Re Betty Hill 'Star Map' -- Was Marjorie Fish's retraction covered up?

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 09:26 PM
link   
Long time T&S! Good to see you again



Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
reply to post by JimOberg
 

Here are some of my issues with Hill's recollection and representation of the ET's holographic star map:

-- there's undoubtedly some error in her recall.


Completely agree on this point. There's no way a person under hypnosis (which I largely think is bunk) is going to draw a map that is spot on. Ain't happenin'.


-- she drew around 10 or 12 of the most prominent stars in the map, and even connected the "trade routes", but ... she also said there were many other stars in the map that she couldn't remember. (This alone is hugely significant.)


Say you're a truck driver. Let's say you stop at 20 different addresses to make drop-offs. If I only draw four or five of the points. Does that negate the fact that relative distances between the locations is useful? Granted such sparse data makes coming to a firm conclusion extremely difficult. Especially when we consider Earth might not be in the sketch.


-- there's necessarily significant error in her drawing ... because...

-- what's the perspective in her drawing? In other words, which kind projection (of 3-dimensional space onto a two dimensional surface) was Betty Hill thinking and drawing in?


I've always been partial to: workshop.chromeexperiments.com... . Probably just because it's so dang pretty.
However it's important to note that this isn't an error per se with the drawing. Furthermore maps are usually oriented from start to destination — an assumption to be sure! However in my estimation a reasonable one. Of course, not everyone will agree.


-- what's the SCALE of the map? I see no legend.


The typical units of scale: local supercluster, local group, galaxy, and planetary systems. Assuming the imagery was depicting stars. Then we can assume the map was at some zoom level showing a region along the galactic plane. It would be odd to think another species would use a nonstandard projection like a log plot for a map.


And they were scattered all over it. Some were little, just pin points. And others were as big as a nickel.

This makes me think the map would have to be fairly zoomed in and potentially at an angle.


-- what's its orientation? (This is not so crucial, since orientation is pinned down and accounted for in any "match" the map has with the real stars ... but it is one more unknown.)


Bingo. I agree 100% on this one. The only argument here is that it would be oriented from the current location (something like GPS) with Earth as the origin. But that's just a guess and a flaky one at that.


-- must any star on the map be our sun, Sol? I'd guess it was, but what are the actual odds?



I felt very stupid because I did not know where the earth was on the map.

Since she couldn't even identify Earth when she was lucid. That's definitely a wildcard.

However working from what she said ...


And he said that the heavy lines were trade routes. And then the other lines, the other lines, the solid lines were places they went occasionally. And he said the broken lines were expeditions


I would guess we're most likely broken lines or solid lines. Certainly not heavy lines.



-- other things ...

All I see here are a bunch of assumptions and unknowns, compounding themselves and amplifying the weaknesses in each other, until the total error involved is so great that the map is basically useless.


I wouldn't go that far. At best I think the map is useful as an approximation. Anything else is a stretch, but still an interesting data point worth tinkering with.

My two shillings.
edit on 10-7-2013 by Xtraeme because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 

I read that she said it was 3d on a site somewhere, so maybe it was offhand and wrong.

Here's another site about the star map:
www.armaghplanet.com - The Truth about Betty Hill’s UFO Star Map...

As you can already tell, I'm a big skeptic. Honestly, I think the whole Betty and Barney Hill thing, sadly, might be solely the result of Betty's fantasies. It's my suspicion. Years ago, I remember reading about the Betty and Barney Hill abduction and thought it was all interesting. Nowadays, I can't read anything about UFOs without also taking it with a grain of salt. Not as fun anymore.

BUT this is still fun; science doesn't get old because it has a backbone:
It's one thing to believe in Santa Claus or the spaghetti monster, but it's another to say that Venus and Mars and Earth have all had seas and atmospheres. Lately, we've been examining Titan. It may not have oceans of liquid water and remind us of present day earth, but it does belch sludgy water from its volcanos and is a hydrocarbon paradise, with rivers of methane and methane rain falling from the sky. Titan has some relations to an early earth environment. It's a tantalizing opportunity for researchers. In the end, I don't know what all will come out of it, but it's not the moon we're looking at, either. Look at the moon and then look at Titan. One is a wild place and the other is barren and boring. Oh, I'm sure we'll find some fun things on our beloved moon, but it's just the beginning.

