An analysis of the Betty Hill "star map"

originally posted by: twosquares
She was able to do it correctly and confidently the first time she was asked. If she was asked again, confirmation bias would have been playing in her favor with every attempt. This is a coincidence that happens to be part of a story about the unexplored. I don't see it as anything more

Maybe you could help me out a bit here;

In light of the fact that it is virtually impossible for Betty's map to be coincidental (more than simply "astronomical" odds), why do you think it is a coincidence?

originally posted by: james1947
Anyway, in response to your highlighted statement above...Yes, there IS a way to "see" IF the map is connected to reality. Marjorie Fish showed you way back in the late 1960's, and I've shown you just now. That is exactly "HOW" the map is "connected" with reality.

That's because you are responding only to half of what I wrote. The fact is that we don't really know that what Betty Hill drew was an exact copy of what she (supposedly) saw or if it has big differences.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: james1947
Anyway, in response to your highlighted statement above...Yes, there IS a way to "see" IF the map is connected to reality. Marjorie Fish showed you way back in the late 1960's, and I've shown you just now. That is exactly "HOW" the map is "connected" with reality.

That's because you are responding only to half of what I wrote. The fact is that we don't really know that what Betty Hill drew was an exact copy of what she (supposedly) saw or if it has big differences.

Yes, but did M. Fish factor in that the Earth may be located on the map as per Betty's regression information? If Marjorie Fish did not, then she might have gone in a totally different direction.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: james1947
Anyway, in response to your highlighted statement above...Yes, there IS a way to "see" IF the map is connected to reality. Marjorie Fish showed you way back in the late 1960's, and I've shown you just now. That is exactly "HOW" the map is "connected" with reality.

That's because you are responding only to half of what I wrote. The fact is that we don't really know that what Betty Hill drew was an exact copy of what she (supposedly) saw or if it has big differences.

Betty Hill said for some of the stars on her map, she didn't know if they exist or were in that position, should we believe her?

R.I.P., Marjorie Fish and her Star Map

In a letter dated only "October 12" (1969?), Betty Hill wrote

"As for the 8 background stars - I really do not know if they exist and in that position, or if I added them to try to show that the other stars were seen on the sky map in the background. I know I added them to show that stars were in the background; however, as to their position on the original skymap, I am not sure."

So even Betty Hill herself was not so sure about the unconnected stars - one of which is sometimes claimed to represent a star that 'had not been discovered yet' at the time the map was made. Kitty suggests, "We should be focused on Betty Hill's original drawing, not attempted matches. If you are starting with bad information, you will never have a match." And if even Betty Hill says she was "not sure" about the stars she drew, I can't imagine why anyone else should be.

Also Betty Hill made her own interpretative star map (Betty Hill's Pegasus Map, in The Interrupted Journey, mentioned in that link), so why are we focusing on the Fish interpretation, and not Betty Hill's own interpretation?

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: james1947
Anyway, in response to your highlighted statement above...Yes, there IS a way to "see" IF the map is connected to reality. Marjorie Fish showed you way back in the late 1960's, and I've shown you just now. That is exactly "HOW" the map is "connected" with reality.

That's because you are responding only to half of what I wrote. The fact is that we don't really know that what Betty Hill drew was an exact copy of what she (supposedly) saw or if it has big differences.

As I have already stated, Betty's map is only an approximation.

I could rather easily draw Betty's map, not exact, but close enough to be easily recognized. I can do this by using the image elements I described in the second half of the analysis. By combining somewhat familiar graphical elements that map can be easily drawn by anyone who pays attention.

In direct response to your statement; we can not know if what Betty drew was anything like what she saw, that evidence is 58 years in the past. Yet, she believed it was. And, the fact that that configuration of stars actually exists strongly indicates that what she saw was real, and she drew it with enough accuracy that the stars could ultimately be identified by science, and the map shown to be of extraterrestrial origins. Remember the map is far more than just the prominent stars, there are a total of 25 identified stars, and that includes 4 stars that were not known at the time.

