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: 20
52
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2019 @ 10:51 AM

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

Well Harte, since you are a Mathematics teacher... You should be painfully aware of ALL of the math involved!

Which means that you know FULL WELL that, in this instance; "p" is not the probability of a match. It is the probability of at least one (1) match.

If we expand the equation, we get: p = 1-(1-(1/C))^(C)

I've replaced the term C(n,r) with C for simplicity.

Actually this was stated explicitly in my post.

When we work that equation by filling in the appropriate values we end with a probability that is zero by the best methods of computation available. IF you have a better result; please provide it.

Continuing; our probability "p" is the probability of a single match and not the probability of finding "the match", what I have found is actually "the match". What this probability is telling us is that we have no expectation of finding any match at all.

The actual probability is then "p1"; where p1 = 1/C(n,r).

You should have known this all along sir; yet you claim it is incorrect. So, IF my math is indeed wrong; correct it, Teach!
Though we both know the reality here; my math is "spot on".

The realities of my math are rather "self-evident" when you use those equations and supply them with a range of value, One can readily see the changes in result...thus proving my math.

ETA: IF you can disprove the math; PLEASE do so.

edit on 16-9-2019 by james1947 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 16 2019 @ 11:40 AM

originally posted by: moebius
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.

Kind of like this:

1. Determine the probability of a "simple" match. In this case we have a collection of 25 stars taken out of a field of 2826 stars...I've shown this probability, it is the probability we are arguing over.

2. We determine the probability of there being at lease one (1) match. This is some what different that the simple case above, but necessary to give context.

NOTE: this so far is what we are arguing over, but it actually get worse.

What we have here are the probabilities for a single view. That is we have constructed a field of points/stars that represent ALL of the Hipparcos Mission Stars within 33 parsec of Earth (about 100 light years). This was done with a computer application that accepted no human input, thus insuring no errors in data input.

A camera was positioned in a place where it might be able to "see" the stars in the original premise...a few light years from Earth, and looking Earthward. It was then "driven around manually until a match was found. That match was tested using the latest of computer vision / pattern matching methods. It is a 91% match, which I consider "good enough" in light of the stellar movement between the 1960's and 1990's.

I haven't gone past this point, but, considering the probability, I don't think it practical to continue (given the required computer resources involved).

3. We place a camera at some arbitrary point and rotate it on all three axis rendering an image every few degrees of rotation (again an arbitrary value...probably greater than 1 and less than 15 degrees). For each of these renderings matching methods are applied. Data of a "good match" again arbitrary, but let us say 90%+, is saved in a database table for later review.

4. Move the camera and repeat. Do this for several complete sweeps around Earth at numerous distances until distance can no longer affect the view...WAY, WAY outside the original 33 parsec.

As an ancient Software Engineer I can tell you that this task is better suited to a Cray Jaguar rather than my ageing I9.

This task will require up to 46 million iterations or so, and hundreds of gigabytes of storage. (truth be known, if I had the resources; that might be a fun project)

That's how to find a match. Finding the probability is much the same except we factor in ALL of the POSSIBLE views...

posted on Sep, 16 2019 @ 11:57 AM

originally posted by: Hunkadinka

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.

Well now you are going have to prove there is "no reality" in my hypothesis. Primarily, sir, because this looks kind of "real" to me...

Is this just a figment of someone's imagination? Well, actually, I've proven it is not...

The alleged abduction of the Hills never happened.

Actually, sir; the evidence indicates otherwise. AND, I'm not talking about the near "witch doctor" methods you have applied, but rather the application of other sciences that are, shall we say, a bit more established than yours. i.e. Astronomy, physics, mathematics, computer science vs Hypnotism, pseudo psychology.

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

So again; Abduction, and a damn map.

