We Haven't Been Visited? Examining Arguments Against ET Visitation.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


yeah i heard she wasnt a very stable person this interview doesnt help that impression im afraid. It amazes me that any one took her seriously at the time. At least now most people interested in UFOs know better and wont touch this one with a ten foot pole.

tanka418
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

Please explain the precision of the "star map"!
Random chance: < 4.2866e-09 (that's less than one chance in about 233 million)

edit on 12-2-2014 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)

I saved this one for last because i think you need to understand something i already advised you that her map has been used to find multiple locations one being our own solar system. See when you can move the dots around and ignore others you can make something fit almost anywhere. Fish altered the drawing as i shown you to make it fit the location. And flat out just threw out other partsof bettys drawings like that circle in the middle of her drawing. Betty when she originally drew it thought i was a picture of a solar system. I showed fishs map to you and how she moved and changed things yet you actually believe its still based on bettys map? Ive shown you we know the star location to have been wrong when she did her research. And ive shown you that zeta reticuli is not the only location possible for her map others have been found as well despite your odds apparently.The funny part is i predicted you would look at any of the information and it appears i was right. Well my suggestion to you contact some astronomers see if they will agree with your conclusions maybe you can email the one at the planetarium i gave you and tell him hes wrong. Or contact the european space agency and tell them your star charts ar more accurate and they shouldnt have spent all that money putting a satellite in orbit to verify star locations.Because as we all know your star charts are right man wait until all those europeans here how there space program wasted all that money when they could have just called you.

dragonridr
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

yeah i heard she wasnt a very stable person this interview doesnt help that impression im afraid. It amazes me that any one took her seriously at the time. At least now most people interested in UFOs know better and wont touch this one with a ten foot pole.

I think you have to put it into context. At the time, she probably came off as more normal. Also it was not known how easily false memories could be formed under hypnosis or even that you don't need to be under hypnosis to form a false memory. In this video she comes across as an elderly women with dementia which is also known to cause false memories. She came off as believable to Friedman who then wrote a book. Friedman being considered as more legitimate than other Urologists, help sell this and still backs it up.

By todays standards, its a joke.

dragonridr
I saved this one for last because i think you need to understand something i already advised you that her map has been used to find multiple locations one being our own solar system. See when you can move the dots around and ignore others you can make something fit almost anywhere. Fish altered the drawing as i shown you to make it fit the location. And flat out just threw out other partsof bettys drawings like that circle in the middle of her drawing. Betty when she originally drew it thought i was a picture of a solar system. I showed fishs map to you and how she moved and changed things yet you actually believe its still based on bettys map? Ive shown you we know the star location to have been wrong when she did her research. And ive shown you that zeta reticuli is not the only location possible for her map others have been found as well despite your odds apparently.

Betty Hill's original drawing (?)

Looks more or less like yours or the Fish map, or, indeed, mine.

You keep saying that you have "shown", but, you haven't. All I've seen is hearsay, and misinformation. You, like ZR have not been able to support your claims with any real scientific data.

The funny part is i predicted you would look at any of the information and it appears i was right. Well my suggestion to you contact some astronomers see if they will agree with your conclusions maybe you can email the one at the planetarium i gave you and tell him hes wrong. Or contact the european space agency and tell them your star charts ar more accurate and they shouldnt have spent all that money putting a satellite in orbit to verify star locations.Because as we all know your star charts are right man wait until all those europeans here how there space program wasted all that money when they could have just called you.

I have talked with "real" astronomers, they agree for the most part. One even commented that "IF ET were to give us a map; it would look like this".

When your planetarium guy decides to back up what he says with some real data, I'll be happy to listen, Until then what he says is contradicted by the rest of astronomy.

You have completely not listened to anything I said regarding star data! I am using the very same data you seem to think is so much superior...again; my database consists of modified HIP, Gliese, NStars, and HABCAT data, and is the current distribution. This data exists as a SQL Server relational database.

Stellar data doesn't get much better.

reply to post by tanka418

This data exists as a SQL Server relational database.

Awesome! This is available publicly? where can I get a copy?

my database consists of modified HIP...

modified data? AKA "fudged data"

Looks more or less like yours or the Fish map, or, indeed, mine.

