Stars of the Hill Map

Given the impossible nature of the task of creating a random grouping of “dots” that match actual stars within local space (33 parsec) without previous knowledge, and with features not yet known (binary nature of Zeta(s) Reticuli, planets). This map is not “random”, and represents a “view” on the Zeta Reticulan “Trade/exploration Space” (the original “Hill Map” represents an artistic stylization of an actual “view” on interstellar space.) It would appear that the template is a close approximation of something real and provided by visitors from Zeta Reticuli; making the template an artifact of Extraterrestrial visitation.

source

Betty Hill's star map, some think it is an accurate depiction of reality, proving the existence of Extraterrestrials, and their visitation. Others think it is pure "bunk". Many criticize the methods used to "recover memories", without realizing that some of these "memories" can be proven through the application of science and technology.

And here of course I speak of the famous "map" that emerged as probably the most misunderstood objects extant in ufology. This map, when used in its proper context becomes a template, a sort of "key" to some of the answers we all seek here.

Are we alone? Because of this "template" we can say ... no.
Have we been visited? Again, because of this template; Yes! And we know "who" (sort of).

Through the analysis of this template and the corresponding "map" we can actually learn much about the "corner of the galaxy" we live in.

Stars of the Hill map

a reply to: tanka418

I remember the star map going back many many years to the dates of their abduction. I cannot think of any other abduction, off hand, that offered something, anything as intriguing as this. As someone who believes there is life throughout the universe it still stands the test of time in my opinion.

The map is a Rorschach Test. You see in it what you're psychological predisposed to see. So for anything other than exploring a person's opinions about life (or lack thereof) in the galaxy, it's pretty useless.

originally posted by: tanka418
Stars of the Hill map

Sure is a lot of fudging going on to make that even vaguely fit the map.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
The map is a Rorschach Test. You see in it what you're psychological predisposed to see. So for anything other than exploring a person's opinions about life (or lack thereof) in the galaxy, it's pretty useless.

Oh, sorry man; but it's not what I see in the data, rather what the computer sees...

You probably should also understand that I used methods very much like what is used in facial recognition, and many other aspects of Computer Vision. Sorry, I didn't make that clear...

originally posted by: tanka418
You probably should also understand that I used methods very much like what is used in facial recognition, and many other aspects of Computer Vision. Sorry, I didn't make that clear...

Oh, I don't just mean the map itself. I mean the whole topic. For instance, you seem to think that the methods you used came up with a "match." That tells more about you than anything about the Hill Map.

Where is this star map, I am not a follower of the ufo stuff becouse there are so many frauds, just wondering if anyone had it.

originally posted by: Saylesie17
Where is this star map, I am not a follower of the ufo stuff becouse there are so many frauds, just wondering if anyone had it.

Here is Betty's version:


Follow the link in my OP for more, including computer generated images...

a reply to: tanka418
Why haven't you emailed your PDF to someone like Stanton Friedman who could use your information, if of any value, in the Hill abduction part of his lectures across the country? You seem to be stuck in the loop of trying to prove to a bunch of strangers on a message board that you're right and everyone else is wrong. How is that productive at all? What better way to spread your information than to show Friedman your work? Astrophysicist Seth Shostak should be included on that PDF list also, but I have a feeling wouldn't.

You believe this map could be strong evidence of alien visitation, that's understood. Since you're only speaking in "probabilities", the next step would be investigating any other information available on that case. Lucky for you, there's a plethora of info including testimony by both Betty and Barney Hill, specifically Betty. Both the map and story need to be included in your overall assessment of this incident. Unfortunately, there are many inconsistencies and questionable comments and descriptions throughout this case.

The spacecraft description seems to mimic fantasy-based spacecraft in TV, movies, comic books, etc. of that period:
- A large row of windows on the front of the spacecraft.
- Aliens seen standing leaning against the glass looking out.
- A control panel with levers can be seen inside the craft.
- Aliens walk back to the control panel and begin doing something on the panel and the craft begins to move.
- A lever is pulled and wings with red lights begin to extend from the side of the spacecraft.
- A ramp drops down and both Barney and Betty are taken aboard.
- Examining rooms are set up inside the spacecraft.
- Electronic beep_beep_beep sounds are heard from inside their car.