If feels to me that we dropped the ball on this one.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: james1947
Anyway, in response to your highlighted statement above...Yes, there IS a way to "see" IF the map is connected to reality. Marjorie Fish showed you way back in the late 1960's, and I've shown you just now. That is exactly "HOW" the map is "connected" with reality.

That's because you are responding only to half of what I wrote. The fact is that we don't really know that what Betty Hill drew was an exact copy of what she (supposedly) saw or if it has big differences.

Yes, but did M. Fish factor in that the Earth may be located on the map as per Betty's regression information? If Marjorie Fish did not, then she might have gone in a totally different direction.

Yes. Our Sun is on the map, and therefore, Earth and the other 7 planets as well.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Also Betty Hill made her own interpretative star map (Betty Hill's Pegasus Map, in The Interrupted Journey, mentioned in that link), so why are we focusing on the Fish interpretation, and not Betty Hill's own interpretation?

I thought I had a copy of that, but, I guess not...Do you have a link?
Though, if memory serves, Betty's map identifies fewer stars that M. Fish, and she only had about half correctly identified. In any case, Betty's interpretation doesn't seem to be readily available...And, the Fish interpretation seems to be a very good starting point.

a reply to: james1947
It was posted in another ATS thread, where Betty saw a Pegasus map and thought it was a match so she labeled the stars on her map:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

In April 1965, a year after Betty drew her map, the New York Times published a map that showed an area near the constellation Pegasus the Russians believed intelligent radio signals were originating:

After Betty saw this, she was struck by the similarities and drew her map with the corresponding names next to the planets/stars:

I post this because it's a good example of attributing what you want to believe to Betty's map by filling in the blanks. Although it's strange Betty claimed the leader told her to find where she was on the map and Earth is nowhere on this New York Times map. This would be another inconsistency in their story, but I guess it just another part of her testimony that's irrelevant and BS to you.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: james1947
Anyway, in response to your highlighted statement above...Yes, there IS a way to "see" IF the map is connected to reality. Marjorie Fish showed you way back in the late 1960's, and I've shown you just now. That is exactly "HOW" the map is "connected" with reality.

That's because you are responding only to half of what I wrote. The fact is that we don't really know that what Betty Hill drew was an exact copy of what she (supposedly) saw or if it has big differences.

This is correct and was my point initially in this thread. Sadly I got shot down. What I was trying to get across was the fact "the Map" is 2 D and from what I read was shown to Betty in 2 D. Then she allegedly copied it from memory.

Whether on Earth or in space Betty's map is not 3 D. So I questioned, why would space navigators be relying on 2 D? Think about it. 2 D. from 1 position? What's the point of that in space? Look right, left , above and below even just the tiniest. All perspective changes.

A 2 D map used in intersteller Navigation? Yeah,,,Nah.

Kind regards,

bally

originally posted by: james1947
As I have already stated, Betty's map is only an approximation.

You can only say that if you know what she should have drawn.

Did you see the Alien's map?

OP,

Great effort in posting this with that tools you had on hand.

At least someone took the time and invested it into a thought provoking post.


Its nice to see something other than a CGI, 10sec you tube clip. (which is what this forum has turned into)

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

I post this because it's a good example of attributing what you want to believe to Betty's map by filling in the blanks. Although it's strange Betty claimed the leader told her to find where she was on the map and Earth is nowhere on this New York Times map. This would be another inconsistency in their story, but I guess it just another part of her testimony that's irrelevant and BS to you.

Thank you for that.

Ya know, I wouldn't think this viable in this instance. Betty has identified 8 stars our of 25...so this can not be a match.
There is also the part you pointed out, in that Earth is not on the map.

Part of the problem I see here is that you think I/we are simply "filling in the blanks", which isn't even remotely true. What I've done, what M. Fish did is find configurations of stars that actually match what is in the drawing. In M. fish's case it took months, probably years to find her match, but, a partial match she did if fact find. What I did is expand on her work. The reason for this is that since she did find a partial match, a match else where in local space is sufficiently improbable that it may as well be considered impossible (~1.0e-188 probability). This meant that IF the rest of the map can be found in a view that includes M. Fish's stars that view has an extremely high probability of being the only viable view.