Are you claiming the Fish map and Hill map are the same? And what do you mean it looks like his? The Hill map has a giant round star in the middle that isn't in the Fish interpretation. Then there are those little ones but Fish kept 3 of them and they are in a different orientation. of the 27 points only, 15 are used. Of the 14 little dots, 3 are used. How do you decide which 3 dots to keep and which dots you don't? Why do you toss out the one big one in the center? Then the length and the proportions are completely different.

Is this what you mean by modified data? Can I toss out half the points on the map and match it up to my modified data on Sql Server?

So you have a map recovered from memory under hypnosis that is modified arbitrarily and has nearly half the data removed matched against "modified" star data that nobody else has except for you?

So why do I waste my time with you? because this is awesome!

like ZR have not been able to support your claims with any real scientific data.

what claims? you are making the claims and have not shown one bit of data from your secret modified database that you mysteriously get your magical numbers from. And no, you cant bully me by sending me a hex. sorry.

reply to post by tanka418


You mean like real data where i told you the distances have changed and told you what they were. Or in the article i posted again he tells you the locations of the stars were incorrect and now we know where they are. Of how i shown you that Fish altered bettys drawings to fit the location. And how she chose to ignore other parts of her drawing because they didnt fit. Or how about the fact i pointed you to a database and advised you it will be from earth but it will give you accurate numbers according to the latest information did you even bother to compare as they say i thought not.Or as i pointed out earlier its a young star system meaning it is unlikely to have intelligent life.Also being a binary star system again makes it highly unlikely but as they say ignore the facts. At this point nothing would convince you you're wrong short of taking you there. Even had a real astronomer tell you the map is wrong! Yet your claiming no proof its you that have not presented any proof of your claim i suggest you reread the thread you've posted nothing to prove your case.

ZetaRediculian
"This data exists as a SQL Server relational database. "

Awesome! This is available publicly? where can I get a copy?

Which? the software (database engine) or the data?

The database engine is Microsoft Sql Server 2008. cost $5000+
It runs on Windows Server.

the data itself:
HIP: Strasbourg Astronomical Data Center
Gliese at the same place: University of Strasbourg...

This site has several other star catalogs including; HABCAT, a substitute for NStars, and several others.

modified data? AKA "fudged data"

Nt quite. Virtually all of the astronomical databases were not designed by software or "data" types. Thus the use f appropriate data types is ... rare. Making the effective and efficient querying of these collections difficult, and, it made the "join"ing of the tables impossible. What I did was add two additional data columns to each table: 1 to contain a converted right ascension, and another to contain a converted declination. The data conversions were done to standardize the data...as 'm sure you know in astronomy when they specify a "location" they use "right ascension" which is a base 60 value reflective of time as opposed to degrees of arc. AND, the number of degrees of arc is: RA*15. This value for RA is converted into decimal time. Declination is expressed as a base 60 value representing actual degrees of arc. Again this value is converted into decimal degrees.

So why do I waste my time with you? because this is awesome!

Actually it demonstrates your illness and pathology...I'll even bet many psychologists think there is little at issue with "OCS", usually, it's more like a natural component to communication, but you take it to a whole new level.

Another question I have for you ZR: just "how" is all this stuff have "just for me"? The data I use is public data, is available allover the Internet.

what claims? you are making the claims and have not shown one bit of data from your secret modified database that you mysteriously get your magical numbers from. And no, you cant bully me by sending me a hex. sorry.

What claims indeed! How about we start with that "hex" you mention...r that my math is in error, or that my data is somehow providing "magical numbers"

As for backing up my clams, I think the record of the thread will show all that. The star data is available for anyone to look up and verify.

The long and the short of it ZR is you NEVER had a valid argument...ever! All you are doing is acting out your pathology and opposing anything I say. I understand, you can't help it. But, man you seriously need to get professional help.

tanka418

ZetaRediculian
"This data exists as a SQL Server relational database. "

Awesome! This is available publicly? where can I get a copy?

Which? the software (database engine) or the data?

The database engine is Microsoft Sql Server 2008. cost $5000+
It runs on Windows Server.

the data itself:
HIP: Strasbourg Astronomical Data Center
Gliese at the same place: University of Strasbourg...

