Originally posted by nablator
reply to post by ArMaP
Well spotted my friend! Anyway my theory is that with enough dots that you are allowed to ignore, you can match any set of random dots to any type of
stars or planets.
I must disagree.
This is exactly where I come to disagree with those theories that it is supposedly easy to get those dots on paper with any desired pattern. Let's
suppose at first that we agree that the drawing made by Betty Hill is indeed what she is supposed to have been showed. This is indeed the first
condition to state what you stated. If you didn't believe that what she drew was that starmap, the whole discussion is dismissed.
So, let's say then that indeed she drew a starmap that she had been showed. You bluntly say that picking desired stars in a set is easy enough to get
a satisfying match.
Excuse me, but I have to say no to that. I know full and well that people including Carl Sagan have used that reason to "explain" the map. I must
say that Carl Sagan is (was) an astronomer of great value, however I have not been agreeing with everything that he said. Let me develop.
You pretend then that by picking the desired stars, you'd be able to produce a 3D model that would match that one that Betty is supposed to have been
showed. This is at best optimistic. I defy any person to build a 3D model of all stars in the 50ly+ vicinity of the earth and to spot a location from
where the perspective would give the same "dots on a sheet" with different stars. Even knowing that 80% or so of the whole stars are not what
they're supposed to be, i.e. similar to the sun.
The excuse used by Sagan and others to dismiss that starmap is merely that: an excuse. None have tried to produce that 3D model to prove their
assumptions. None have shown that Ms Fish has been misleaded into getting the wrong stars and/or the wrong perspective. None have done that. What
people have done is that they've been using an excuse as a reason to dismiss it. Because they didn't like the idea.
I have searched the web and more. There is (up to now at least) no 3D stellar map system that allows one to be positioned "on the other side of zeta
reticuli" from here, and see those stars labeled on that map in that perspective. Moreover, there are countless other stars that would be
"polluting" the view if indeed it could be done, because once again, 80% nearly of all the stars are close to, M class or fainter even.
Nevertheless, even with the necessary tools, it would take an amazing time to properly produce a 3D map of those stars mentioned in that map, simply
ignoring the rest. Why? Because those stars are just like many more others in the rest of the sky: unremarkable! Why were they all plotted there? The
question seems to be alien (hum...) to some, but to me it is fairly clear that they had a reason to be there on the map.
Again, coincidence? All right, trust me, I'm gonna win the lottery next week. You don't believe me? Well, you'd better do! Because that's more
likely than producing such a map out of chance...
[edit on 12-4-2009 by SpookyVince]