match.
p1 is our probability from above.
C(n,r) is the number of combinations.

C = ‭1.1026076447105967557166786340039e+61‬
‭p1 = ‭9.0694092753408366473070162288531e-62‬
n = 2826
r = 25‬‬‬‬‬‬

P = 0.0E0

This indicates that we should have no expectation of a match between any collection of 25 “dots” and actual stars. So our estimated a probability is p1 = 9.0694e-62


Above is the relevant math;
If you look at the variable "C" (number of combinations of r in n). This is the term that is probably confusing you, but, I can't help but think that IF you had read the paper and math, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Anyway, some below it is the actual value for 25 stars out of 2826...1.1e61. If we increase the value of "n" (the number of stars to select from) we will in fact increase the number of combinations possible. We good so far?

Now, the probability of a match is the inverse of the number of combinations, or 1 / C. In an instance where I increased the number of stars to 3126 the probability is: 7.20e-63 ... some smaller than the probability using fewer stars. I would have done something a bit more dramatic, but, my PC's built-in calculator "overflowed" when I tried to increase the number of stars, and I didn't feel like writing the code to perform the calculation with bigger numbers...sorry.

Anyway, man, there it is, your "proof" that more stars decreases the probabilities.

Try it for your self and see...



posted on Sep, 15 2019 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Your own quote states that the probability of a match is p = 1-(1-p1)^(C(n,r)) .
So show me how this is 1/C.

FYI, I actually teach mathematics.

Larger samples mean larger probabilities of a match.

Harte



posted on Sep, 15 2019 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

I've long given up trying to understand his probability argumentation.

What he actually has is a spatial 2d pattern created by the projection of a set of 3d points/stars. I wouldn't even know where to start trying to estimate the probability of such a pattern match.



posted on Sep, 15 2019 @ 11:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harte
Your own quote states that the probability of a match is p = 1-(1-p1)^(C(n,r)) .
So show me how this is 1/C.

FYI, I actually teach mathematics.

Larger samples mean larger probabilities of a match.

Harte


This thread didn't have a leg to stand on when it was being created by the OP because the premise depends on reality and it fails in that respect. The alleged abduction of the Hills never happened. Betty was active in nascent UFOlogy. She created fantasies from what she learned and involved Barney, maybe Betty talking during sleep which Dr Simon said in so many words and he wasn't convinced that they actually were abducted by aliens in a "stationary" UFO. Research her connection to tv shows such as The Outer Limits, "The Bellero Shield" which is used to pinpoint similarities between the show and the Hill's hypnotic session results.

No abduction, no map. Map not a real matter for discussion.



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 16  17  18    20  21 >>

log in

join