It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Do you have evidence for the "colors" claim? As far I remember the map was done in black and white?
Originally posted by Nicorette
The "leader" never told Betty Hill that what she was looking at included Sol or Zeta Reticuli, but Marjorie Fish simply assumed the sun was represented on the map. That's a huge assumption! Someone has also made the case the map represents the Solar System ( link). Why is one interpretation more favored than the other?
Why is Gliese 86.1 included? It is more than 186 light years from Sol. There are more than 500 sun-like stars less than 100 light years from Sol (link). That is like having a map of your East Coast, which shows Philadelphia but not New York, but also shows Honolulu for some reason!
The stars labeled Zeta Reticuli are only about 0.1 Light Years apart in actuality. This map shows a much greater apparent distance between the two, particularly if you compare it to the distance between Zeta Reticula and our Solar System, which is 40 light years. You could argue, "well it's a matter of perspective" - but then you have to admit the map is not drawn to scale. And if it's not drawn to scale, then all bets are off!
It's a stylized, visual representation then, not a map, how could it be taken seriously as a map if it's not to scale? How can you "fit" other stars into a pattern if the distances are not accurate? And the Zeta 1 : Zeta 2 versus Zeta : Sol distances are clearly a mess by many orders of magnitude!
And here's Betty's original map:
It clearly can't be to scale either, or if it is, those two near objects with lines around them cannot be stars, because if they were gravity would have crushed them together billions of years ago. And what kind of stars have vertical bands across them? Stargates? Satellites? Moons? It could be some stylized representation of solar data, but you still have the problem of scale.
I find the Fish map interesting but ultimately unconvincing because of the way stars are chosen to fit a pre-existing pattern - but there is zero assurance of any kind of accuracy given the distances involved in the pattern!
Betty drew a map, from hypnotic regression, five years after the fact, knowing full well she didn't know much about drawing or astronomy. To imagine the distances she drew would be accurate is absurd. To cherry-pick 12 or so stars out of the 500+ Sun-like stars in that volume of space to match a rough hand sketch does not seem statistically improbable at all.
Originally posted by SpookyVince
Sorry, it says permission denied on that server.
To be able to take a 2d map that has no distances nor scales, no refrences no nothing and presume to be able to match it up to one and only 1 spot in the universe? Really?
Originally posted by SpookyVinceb: As the story goes, the leader would have apparently asked her if she could locate herself on the map he was showing her, which leads me to believe that assuming the sun would actually be on that map is a bit more than a working hypothesis. It would make less than no sense to ask someone to pinpoint their location on a map that doesn't contain their position.
Besides, the reason why I would say that the solar system map is less credible is simple: stars, even if they are all actually moving, are separated by large distances, and thus their relative position to each other varies very little over long periods of time. This makes a star map a pretty much "permanent" map, while on the contrary, planets around a single star (and hence, our solar system as well) are comparatively moving much faster, making a "planet map" very short lived...
Let's assume that we are visiting a place where a species live, a species that we thing is potentially intelligent, sentient. We're not exactly sure what they are and even where in the evolution process they are, but we're giving it a try: let's show them a map of earth and let's see if they can 1. recognize the place where we all live, and 2. pinpoint their location on that planet...it makes full sense to show a map of neighbouring stars, and ask if they know where they are. More sense, I think, than showing the planets around the sun and ask them which planet they're on.
This may be a misinterpretation. However, depending on the role or use that one makes of a map, not everything is included.
Someone said something like "when you draw a map, you don't only place a dot on it for major cities". Well, yes: one does place a dot only for major cities. Not all villages are plotted. Actually, most are not. And again, depending on the use of the map, you may well only plot just your "places of interest". If, if that was indeed a "trade routes" map, then it may be perfectly normal to have only those stars on it, and not the rest. After all, what do we know of their trading business?
No. We simply don't know what kind of scale can be used in such a map. Actually, that model was supposed to be in 3D, and it could be presented on a 3D logarithmic scale, which would make closer objects very much bigger than those in the distance. That's actually how it looks like on the drawing: the "balls" are much bigger where they are supposed to be "close". Hence, the distance between the two objects close to you and those further away can be much larger even though it represents a much shorter one on a 1:1 scale (or at least on any linear scale).
That magnitude problem would be solved by my proposition here above. Add to it that drawing depth on a 2D sheet of paper can be achieved by largely exagerating proportions on the "front" plane and reducing them on the "far behind" plane.
1. When Betty drew the map, she was pretty much convinced that those were stars, but she had no idea that stars could be of F, G, K or any type. She knew nothing of astronomy.
2. What Fish has actually done, is to reduce the number of stars in the whole mass around us to just and only those that would somehow "make sense". Removing, at first, all those that are not F, G or K, thus, makes total sense.
I invite anyone who really wants to try that, to "cherry-pick 12 or so stars" out of the 500+ sun-like around us and be any close to what the drawing looks like. Maybe less improbable than winning the lottery, but again the work that Marjorie Fish did was not about finding what she wanted to find, or finding something that matched a pre-existing pattern
She based her work on very reasonable hypothesis, and spent a long time before spotting what had to be spotted. If it were so probable that the same pattern (or a similar looking one anyway) would be found easily anywhere else, then I have to assume that for the sake of finding it and dismissing the whole case, then someone would have done it already now, for a long time! Sadly for those who think that it is easy to do, no one yet has found anything like that.
Well it doesn't seem improbable at all, statistically, that I'd win a big thing on the lottery either. However, I'd have to play for many, many years before the chances start to become just a bit more than amazing luck.
Originally posted by nenothtu
2) Assume that the larger star in the center is the actual parent star of that system. If you look closely, you'll find that the crescents on the planetary bodies are just as you would expect them to be if the illumination were coming from that point. The specific star I'm talking about is the one that Nicorette labels as BD+16 2404 from the Bonner Durchmusterung catalog, and which Fish labels as Gleise 86. It's neither of those stars, but I believe it IS the parent star of the star system in question.
On the Hill original, it's set apart from the rest of the stars by being drawn as a circle, but NOT filled in. It's not a dot like the rest of the stars. The only larger dot is the one at the end of the solid line going to the left, but that one IS filled in. it' a dot, not a circle.
(emphasis by me)
Originally posted by SpookyVince
Unless I don't understand you well, I believe that the circle you mention is not that one. It is the one in between Sol & Gliese 86 (Fish map), and it is actually unlabeled.
The phases you mention are an option to look into, definitely, but I am not 100% convinced that those 2 would be planets instead of stars. It seems strange that they would be planets/moons, to me.
I would think they'd have rather shown her a map of our own system if they were going to ask her to pinpoint her location, i.e. offering a view of their planet plus stars in the distance, and ask her where she is on the map doesn't make sense.
On the other hand, showing her a map of our own system and asking her where she is would make more sense, but then we'd have to find another match for the map. In this case, it would be logical to start with the solar system as it was on that very day (or night).
The star configuration that Nicorette offers is actually very interesting, and as of now remains my favourite one to explore after Fish's interpretation. Who knows, it would be fantastic if some people here on ATS would win this one after over 40 years!