Actually, what you "see" as an "inconsistency" in Betty's story, isn't!

originally posted by: bally001

This is correct and was my point initially in this thread. Sadly I got shot down. What I was trying to get across was the fact "the Map" is 2 D and from what I read was shown to Betty in 2 D. Then she allegedly copied it from memory.

Whether on Earth or in space Betty's map is not 3 D. So I questioned, why would space navigators be relying on 2 D? Think about it. 2 D. from 1 position? What's the point of that in space? Look right, left , above and below even just the tiniest. All perspective changes.

A 2 D map used in intersteller Navigation? Yeah,,,Nah.

Kind regards,

bally

That image is 3D! And, yes, Betty's drawing is only 2D. However, the point I was trying to make when you got "shot down" was that any representation of 3D anything on a flat surface, such as a a bit of paper, or your monitor, etc. is necessarily 2D. It is a limitation of technology, and while we (right here on Earth) could display my image above in true 3D, those display devices aren't in much use yet.

Anyway, it is possible to apply a 2D template to 3D space, even though we loose a dimension, the relative positions of objects remains unchanged.

And, of course, for navigation between those stars, we use the 3D model we have built in memory.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: james1947
As I have already stated, Betty's map is only an approximation.

You can only say that if you know what she should have drawn.

Did you see the Alien's map?

Actually, ArMap, Yes, I did "see" the aliens map, or rather a "progressed" reconstruction. ET would, necessarily have a current version of those stars, and what I have is the same view, but, progressed 30 years (there have been 30 years of "proper motion" on all stars).

And, calling Betty's map an approximation is the only accurate description for it. I don't need to "see" ET original map, nor do I need to compare Betty's map to it to know that what Betty drew is an approximation.

Betty drew her map after being exposed to the original, and required hypnosis to recover the memory sufficiently to draw it; thus, what she drew necessarily is not a "point-for-point" copy, it can not be! This is due to the nature of the "data recovery".

I'm trying to understand your persistence in thinking that the accuracy of Betty's drawing has any relevance. Betty literally could drawn anything and had the very same probability of drawing something that matches stars in local space. And, would have failed as significantly and any ATS member will fail if they try to draw 25 dots that match stars in local space.

But, Betty's map is a match for stars when viewed from HIP-26737, as I've shown. This match has a probability so small that it is virtually non-existent.

Then there is the next significant aspect of Betty's map; the prediction of 4 stars!

originally posted by: james1947
Actually, what you "see" as an "inconsistency" in Betty's story, isn't!

You can claim it isn't, but it is.

Betty labeled the stars on her map, and you chose to use another map made by a schoolteacher who labeled them completely differently than Betty. Also Betty said she was not sure at all about the positions or even the existence of some of the stars on what she drew, so to her the labels she applied to her map didn't seem like an inconsistency, she was disregarding all those dots she drew that she said she wasn't really sure about anyway. You're cherry-picking, taking the parts of her story you like (her unlabeled map) and ignoring the parts you don't like, her map which labeled the stars, labels you apparently don't like.

originally posted by: james1947
However, as with most things; you are free to form any opinion you like...personally, I prefer knowledge based on science.

You are biased beyond belief to not recognize this and to claim your approach is scientific when it is clearly not. A scientific approach considers all the lines of evidence pertaining to an investigation, not just the cherry picked lines you're biased to want to believe are true. The fact which you don't want to admit, and it is a fact, is your map does not match the Betty Hill map where she labeled the stars. If you do admit that her labeled map is wrong, then your case falls apart, because she is your star witness and she is wrong, and not just about that; there are many other problems and inconsistencies regarding Betty Hill's story which I suspect have already been explained to you and you chose to ignore all that evidence too, again in a very unscientific manner.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I haven't seen him post anything in an "unscientific" manner. Quite the opposite.

If you don't believe the Betty Hill case with the star map true or real, just say that. It would be more honest. All the other confirmation bias is quite transparent with those who think this is all bunk.

Stanton Friedman says it is valid and over the decades has been proven out "Scientifically". Read his books.