This site has several other star catalogs including; HABCAT, a substitute for NStars, and several others.

modified data? AKA "fudged data"

Nt quite. Virtually all of the astronomical databases were not designed by software or "data" types. Thus the use f appropriate data types is ... rare. Making the effective and efficient querying of these collections difficult, and, it made the "join"ing of the tables impossible. What I did was add two additional data columns to each table: 1 to contain a converted right ascension, and another to contain a converted declination. The data conversions were done to standardize the data...as 'm sure you know in astronomy when they specify a "location" they use "right ascension" which is a base 60 value reflective of time as opposed to degrees of arc. AND, the number of degrees of arc is: RA*15. This value for RA is converted into decimal time. Declination is expressed as a base 60 value representing actual degrees of arc. Again this value is converted into decimal degrees.

So why do I waste my time with you? because this is awesome!

Actually it demonstrates your illness and pathology...I'll even bet many psychologists think there is little at issue with "OCS", usually, it's more like a natural component to communication, but you take it to a whole new level.

Another question I have for you ZR: just "how" is all this stuff have "just for me"? The data I use is public data, is available allover the Internet.

what claims? you are making the claims and have not shown one bit of data from your secret modified database that you mysteriously get your magical numbers from. And no, you cant bully me by sending me a hex. sorry.

What claims indeed! How about we start with that "hex" you mention...r that my math is in error, or that my data is somehow providing "magical numbers"

As for backing up my clams, I think the record of the thread will show all that. The star data is available for anyone to look up and verify.

The long and the short of it ZR is you NEVER had a valid argument...ever! All you are doing is acting out your pathology and opposing anything I say. I understand, you can't help it. But, man you seriously need to get professional help.

Thanks for telling me where you got your information now i know your using old star charts. Here let me help this is how you can get the latest star charts from the european space agency then you can see your charts are wrong.

www.rssd.esa.int...

You still havnt explained the difference between the two maps i posted one from betty and one from fish by the way. They are obviously different strange dont you think i noticed youve gone to ignoring me but thats fine i think ive shown people what a joke the betty hill map is.

dragonridr
reply to post by tanka418

 

You mean like real data where i told you the distances have changed and told you what they were. Or in the article i posted again he tells you the locations of the stars were incorrect and now we know where they are. Of how i shown you that Fish altered bettys drawings to fit the location. And how she chose to ignore other parts of her drawing because they didnt fit. Or how about the fact i pointed you to a database and advised you it will be from earth but it will give you accurate numbers according to the latest information did you even bother to compare as they say i thought not.Or as i pointed out earlier its a young star system meaning it is unlikely to have intelligent life.Also being a binary star system again makes it highly unlikely but as they say ignore the facts. At this point nothing would convince you you're wrong short of taking you there. Even had a real astronomer tell you the map is wrong! Yet your claiming no proof its you that have not presented any proof of your claim i suggest you reread the thread you've posted nothing to prove your case.

edit on 2/12/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

Yes; show me where distances have changed!
Show me where / how stars have changed their location
Show the significant changes to the map

Oh by the way...Zeta Reticuli is considered, by astronomers, to be at least 6 billion. That's an argument I have with them...mostly over how they determine how old a star is...I place t's age at around 4.7 billion or the same as Sol.

Yes you pointed me to a database (actually catalog...we won't go into the differences), and I told you that it contained the same data as the data table I was using. I may have stated that I didn't have HIP installed, though I was in error...its Gliese I don't have installed. In any case I did do a comparison of the database tables, based on RA, Decl, parallax...all of the data agrees.

you posted a dialog from someone claiming to be an astronomer, who said some thing...none of which has been backed up by available data. Your astronomer claimed that 54 and 107 Piscium were variable stars, yet that "fact" is not supported by astronomical data. It was clamed that Tau 1 Eridani was part of a multi star system, yet that is not supported by astronomical data. in short your astronomer is the One with the "private"/"magical" data, and it doesn't seem to agree with any of the available data I've found.

posted an image constructed from astronomical data, and an brief analysis of the significant stars...seem that's way more that you or ZR have done. All we get from yall is words, and nothing to back them up...oh yeah, and stuff that shows you never truly read my responses.

reply to post by dragonridr


I'm sorry an...but the "star Atlas" there is based on the same HIP and TYCHO data I use.

And you know...I really don't care about the drama between Hill and Fish. I care about the remarkable and highly improbable original drawing...you know...the one I posted.