I'm not trying to be offensive. I may be skeptical, but I'm not pigheaded. Maybe Betty and/or Barney really did get abducted. Maybe the aliens are visiting us. Maybe. It's just so maybe-ish. Since the alien-things are probably million(s) of years in advance of us, I don't really think it matters anyway. They've had the power to completely ignore us or hit the kill switch for a while. There's nothing we can do about them. The ball is in our court. What matters is here and now.

What matters is surviving. That means being practical and not too pie in the sky. It's the same for every creature on earth. Freedom isn't free. We have to earn it. Crawl before you walk. If we fall behind, there're consequences. It's not success that matters, it's getting up after you fall.
edit on 11-7-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


Hey there Xtraeme. Good to see you too. You can always be counted on to supply a thought-provoking post, and once again you've not failed.

I guess I view the whole Hill star map thing in a (perhaps too rigid) statistical sort of way. I think I listed four or five unknowns / assumptions in my last post. Even if we say we're 80% 'sure' that each of those characteristics is correct -- and 80% is quite generous, I think -- then by the Multiplication Rule (Probability theory), we can be only (0.8)^5 (or 32.8%) confident in the final result... the 'final result' being that her star map matches some actual configuration of stars for a reason other than chance. (All of that is not technically the meaning, mathematically, but it's good enough for our purposes here....)

If we knock it down to 75% confidence in each characteristic, or adjust their probabilities individually, or tack on more characteristics, then we're very quickly tip-toeing around in statistical territory where it's dangerous to conclude much at all.

I'm intrigued by the idea of a holographic star map and how various data could be relayed by it. The newest version of my thoughts on the size differences of that map's stars:

Does a star's size on that hologram represent its diameter?

Its absolute magnitude?

Its relative magnitude, from the craft's current position?

The star's relative magnitude from their own star system?

The star's color? Or temperature? (Is the star even within the main sequence on the H-R diagram?)

Or might a star's size on the map correlate to the size of the population of "intelligent beings" within that star system?

And no matter which of those we choose, was the data displayed in a linear or a logarithmic way? It would almost have to be the latter, otherwise the difference between highest and lowest values would be too great.

Or does a star's size in that star map represent some other aspect of a star or its system that we can't even yet comprehend?

Concluding much of anything about the Hill star map is just uncomfortable territory for me. But I've learned that it'd be unwise not to carefully consider the UFO-related thoughts of you and a handful of others here, so I'll definitely be thinking about it all

And by the way, I'm still using your UFO scrapbook in Firefox and loving it. A great resource! I find a few little gems every time I'm browse through.



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Hypnosis does not improve one's memory of an event.

Harte


No it doesn't, that's obviously impossible.

What it does do is improve the amount of detail of an event able to be recalled.



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


I believe there was a study carried out that showed that where an extreme event had "occurred" (i.e. been recalled through hypnosis), the person exhibited signs of PTSD prior to and post hypnosis.

When this was compared to subjects who had deliberately had false memories planted during hypnosis there were no signs of PTSD.

Whether this meant the experience really occurred or that if unconsciously fabricated by your own mind it produces the same physical signs isn't clear I guess but at least separates out the planted.

I believe John Mack was involved with the study which was centred on abduction cases - will post a link if I find it.



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Yes, Jim I was one who found Fish's Obituary and you can find information at www.alienjigsaw.com and my own web site www.hillwilsonstarmap.net. I have sent out letters to her relatives-and still waiting to her back. Kathleen Marden has also contacted them as well.



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by zeeon
 


Question - if Fish's map has been redacted (as in her obit) has there been any other recent, notable attempts to interpret the Hill's starmap?

Yes, see www.hillwilsonstarmap.net

The star map has nothing to do with Zeta Reticuli, we are 1 of the 6 trade and 6 exploration stars on the star map that was shown to Betty Hill as she asked the leader being where he came from. We "Earthlings" are in orbit around the lower of the two large nickel sized stars. Just add our solar system around it. The triangle was found as a result of examing and researching an ancedotal story in December 2000 tantilizing new clues that the location of the triangle was adjacent to the Big Dipper.