Is he unscientific too?

originally posted by: james1947
Actually, ArMap, Yes, I did "see" the aliens map, or rather a "progressed" reconstruction.

Being on the Alien ship with Betty would have been the only way of seeing the Alien map, any other thing, like what you call a "progressed reconstruction" is just wishful thinking from your part.

ET would, necessarily have a current version of those stars, and what I have is the same view, but, progressed 30 years (there have been 30 years of "proper motion" on all stars).

No, what you have is what you think is the same view progressed 30 years. As you do not have access to the original Alien map you cannot honestly say that you do have a progressed version of it.

And, calling Betty's map an approximation is the only accurate description for it. I don't need to "see" ET original map, nor do I need to compare Betty's map to it to know that what Betty drew is an approximation.

Betty drew her map after being exposed to the original, and required hypnosis to recover the memory sufficiently to draw it; thus, what she drew necessarily is not a "point-for-point" copy, it can not be! This is due to the nature of the "data recovery".

And we, without knowing what errors were added on her version, cannot really say that we can create an equivalent to the original Alien map.

I'm trying to understand your persistence in thinking that the accuracy of Betty's drawing has any relevance. Betty literally could drawn anything and had the very same probability of drawing something that matches stars in local space. And, would have failed as significantly and any ATS member will fail if they try to draw 25 dots that match stars in local space.

But, Betty's map is a match for stars when viewed from HIP-26737, as I've shown. This match has a probability so small that it is virtually non-existent.

So, that means that regardless of Betty having drawn something that was completely different from the map she supposedly saw aboard the Alien ship or not, the drawing is (according to you) a match for stars when viewed from HIP-26737? Great, but what's the use? What we should be interested in was the comparison with the original map, and we do not have that, we only have Betty's version, and that's why I say her accuracy in representing the original map is important.

As you know, "garbage in, garbage out", we cannot get correct results from faulty data.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

I haven't seen him post anything in an "unscientific" manner. Quite the opposite.

He's not using all of the available data. How scientific is that? He's choosing to ignore the story calling it irrelevant and focusing just on the map. He does this because the Hill tale is full of inconsistencies and ridiculous claims. Claims that put into question the entire event. Once you question the event, the map too comes into question. He's not being honest to the story. As it's already been said, he's cherry picking.

Imagine someone skeptical comes along and says they don't believe the story just based on the map alone and to ignore the rest of it. Would that be an honest evaluation of the Hill case? Of course not. That's exactly what james1947 is doing here. He has no choice but to dismiss the Hill claims when the map is involved and in the middle Betty's testimony.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I haven't seen him post anything in an "unscientific" manner. Quite the opposite.

Read ArMaP's posts where he is also explaining the lack of a scientific approach and he is absolutely correct about "garbage in, garbage out" which is the way this whole thing is handled and that is definitely not scientific to put garbage data in and then claim the garbage that comes out is some kind of scientifically valid result.

I explained numerous things in detail in James posts which are not scientific, like my latest objection that all the lines of evidence are not being considered by James, just a tunnel vision focus on some number from a computer algorithm he can't even defend because he claims the documentation for the algorithm is wrong when it says it's comparing pixels.

If you don't believe the Betty Hill case with the star map true or real, just say that. It would be more honest. All the other confirmation bias is quite transparent with those who think this is all bunk.

Im stating specific scientific objections, not what I believe.

Stanton Friedman says it is valid and over the decades has been proven out "Scientifically". Read his books.

Is he unscientific too?

In this case, yes Friedman has failed to repudiate the Fish map based on new evidence as he would if he took a scientific approach, explained in detail here:

The Pseudo-Science of Anti-Anti-Ufology

But today the Fish Map is no longer viable whatsoever. In her research beginning in 1966, Fish made the wise choice to use the Gliese Catalogue of Nearby Stars, which was then the most accurate available. But that was over forty years ago, and science never stands still. Astronomical researcher Brett Holman recently checked out what the Fish Map would look like if it were built using the most accurate astronomical data available today. His answer is in his article in the British publication Fortean Times (#242, November 2008): "Goodbye, Zeta Reticuli" (the supposed home solar system of the UFOnauts). Holman writes, “In the early 1990s the Hipparcos satellite measured the positions of nearly 120,000 stars 10 times more accurately than ever before – including all of those that appear in the Fish interpretation. The results of this work, and much else besides, is available online now, and can be easily queried using websites such as SIMBAD at the Strasbourg Astronomical Observatory.”
Fish excluded all variable stars and close binaries to include only supposedly habitable solar systems – but the new data reveals two of her stars as suspected variables, and two more as close binaries. So there go four of her 15 stars. And two more are much further away than earlier believed, removing them completely from the volume of space in question. Six stars of that supposedly exact-matching pattern, definitely gone, excluded by the very criteria that once included them using the forty-year-old data. Goodbye, Zeta Reticuli.

Since scientists are obligated to repudiate their hypotheses should subsequent data contradict them, if Friedman is practicing “scientific UFOlogy” as he claims, he will have to admit that he was wrong about the Fish map. But that will never happen. Arguing with Friedman is like arguing with a Creationist, who keeps using discredited arguments to impress new audiences, and seizing upon minor misstatements of his critics and attributing to them the very worst of motives, while completely ignoring their strongest arguments. His arguments rely heavily on the ad hominem attack – his critics are such terrible persons – a sure sign of somebody trying to defend emotionally a position that can’t be defended logically. (Whenever you see the strong reliance on the ad hominem – my critics are such terrible persons – it’s almost like a red banner proclaiming, “my arguments don’t hold up.”) Another major UFO case with a strong endorsement from Friedman is the 1996 Yukon UFO, conclusively shown to be the re-entry of the Cosmos 2335 second stage rocket booster. But Friedman refuses to acknowledge that he was wrong about that case, either.

From this moment on, every time that Friedman speaks of the Fish Map, except to say “I was wrong about it,” his own words brand him a hypocrite.

Friedman's Frenzy

As explained in my earlier Blog posting, the newer and much more accurate astronomical data shows that at least six of the fifteen stars must now be tossed out, under the same rules that once included them. Two are close binaries, two more appear to be variable, and two more are not even in the volume of space in question, their distances having been erroneously measured in the older data. So from fifteen stars supposedly matching the twenty-six Betty drew, subtract six more. Goodbye, Zeta Reticuli. "Bobby doesn't bother to stress the fascinating results especially the identification of the base stars Zeta 1 and Zeta 2 Reticuli.... the closest to each other pair of sun-like stars in the neighborhood." Sorry Stanton, forget it - game over. The only reason to think that Betty's sketch has anything to do with the two Zetas is that dubious match, using the forty-year old astronomical data, where the patterns sort of maybe look similar if you squint and close one eye, but really don't. Now re-draw the map according to the same criteria, using the most accurate present-day star catalog data, and six of the fifteen stars disappear, leaving you with nine stars to try to match Betty's twenty-six. Goodbye, Zeta Reticuli.

But Friedman has invested so much time and effort into convincing the world that his precious Fish Map is proof of extraterrestrial visitations that he is simply incapable of admitting the obvious: that it has no validity whatsoever. There is no way he can go to MUFON or any other UFO group and say, "I'm sorry folks, I've been wrong for these past forty years. The Fish Map does not prove anything."

Also I find this interesting, that the two huge connected globes in the lower right may not even be stars. Why are they so out of proportion with the other stars? Maybe they are what Betty remembers as a planetarium projector:

While we are talking about Zeta Reticuli, one interesting question is: What did Betty Hill intend to represent at the bottom of her "Star Map" where we see two large globes, connected by several parallel lines? The best suggestion I have heard comes from star map researcher Charles Atterberg (more about him is in my book UFO Sightings). He suggested that the two globes represent an old planetarium projector, similar to the one you see here. It makes perfect sense. When Dr. Simon asked Betty to draw, as best she could, the "star map" she claims to have seen, her mind wandered back to a planetarium show she presumably saw years earlier. She drew the stars she saw, and also the projector below them!

I don't know why she drew those big globes that way, but that explanation makes more sense than any other explanation I've heard.