What you don't want to understand is that Betty's drawing is something you can't simply dismiss. It is an accurate depiction of real star when viewed from 122 ly, looking Earthward. AND, it contains 4 stars that were not known until 1990. You need to understand the scope of the probability as well, and e-62 is not the probability of a random event, it is more closely related to "impossible"

edit on 16-9-2019 by james1947 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 16 2019 @ 04:08 PM

originally posted by: james1947
What you don't want to understand is that Betty's drawing is something you can't simply dismiss. It is an accurate depiction of real star when viewed from 122 ly, looking Earthward. AND, it contains 4 stars that were not known until 1990. You need to understand the scope of the probability as well, and e-62 is not the probability of a random event, it is more closely related to "impossible"

The main stumbling block is that the Star Map was first introduced in a DREAM ("pulled down" by a Jimmy Durante-nosed alien whilst his similar colleagues argued about whether Betty could take home one of their "books" - she should have nicked it!).

It's a shame that it was not part of a lucid memory rather than a dream - a potentially unreliable dream (like most are) which could have precipitated and 'contaminated' the subsequent regression. After all, she'd already written down these dreams, further 'solidifying' them.

If readers of your work are willing to bypass such a concern about dreams, then they'll support your calculations with far more enthusiasm. Other readers will never run with it, no matter what scope of probability is presented... because they'd be asking questions such as: If Betty had never dreamed of a map - and especially not WRITTEN about the dream - would the map have appeared AT ALL during regression?

You could reply asking: How on earth (or off earth) could Betty have known the stars' positions unless she had been abducted, dream or no dream?

But it WAS introduced in a dream. You see? So on and on the merry-go-round continues... for the future existence of ATS, no doubt.

edit on 16-9-2019 by ConfusedBrit because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 16 2019 @ 05:17 PM

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit

originally posted by: james1947
What you don't want to understand is that Betty's drawing is something you can't simply dismiss. It is an accurate depiction of real star when viewed from 122 ly, looking Earthward. AND, it contains 4 stars that were not known until 1990. You need to understand the scope of the probability as well, and e-62 is not the probability of a random event, it is more closely related to "impossible"

The main stumbling block is that the Star Map was first introduced in a DREAM ("pulled down" by a Jimmy Durante-nosed alien whilst his similar colleagues argued about whether Betty could take home one of their "books" - she should have nicked it!).

It's a shame that it was not part of a lucid memory rather than a dream - a potentially unreliable dream (like most are) which could have precipitated and 'contaminated' the subsequent regression. After all, she'd already written down these dreams, further 'solidifying' them.

If readers of your work are willing to bypass such a concern about dreams, then they'll support your calculations with far more enthusiasm. Other readers will never run with it, no matter what scope of probability is presented... because they'd be asking questions such as: If Betty had never dreamed of a map - and especially not WRITTEN about the dream - would the map have appeared AT ALL during regression?

You could reply asking: How on earth (or off earth) could Betty have known the stars' positions unless she had been abducted, dream or no dream?

But it WAS introduced in a dream. You see? So on and on the merry-go-round continues... for the future existence of ATS, no doubt.

Also, it appears the map that Betty did draw actually matched a road map pointing to specific towns/cities that she travelled.

posted on Sep, 17 2019 @ 12:01 AM
a reply to: james1947

You'll be glad to read that this is my last reply to a losing POV.

Wikipedia

Refutations
Psychiatrists later suggested that the supposed abduction was a hallucination brought on by the stress of being an interracial couple in early 1960s United States.[34] Betty discounted this suggestion, noting her relationship with Barney was happy, and their interracial marriage caused no notable problems with their friends or family. As noted in The Interrupted Journey, Simon thought that the Hills' marital status had nothing to do with the UFO encounter.