All that other crap is just obfuscation...something ZR is famous for...and I guess you too.

reply to post by tanka418


But your not using the original your using the one fish drew to match it to zeta reticuli. If you used bettys well lets just say there is no correlation to any stars.

dragonridr
reply to post by tanka418

 

But your not using the original your using the one fish drew to match it to zeta reticuli. If you used bettys well lets just say there is no correlation to any stars.

OH?!!???

You got something to back that statement up with? My research indicates that I'm using a scanned copy of the original "paper". If you have something better...lets see it.

tanka418

The database engine is Microsoft Sql Server 2008. cost $5000+
It runs on Windows Server.

or you can get if for free with a MSDN license..Or the express version or any number of internet hosts for a very nominal fee or make a copy of it from any number of sources. Again, more BS. And you don't need windows server...even for the full version. Nice try. So you don't have anything.

the data itself:

nope, your magic data. Back it up. Zip it up and put it on your web site. I have SQL server too ....at least that's what someone would do if they were serious. Make it available in any number of formats. But there is no database. I get it.

Nt quite. Virtually all of the astronomical databases were not designed by software or "data" types.

I cant make heads or tails of your sentence. What kind of data types? and why is data in quotes? more misleading nonsense.

Actually it demonstrates your illness and pathology...I'll even bet many psychologists think there is little at issue with "OCS", usually, it's more like a natural component to communication, but you take it to a whole new level.

OCS? do you mean OCD? Illness? Pathology? I have no problem sharing my mental health issues. I'm retarded.

Another question I have for you ZR: just "how" is all this stuff have "just for me"? The data I use is public data, is available allover the Internet.

BOOLE! its your special data that you modified and no one else can see. Smoke and mirrors.

What claims indeed! How about we start with that "hex" you mention...r that my math is in error, or that my data is somehow providing "magical numbers"

You sent me a hex when you were "AnthraAndrameda" right before you got banned. Either that or it was gibberish. Why do I have to prove that? I never said your math was in error. How could I? You have never shown your math. but its your data I have the problem with. its non existent and what you shared is worthless. Its YOUR data and YOUR software that gives you YOUR numbers and no one can see it. go figure.

So those are my "claims" I cant prove? I can live with that.

As for backing up my clams, I think the record of the thread will show all that. The star data is available for anyone to look up and verify.

And How would anyone know if YOUR modified data was the same as the publicly available data? Oh we have to trust you. BS.
There is no need anyway since its obvious that the star map is garbage and your "data" and "math" don't actually exist. If it did, it would be available to look at.

The long and the short of it ZR is you NEVER had a valid argument...ever! All you are doing is acting out your pathology and opposing anything I say. I understand, you can't help it. But, man you seriously need to get professional help.

You claim you are an alien with alien dna that can summon spaceships and claim to be a western ceremonial magician that can make predictions of major ufo events and I need professional help? Yes, I am fascinated by you. Just like you are fascinated with "magik", I too am fascinated by psychological anomalies. Do you know what else I cant help? Watching a train wreck.

reply to post by tanka418


Wow you really dont read i showed you both maps. you know what your showing your inability to comprehend and no matter what your going to be right i get it.Well as my dad used to say you cant argue with crazy so your on your own continue your delusion and ignore the real world. When you want to discuss this topic seriously let me know.

reply to post by tanka418

You got something to back that statement up with? My research indicates that I'm using a scanned copy of the original "paper". If you have something better...lets see it.

you mean your research nobody but you can see. That's not research, that's vapor-ware. As far as I can tell, there is no research or data or math....anywhere.

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by tanka418

 

You got something to back that statement up with? My research indicates that I'm using a scanned copy of the original "paper". If you have something better...lets see it.

you mean your research nobody but you can see. That's not research, that's vapor-ware. As far as I can tell, there is no research or data or math....anywhere.

I think hes under the impression he posted something that isnt in the thread but its ok because i did post stuff showing the alternative. We have yet to see his data but im sure there is excuses to come for that because im sure with his extensive data base he will put some pictures and diagrams up real soon so i can compare them to the one ESA created. Im also intrigued to see what parameters he used to establish if life can occur around a planet since we determined fish didnt have the proper information to do so.

ZetaRediculian
or you can get if for free with a MSDN license..Or the express version or any number of internet hosts for a very nominal fee or make a copy of it from any number of sources. Again, more BS. And you don't need windows server...even for the full version. Nice try. So you don't have anything.