Steve



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 


Two stars were blown up to get her attention-There star and ours

The star map has two very large nickel sized stars. Star (A) for Alien, and (B) for Betty. Betty has asked the alien, Hey where do you come from? And as a quick retort, he then asks Betty to identify where Sol was at. To make a long story short, she didn't know. She had a 50/50 chance of guessing correctly, but she didn’t offer any answer to the challenge. The answer is that Sol our sun is the lower and obviously B. Their star (A) the upper nickel sized star with traffic trade lines going off to multiple worlds is obviously their home star. When you look at the heavy banding between them, it’s very clear that this is a major trade route; and Sol is the primary destination. The layout of the star map is very precise, and every position identified interlocks with one another; proving that the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis is for real. The center of the star map is in the constellation Ursa Major. We are in orbit around the lower of the two large nickel sized stars, and we “Earthlings” here on Earth see the rest of the star map positions in the Northern Hemisphere. They can’t be seen from the Southern Hemisphere. The Hill-Wilson star map is plotted out to their respective Right Ascension and Declination coordinates. The star map that Betty Hill was shown were three dimensional and the heavy banding between the two large nickel sized stars represents the dimension of depth.

The answer to your series of questions is No-it has nothing to do with it's Vmag readings or size-even though there star is actually bigger and richer than ours.

See: www.hillwilsonstarmap.net for more details



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Mogget
 


Problem: their age has been drastically readjusted and while there might be planets within the Goldilocks Zone-the only inhabitants are going to be extremophiles-check back in 2 billion years.

The downside to this Forty years ago when Marjorie Fish was putting her ZR theory together, the best information available to her as she worked on her theory, classified Zeta Reticuli as a Disk Population II type Star with an estimated age of 6-8 Billion years. As the progress of astronomy has progressed newer studies have taken place that have now significantly lowered the age of Zeta Reticuli. Because there haven’t been any updates or corrections to her theory since 1974, things have become static and stale dated. Nobody has done any real investigative follow-up research and the net result is that her intellectual creation has become very rusty. Marjorie Fish disappeared from the scene years ago and nobody has been carrying the torch on her behalf, so nothing has ever been updated on any aspect of her interpretation. As a consequence the Zet Ret 2 Zeta ship has been adrift with no one at the helm for decades. Supporters of her theory have been living in the past.

Two astronomical studies unknown to most of the UFO community have reclassified and adjusted the age of Zeta Reticuli. Both of these studies have significantly lowered the age of Zeta Reticuli, which in turn greatly impacts the time needed for the development of life. Lowering the age of Zeta Reticuli in these two studies shows that there has been insufficient time to have these two binary stars evolve to the point of reaching the Drake formula’s stage of (Fi) stage of development where intelligent life evolves from the fraction of (fl) the fraction of planets in (Ne) where life evolves. They now have been classified as belonging to the Zeta Herculis Moving Group of stars that share a common origin. Although the kinematics of this system suggest that they belong to a population of older stars, the properties of their stellar chromospheres suggests that they are only about 2 billion years old. (Rocha-Pinto, Helio J.; Maciel, Walter J.; Castilho, Bruno V. (March 2002).
Then in July 2008 Eric Mamajek and Lynne Hillenbrand released a newer study of 108 solar type field dwarfs that included Zeta 1 and Zeta 2 Reticuli. Their newer study places the age of Zeta 1 at 1.5 Gyr and Zeta 2 at 2.0 Gyr. (1 Gyr = 1 Billion). No planets have been found. Scientifically speaking the beginning of the development of life on a planet starts by current theory at around 2.5-3.0 billion. The final conclusion is that the star map has nothing to do with Zeta Reticuli.

In 2010, the Herschel Space Observatory, looking for debris disks analogous to the Kuiper belt, around Sun like stars, detected signs of a possible exo-Kuiper belt, with a semi major axis of 100 AU around Zeta 2 A debris disk is a circumstellar disk of dust and debris in orbit around a star. Per their report they detected a flattened, disk-like structure with a semi-major axis of 100 AU in size is detected around Zeta 2. The resolved structure suggests the presence of an eccentric dust ring, which we interpret as an exo-Kuiper belt. No large Saturn or Jupiter like planets has been found around either one of these stars.

Steve

See: www.hillwilsonstarmap.net



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 


I don't know if anybody has mentioned it, but Betty Hill stated the star map she saw was in 3d. Her drawing omits the 3rd dimension, so it really cannot be trusted at all. (A)



I"ve also read that she said there were stars AND planets on it. Marjorie assumed that all of the dots on the drawing were stars, but what if they were supposed to be planets? How would Betty know anyway? If she can't name the stars on the map then why trust her that they're stars? (B)

Not to mention Fisher eliminated all multiple star systems (like binary systems) in her initial search. Oddly, Zeta 2 Reticuli is a binary star system - she didn't know at the time, I don't think anybody did. So despite that she skipped a host of other multiple star systems, we're expected to believe the Zeta 2 Reticuli system is the best match? (C)

A: The star map that she was shown was 3-D-we have stereoscopic vision and can see depth. She simply drew the star map on a piece of paper 8 x11-she wasn't a skilled artist-nor was she instructed by Dr. Simon to draw it 3D

B: She never said that....