Skeptic blogger Brian Dunning noted that the hypnosis sessions occurred over two years after the reported abductions, which afforded the couple plenty of time to discuss their encounter. Dunning concluded that the Hills' "inventive tale from the mind of a lifelong UFO fanatic ... is unsupported by any useful evidence, and is perfectly consistent with the purely natural explanation." He added that a timeline analysis of the two Air Force radar sightings from that night in the Project Blue Book record shows that neither correlated with the Hills' story. The Air Force concluded that both targets were probably weather balloons.[35]

An alien (played by actor John Hoyt) depicted on television twelve days before the making of Hill's "Grey" hypnosis tape
In his 1990 article "Entirely Unpredisposed", Martin Kottmeyer suggested that Barney's memories revealed under hypnosis might have been influenced by an episode of the science fiction television show The Outer Limits, titled "The Bellero Shield", which was broadcast about two weeks before Barney's first hypnotic session. The episode featured an extraterrestrial with large eyes who says, "In all the universes, in all the unities beyond the universes, all who have eyes have eyes that speak." The report from the regression featured a scenario that was in some respects similar to the television show. In part, Kottmeyer wrote:[36]

Wraparound eyes are an extreme rarity in science fiction films. I know of only one instance. They appeared on the alien of an episode of an old TV series The Outer Limits entitled "The Bellero Shield". A person familiar with Barney's sketch in "The Interrupted Journey" and the sketch done in collaboration with the artist David Baker will find a "frisson" of "déjà vu" creeping up his spine when seeing this episode. The resemblance is much abetted by an absence of ears, hair, and nose on both aliens. Could it be by chance? Consider this: Barney first described and drew the wraparound eyes during the hypnosis session dated 22 February 1964. "The Bellero Shield" was first broadcast on 10 February 1964. Only twelve days separate the two instances. If the identification is admitted, the commonness of wraparound eyes in the abduction literature falls to cultural forces.

When a different researcher asked Betty about The Outer Limits, she insisted she had "never heard of it".[37] Kottmeyer also pointed out that some motifs in the Hills' account were present in the 1953 film, Invaders from Mars.[38] A careful analysis of Barney's description of the non-human entities that he observed reveals significant similarities between the "Bifrost Man" and Barney's descriptive details. One must also take into account Barney's conscious, continuous recall of the entities he observed on the hovering craft. They were dressed in black, shiny uniforms and were "somehow not human".

Jim Macdonald, a resident of the area in which the Hills claimed to have been abducted, has produced a detailed analysis of their journey which concludes that the episode was provoked by their misperceiving an aircraft warning beacon on Cannon Mountain as a UFO.[39][40] Macdonald notes that from the road the Hills took, the beacon appears and disappears at exactly the same time the Hills describe the UFO as appearing and disappearing. The remainder of the experience is ascribed to stress, sleep deprivation, and false memories "recovered" under hypnosis. After reading Macdonald's recreation, UFO expert Robert Sheaffer writes that the Hills are the "poster children" for not driving when sleep deprived.[41] Macdonald's article focuses primarily on the Hills' observations of the light in the sky and the timing of the journey, discounting the Hills' accounts of close encounters south of Cannon Mountain as recovered memories.

Skeptical Inquirer columnist Robert Sheaffer wrote the following:

I was present at the National UFO Conference in New York City in 1980, at which Betty presented some of the UFO photos she had taken. She showed what must have been well over two hundred slides, mostly of blips, blurs, and blobs against a dark background. These were supposed to be UFOs coming in close, chasing her car, landing, etc... After her talk had exceeded about twice its allotted time, Betty was literally jeered off the stage by what had been at first a very sympathetic audience. This incident, witnessed by many of UFOlogy's leaders and top activists, removed any lingering doubts about Betty's credibility—she had none. In 1995, Betty Hill wrote a self-published book, A Common Sense Approach to UFOs. It is filled with obviously delusional stories, such as seeing entire squadrons of UFOs in flight and a truck levitating above the freeway.[42]

Sheaffer later wrote that as late as 1977, Betty Hill would go on UFO vigils at least three times a week. During one evening she was joined by UFO enthusiast John Oswald. When asked about Betty's continuing UFO observations, Oswald stated, "She is not really seeing UFOs, but she is calling them that." On the night they went out together, "Mrs. Hill was unable to distinguish between a landed UFO and a streetlight". In a later interview, Sheaffer recounts that Betty Hill wrote "UFOs are a new science ... and our science cannot explain them".[43]

Robert Sheaffer released 48 pages of archived documents relating to Betty and Barney Hill, Benjamin Simon and Philip J. Klass on the Internet on December 23, 2015.

posted on Sep, 17 2019 @ 01:34 AM

originally posted by: InTheLight

Also, it appears the map that Betty did draw actually matched a road map pointing to specific towns/cities that she travelled.