MSDN license is pricey. mentioned somewhere the express version...it's okay for personal use, but, not so much over a network. Yes you can "rent" server space, but that is typically limited in some way...I run such a server. I like the bolded method...it's rich; are you seriously advocating piracy? You know that can get you up to 10 - 15 years in federal prison. Is better to pay "partner" pricing...

nope, your magic data. Back it up. Zip it up and put it on your web site. I have SQL server too ....at least that's what someone would do if they were serious. Make it available in any number of formats. But there is no database. I get it.

Tell ya what...give me a couple of days, I'll put up a page with very limited viewing capabilities. But, I will tell you now that you will be sorely disappointed, all the data is exactly what it should.

"Not quite. Virtually all of the astronomical databases were not designed by software or "data" types. "

I cant make heads or tails of your sentence. What kind of data types? and why is data in quotes? more misleading nonsense.

So are you intentionally obtuse, or just slow? I think intentionally obtuse...bad trait.

OCS? do you mean OCD? Illness? Pathology? I have no problem sharing my mental health issues. I'm retarded.

first thing you've ever said that is actually plausible.

No...I meant OCS.

BOOLE! its your special data that you modified and no one else can see. Smoke and mirrors.

And, as I have said repeatedly; it's not "special" data...in fact I told you what the data was...explicitly! It is a conversion of base 60 time data to base 10 degree-of-arc data, and the conversion of base 60 degree-of-arc data to base 10. There is little "magical" or "mystical" about that...well maybe to you.

I never said your math was in error. How could I? You have never shown your math. but its your data I have the problem with. its non existent and what you shared is worthless. Its YOUR data and YOUR software that gives you YOUR numbers and no one can see it. go figure.

I've shown you the results of my calculations. I've shown you the equations, and "how" I solved them. So how is that "NOT" showing my math? Oh, and I've shown you the data I used, where it came from / how it was derived, so come again? Oh I forgot; I didn't allow you access to my computer...so none of my work is valid...now that is where the BS is!

You claim you are an alien with alien dna that can summon spaceships

I made that claim? You show me where Tanka418 made that claim.

and claim to be a western ceremonial magician that can make predictions of major ufo events and I need professional help?

The predicted event is in April...so you are a bit premature there slim. Western Ceremonial Magick s something you know nothing about, though I see you "think" you do...it's okay, just be careful in what rituals you do...some can be rather dangerous. Though seriously, I work more with cutting-edge, experimental Magick; involves computers, software, sound, soon visuals (animation is a skill of its own and is demanding on Ones's PC).

reply to post by dragonridr


Here my choped liver.

I've posted this already, you commented inappropriately on it...we have been debating it for the past several pages. You are claiming my data is obsolete, I'm telling you it is not.

Do y'all remember?

Oh and by the way; on the obsolete data thing...you do know that there was only one data compilation done, and it is what is available from the University of Strasbourg. There is currently no superseding data.

reply to post by dragonridr

I think hes under the impression he posted something that isnt in the thread

ah, the benefit of the doubt. well, he can post it again if that's the case. My guess is there is nothing. He gave it away when he talked about the $5000+ SQL server that runs on windows server. I told him I work with this stuff for a living so I am not sure why he thought I wouldn't know anything about this. I work with SQL server all day every day and have access several servers and even have my own development server at home. Again he makes it seem like its some difficult thing that not just anyone can do. Its total BS. anyone can download it and install it for free. You have your choices of the trial version or the express version or you can go to your friendly IT guy and have them make a copy. I have a developers license and can get full versions of any Microsoft product. I cant even tell you how many different ways there are NOT to spend $5000 and most of them are legal. And I have no idea where he pulls the $5000 number from. here it is for $897.99 www.softwarejones.com...

So as far as I am concerned, he is making it up.

reply to post by tanka418


Well if thats your data its wrong as i already explained why, by the way thats not based on bettys map but the one fish made. Also unless you are running that UFO site id say its there data which is wrong again you havnt taken the time to even put up screen shots.shots. Im beginning to think you lied to us and your extensive research consisted of hanging out on fringe alien sites. To avoid this circular argument ill just repost my previous response feel free to explain how im wrong.

www.abovetopsecret.com...