C: Her name was Marjorie Fish-and in her MUFON pre4sentation in 1974 she called them all single stars-they are binary.

D. Zeta Reticuli has been observable for a vetry long time-Fish's primary source of information was the Gliese catalog-and he would of NEVER said that they were single. Take that to the bank...!



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by chunder
 



From John Fuller's Book --The Interrupted Journey

Perhaps this will help:

Chapter 3 (page 33) of Fuller’s book the starts off on October 19, 1961, a month after the abduction of Betty and Barney Hill. Walter Webb (Astronomer) and lecturer on the staff of the Hayden Planetarium in Boston opened his mail to read a letter from Richard Hall, who was then the secretary and now Assistant Director of the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomenon in Washington. As a Scientific Advisor to NICAP, Walter Webb occasionally investigated the more serious and puzzling UFO reports in the New England area, drafting detailed document for Washington when the merits of the case warranted it. Hall’s letter included a copy of a letter that Betty Hill had written to Major Keyhoe and suggested to Webb that it might be worthwhile to drive the eighty miles north of Boston to their residence in Portsmouth to investigate the case. Webb, who had joined the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge, Massachusetts, shortly after his graduation from college in 1956, had been interested in Unidentified Flying Objects since 1951, when as a counselor at a boys’ camp in Michigan, he had made a sighting while training campers in the use of a telescope. So now we have an astronomer who has personally seen a UFO.

Page 34: Webb’s first reaction to Richard Hall’s letter was reluctance. It was plain that this case involved a report of the movement of beings on the craft, and Webb was skeptical of this type of sighting. He drove up to Portsmouth on October 21, 1961, with his skeptical attitude unchanged. In his mind were thoughts of the sensational nature of the claim, the possibility that the Hills might be seeking publicity, perpetrating a hoax, or suffering from a mental aberration.

On the other hand he felt that Betty’s letter was extremely literate, an honest and straightforward account of a frightening experience which had happened to two people. He would reserve judgment until after his interview, which, he resolved, would be thorough and painstaking with special attention to finding flaws in the story. As an interviewer with a scientific background, he was certain he could create a slip-up if the Hill’s story was spurious, and he would not hesitate to crack the story if he could. He arrived at the Hill’s house at about noon.
Page 35: The interview began shortly after noon, and continued with little interruption until eight that evening. I was so amazed, impressed by both the Hills and their account,” Walter Webb said, “that we skipped lunch and went through the afternoon and early evening. During that time, I cross-examined them together, separately, together, re-questioned them again and again. I tried to make them slip up somewhere, and I couldn’t; I simply couldn’t.* Theirs was an iron-clad story. They seemed to me to be sincere, honest couple driving home from vacation, late at night on a lonely road, when suddenly something unknown and un-definable descended on them. Something entirely foreign or alien to their existence.”

*Note: It’s very clear that Sheaffer couldn’t use this. The verbal language that he’s used was borrowed from Webb’s conversation that was obviously too positive.

Page 36: He (Webb) concluded his lengthy report: “It is the opinion of this investigator, that after questioning these people for over six hours and studying their reactions and personalities during that time, that they were telling the truth occurred exactly as reported except for some minor uncertainties and technicalities that must be tolerated in any such observation where human judgment is involved (that is, exact time and length of visibility, apparent sizes of object and occupants, distance and height of object, etc.) Although their occupations do not especially qualify the witnesses as trained scientific observers, I was impressed by their intelligence, apparent honesty, and obvious desire to get at the facts and to underplay the more sensational aspects of the sighting. Mr. Hill had been a complete UFO skeptic before the sighting.

Walter Webb a credentialed Astronomer and Scientific Advisor to NICAP drove up with a skeptical attitude and returned home that night as a believer.

J. Allen Hynek is another example: Hynek's opinions changed in later years, so much that he became, to many, the scientifically respectable voice of Ufology. He would lament that the Robertson Panel had "made the subject of UFOs scientifically unrespectable, and for nearly 20 years not enough attention was paid to the subject to acquire the kind of data needed even to decide the nature of the UFO phenomenon."





new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join