Yeah, I point that out on page 2:

ALL of this comes from Betty's dreams. Including the map. They had a sighting, went home, Betty had these dreams, was hypnotized, turns into the story.

There is no map other than the one in Betty and james1947 dreams.

posted on Sep, 17 2019 @ 11:56 PM

The problem I have with your 'explanation' is that it is chock full of; "maybe", "may have", "suggested", and other non-concrete terms.

Another issue I have is that you only parrot others, I see no original thought.

On the other hand; what I have is as concrete as 2019 research can provide.

Your premise requires that Betty's map be a random occurrence, yet you can't prove that it is, in fact, I have shown that it can't be random. Yet you persist in trying to argue that it is.

The reality Sir; is that Betty drew that map, and it is a match to local stars. That kind of "busts" your hypothesis.
Further; the probability of Betty's map being "random" is so utterly ludicrously small, that One absolutely should consider it impossible (for any practical application).

InTheLight
Ectoplasm8

Actually Ecto that was on page 4. And I pointed out then that it wasn't a real match due to lack of identifying points...you new attempt is just as sorry.

I'm very sure I could match Betty's map to a map of Walmarts, and probably in different regions. But, those "matches" are not quite valid, and for one little reason; Betty stated it was a star map. So any match to something on Earth is not in the set of objects we are matching to.

Ya know; All I did with this thread was present a theory. One that is every bit as valid as those that some of y'all parrot so vehemently. It is a true shame that you can't approach this with a scientific mind and eye and actually analyze my work to see its merit...that is your loss.

edit on 17-9-2019 by james1947 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 12:25 AM

originally posted by: james1947

The problem I have with your 'explanation' is that it is chock full of; "maybe", "may have", "suggested", and other non-concrete terms.

Another issue I have is that you only parrot others, I see no original thought.

On the other hand; what I have is as concrete as 2019 research can provide.

Your premise requires that Betty's map be a random occurrence, yet you can't prove that it is, in fact, I have shown that it can't be random. Yet you persist in trying to argue that it is.

The reality Sir; is that Betty drew that map, and it is a match to local stars. That kind of "busts" your hypothesis.
Further; the probability of Betty's map being "random" is so utterly ludicrously small, that One absolutely should consider it impossible (for any practical application).

InTheLight
Ectoplasm8

Actually Ecto that was on page 4. And I pointed out then that it wasn't a real match due to lack of identifying points...you new attempt is just as sorry.

I'm very sure I could match Betty's map to a map of Walmarts, and probably in different regions. But, those "matches" are not quite valid, and for one little reason; Betty stated it was a star map. So any match to something on Earth is not in the set of objects we are matching to.

Ya know; All I did with this thread was present a theory. One that is every bit as valid as those that some of y'all parrot so vehemently. It is a true shame that you can't approach this with a scientific mind and eye and actually analyze my work to see its merit...that is your loss.

Crikey mate. Maybe a bit off topic here but I give kudos to you sticking to your guns. I'd be worried if you were in a debating team against me. You really hang in there. Researching and putting up the argumentative points.

On topic, if you've read my previous response you'd know that I disagree. But that is in the past.

I read this thread with interest and I've learnt a lot from both sides. Treat this post as another flag.