This is a drawing by Barney, which to me looks to be a media influenced depiction of inside of an alien spacecraft/flying saucer:


Barney's description of the aliens, which sometimes sounds like a cross between a German WWI pilot and Hitler:
- A threatening leader who watches him from the windows and wears a black scarf, shiny leather black uniform, a cap with a bill.
- A friendlier alien who looks over his right shoulder from inside the craft and smiles at him. He has a round face and reminds him of an Irishman. Barney is confused having a pre-existing belief the Irish dislike the black race.
- Other aliens are described as wearing shirts and trousers made out of a denim looking material.
- Some aliens move in unison and their quick, precision style of movements remind him of "German Nazis."

Betty's aliens:
- Her first description, which is absent from future stories, are short, with dark hair and eyes, and large Jimmy Durante noses.
- The men that carry her aboard are humanoid, shorter than Barney, the one on her left that talked to her was "very businesslike, spoke English, but had a foreign accent."
- She had a running dialog with the "leader" and the humanoid mentioned above. An example of one of the silly exchanges:
When Betty didn't want to go aboard the spacecraft-
Alien: "Oh, go on. The longer you fool around out here, the longer it's going to take... We haven't got much time either."
Betty tries to explain vegetables, the color yellow, dentures, etc. to the leader.
She also tries to explain age and time. Which doesn't add up when the leader makes comments throughout their conversation referencing time frames and so forth.
The experience is made out to be frightening with the hypnosis, but Betty says she laughs and jokes with the leader. She also asks them to come back, she has "a lot friends who would love the meet you."

Betty's character:
- Claimed to witness "thousands" of UFOs throughout her life.
- Claimed a UFO crashed near her home and wasn't reported by anyone. She said she told the townspeople who gathered around to go home and let the [aliens] take care of it.
- Claimed to pick up objects from UFOs and had them scientifically analyzed. Although there has been zero evidence of this occurring.
- Barney says Betty had a previous history of UFO sightings. She told a story of seeing a cigar shaped UFO with her sister. She described smaller UFOs would fly up to and away from the craft. Later in life she told a similar story of a UFO that she would see near her home. She called it the "headquarter UFO" and smaller UFOs would fly up to it and "get orders for the night" and fly off.

The info above is sourced from "The Interrupted Journey" and YouTube interviews with Betty. These are just some of the things said that any true skeptic would question.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8


So you haven't been able to separate the fantasy BS from the reality of the map...


Betty's "reports" about the aliens and their equipment, what they may have said or communicated; mostly irrelevant. What Barney had to offer; mostly irrelevant.


Now you and many others are "balking" at this, but here is "WHY" most of that doesn't matter.


We have that one single bit of "template", a wee drawing that regardless of its origin is still an accurate depiction of interstellar space as viewed from a location scores of light-years from the Earth. This is an "object" that could not have been faked, nor "invented"...it is not a product of chaos (randomness).


How I manage my intellectual property is my business, and mine alone. If Stanton, or indeed any of the professional "Ufologists" want a piece of this; they can easily find me. I'm not publishing this for their benefit, I'm publishing because I want to.

Since you're only speaking in "probabilities", the next step would be investigating any other information available on that case.

You have a great misconception of what I'm doing here I think.

Firstly; all we ever have are "probabilities"...unless of course you are a believer in a relativistic Universe, as opposed to a Quantum one. Personally I subscribe to the Quantum theory. It is easier to actually quantify and analyze a probabilistic universe, rather than the static alternative.

Second...this bit of data seems perfectly capable of standing alone...

Now, IF y'all would like to discuss this bit of science, I'm ready...

ETA: Something I want to clarify...This map / template does not rely on other information within the case for its validity. Rather it relies on external data contained within Astrometric datasets like Hipparcos. It is the matching of the map (source agnostic) to that star data that is the determining factor.

After that it is almost pure mathematics...

originally posted by: tanka418

So you haven't been able to separate the fantasy BS from the reality of the map...

Betty's "reports" about the aliens and their equipment, what they may have said or communicated; mostly irrelevant. What Barney had to offer; mostly irrelevant.

You understand that both this map and what you call Betty and Barneys "fantasy BS" comments come from the same source, right? The transcripts from their hypnosis and their own words that are found in the book I mentioned above.

You're cherry picking one claim from a large case and conveniently tossing out and ignoring anything that doesn't fit into what you want to believe. Any of Betty's testimony that's silly or ridiculous is fantasy, but the map created by the same person is factual. It's not surprising that you don't want to address the case in it's entirety.

How I manage my intellectual property is my business, and mine alone. If Stanton, or indeed any of the professional "Ufologists" want a piece of this; they can easily find me. I'm not publishing this for their benefit, I'm publishing because I want to.

I suggested Seth Shostak because he's someone far more qualified than most here to review the data part of your information and give a serious assessment. Anyone with basic spatial skills can comment on the visual relation between the maps. I suggested Stanton Friedman to balance it and because he has promoted this map and story for years. He's at the top of the list of people to get the word out to the UFO/alien community.

You worked on this map to what end? To have it anonymously posted on the web and to argue your points with anonymous people on a message board? You speak with such conviction that you're on to something, but don't want to share it with those that can promote your work. You want to stay in the background. I don't understand.

I will happily email both Friedman and Shostak your PDF and maybe they would look it over. Or I could send them a link to this post. That's not to say they will even respond, but nothing ventured nothing gained as they say.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
You understand that both this map and what you call Betty and Barneys "fantasy BS" comments come from the same source, right? The transcripts from their hypnosis and their own words that are found in the book I mentioned above.

And I presume that you understand that there is no possible way for the persons, the psychology, the memories, etc. of the Hills to affect the accuracy of the template. The template is a "fixed" bit of data that cannot be changed at the whim of either the source or the analyst.

So, yes, I am "cherry picking" the data here, but only if you mean I am "filtering" the whole to extract only the stable and usable data.

Course, I suppose that if you want to remain ignorant we can always let the peripheral (and deliberately corrupted) data dominate and lead us to inappropriate and vastly incorrect conclusions.

An aspect of this case has, since the very beginning, been mishandled, misunderstood, over thought, and corrupted beyond any usable state. This map (template) is the only bit of data that can't be significantly corrupted and has remained unaffected by all of the incompetent attempts to analyze the case. Also, the validity of the map can begin to shed some sorely need fresh light on the rest, and provide a repaired context within which to begin a scientific analysis of the whole.

I will happily email both Friedman and Shostak your PDF and maybe they would look it over. Or I could send them a link to this post. That's not to say they will even respond, but nothing ventured nothing gained as they say.

While there are other avenues for this, IF you think this is so remarkable, then please feel free to share with anyone you please.

My purpose here is not to "prove" anything per se' but rather to demonstrate that there is indeed viable evidence of Extraterrestrial visitation, which so many here at ATS seem to think doesn't exist.

originally posted by: tanka418
My purpose here is not to "prove" anything per se' but rather to demonstrate that there is indeed viable evidence of Extraterrestrial visitation, which so many here at ATS seem to think doesn't exist.

Oh, there's plenty of evidence -- of something. Even if you just blithely assume the Hill's abduction story was mostly true, when it comes to the map itself, there are still a whole lot of "ifs."

* IF the Hill Map is an accurately drawn representation by a non-artist.
* IF it was the retrieval of a valid, accurate image using hypnosis.
* IF it's a good 2-D representation of a 3-D image she says she only saw for a moment.
* IF it even represents stars/planets and not "portals" or whatever. (Even the alien leader was never clear about it.)
* IF we fudge it hard enough to kind of, sort of, maybe fit -- in your opinion.

And so on. How many of these ifs and how much fudging do we allow? It's a judgment call. That's why I say that at a certain point it becomes more about the interpreter than the thing being interpreted.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

Oh, there's plenty of evidence -- of something. Even if you just blithely assume the Hill's abduction story was mostly true, when it comes to the map itself, there are still a whole lot of "ifs."