Kind regards,

bally

Edit: Your Avatar suits you well mate

edit on 18-9-2019 by bally001 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 05:07 AM
a reply to: james1947

I really was trying to realize your theory as valid but I keep going back to what the alien told Betty where they were actually from, and it was not in that star system, that is, if we are to believe that Betty Hill was not dreaming or delusional. How do we know she was not delusional? Then I also go back to what Carl Sagan said, "I'm frequently written to, saying how could I search for extraterrestrial intelligence and disbelieve that we're being visited? I don't see any contradiction at all. It's a wonderful prospect, but requires the most severe and rigorous standards of evidence." I too am seeking severe and rigorous standards of evidence and there are just too many problems with the reference source you decided to use and whether or not there was any basis in fact to begin with.

JOE MORTON: When John Mack threw his reputation and the name of Harvard behind this strange phenomenon, abduction stories gained credibility. This caused many scientists to sit up and take notice. Astronomer Carl Sagan.

CARL SAGAN: I personally have been captured by the notion of extraterrestrial life, and especially extraterrestrial intelligence, from childhood. It swept me up. And I've been involved in sending spacecraft to nearby planets to look for life, and in the radio search for extraterrestrial intelligence.

JOE MORTON: Carl Sagan has long scanned the cosmos searching for radio signals from extraterrestrial intelligence. So far, the search has been unsuccessful. But whether or not there is intelligent life somewhere, out there in the vastness of the universe, is a very different question from whether or not aliens have arrived on planet Earth.

CARL SAGAN: I'm frequently written to, saying how could I search for extraterrestrial intelligence and disbelieve that we're being visited? I don't see any contradiction at all. It's a wonderful prospect, but requires the most severe and rigorous standards of evidence.

JOE MORTON: Sagan and others charge that the stories from abductees are not sufficient proof, given a lack of physical evidence and the scientific implausibility. Physicist Paul Horowitz.

PAUL HOROWITZ: People think of us scientists as being grouchy old folks who insist on the right kind of evidence and probably have our minds all made up. If a rocket ship landed, if an alien saucer landed in my front yard tomorrow morning, I would be more delighted than anyone else around. And quite independent of the fact that I've said that they probably wouldn't do it, I would think it's terrific that they actually did. The whole problem of this business is that they haven't done it, that there's no credible evidence that they ever have. And most of us believe they never will.

www.pbs.org...
edit on 19CDT05America/Chicago00950530 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 05:42 PM
Excellent work, although I cant pretend to understand the math stuff. Looking at your map, I definitely see the similarities, although the proportions are slightly different.

posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 08:01 PM

originally posted by: AgentAnderson
Excellent work, although I cant pretend to understand the math stuff. Looking at your map, I definitely see the similarities, although the proportions are slightly different.

Proportions are everything.

(post by Hunkadinka removed for a manners violation)

posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 08:30 PM

edit on 18-9-2019 by Hunkadinka because: Format screwing up

posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 08:42 PM
a reply to: AgentAnderson

That's the problem, all the math means nothing if the "match" is not really a match.

posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 08:53 PM

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: AgentAnderson

That's the problem, all the math means nothing if the "match" is not really a match.

Exactly, let's get it right from the start people. Although the theory from James was very intriguing, I must say.

posted on Sep, 18 2019 @ 11:55 PM

originally posted by: AgentAnderson
Excellent work, although I cant pretend to understand the math stuff. Looking at your map, I definitely see the similarities, although the proportions are slightly different.

It is important to remember that Betty drew her map from memory, after a post hypnotic suggestion; some inaccuracy should be expected. Also, what Betty saw were 1962 stars; in that the stars all have what is termed "proper motion", this is a known property. So, over the 30 years that passed the stars moved some, although not much.

posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 12:01 AM

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: AgentAnderson

That's the problem, all the math means nothing if the "match" is not really a match.

That's absolutely true, ArMap. One of the reasons I used two different Computer Vision libraries, so that one could verify the other...

While the two performed differently, and used different algorithms, they did agree on the match, and it's quality.

Those, by the way, were the only two I could find.

posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 12:11 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift

posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 12:31 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift

top topics

52