Well here; let me help you with some of those "IF's"...

* IF the Hill Map is an accurately drawn representation by a non-artist.

Not sure what you actually mean by this, however; the accuracy of the original drawing isn't really an issue. We have been given an image and told that it its the "original" and copies have been made. The accuracy therefore, isn't in question.

* IF it was the retrieval of a valid, accurate image using hypnosis.

Again, the accuracy of the template isn't in question.

* IF it's a good 2-D representation of a 3-D image she says she only saw for a moment.

By treating it as a template, rather than an accurate depiction 3D space we will have an easier task of matching (or not) to real 3D space.

* IF it even represents stars/planets and not "portals" or whatever. (Even the alien leader was never clear about it.)

Actually, early on the event this "leader" told Betty that the map represented "trade and exploration routes". That seems very specific, and helps us to understand "why" specific stars appear to be on the map.

* IF we fudge it hard enough to kind of, sort of, maybe fit -- in your opinion.

Yes "fudge", except in this case you have no idea what you are talking about. This "fudge" you speak of is the normal amount applied to computer vision systems to allow the machine to recognize objects and features in the environment.

What I've done and shown here is produce a pair of "maps"; one derived from Betty's original "star map", and another from a view on 3D space.

Both meta-maps contain the same "objects" in the same places...making the meta-maps identical...thus...

originally posted by: tanka418
What I've done and shown here is produce a pair of "maps"; one derived from Betty's original "star map", and another from a view on 3D space.
[...]
Both meta-maps contain the same "objects" in the same places...making the meta-maps identical...thus...

Thus you've shown that two patterns of images kind of match each other.
Way to prove your whole "extraterrestrial" theory.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: tanka418
What I've done and shown here is produce a pair of "maps"; one derived from Betty's original "star map", and another from a view on 3D space.
[...]
Both meta-maps contain the same "objects" in the same places...making the meta-maps identical...thus...

Thus you've shown that two patterns of images kind of match each other.
Way to prove your whole "extraterrestrial" theory.

Actually it does..."prove" the extraterrestrial theory.

You see, the only place Betty could have received the original map is from extraterrestrials, as she said. The only other source of the original map would be Betty's imagination, in that she "made it up". Probabilistically speaking; that would be quite impossible...leaving the only option: extraterrestrials.

Thus the map is an artifact of extraterrestrial visitation.

originally posted by: tanka418
You see, the only place Betty could have received the original map is from extraterrestrials, as she said.

Oh, I thought we were only talking about the configuration of the points as a kind of intellectual exercise. Or are we also including things in the discussion as they suit your needs?

Because if we're going to talk about what Betty said, and not just the physical thing she drew, then we can throw the whole thing in the trash right now because it's just a wild story told under hypnosis and if she managed to draw something that somewhat matched up with something else, then that's just a curious coincidence and has nothing whatsoever to do with "aliens."

You can't connect the dots. "A" doesn't connect to "B."

Probabilistically speaking; that would be quite impossible...leaving the only option: extraterrestrials.

Have you tried it? "Proven it," as it were? Sit down with a piece of paper, make some random dots and lines on it, and then use it to see if you can come up with a match. It's called using a control. Although, that still doesn't stop her map from being a complete coincidence. It just means that sometimes you come up with a match (which I still don't see), and sometimes you don't.

You're just not getting this whole "proof from evidence" concept.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Oh, I thought we were only talking about the configuration of the points as a kind of intellectual exercise. Or are we also including things in the discussion as they suit your needs?

How about you try to remain honest in this discussion...I know the temptation to drift away is great, and it can so quickly end a real discussion, but les us try anyway.

Now, yes we are talking about a collection of dots and lines, however, that collection had to come from somewhere; the choices here are extraterrestrials or betty herself.

Because if we're going to talk about what Betty said, and not just the physical thing she drew, then we can throw the whole thing in the trash right now because it's just a wild story told under hypnosis and if she managed to draw something that somewhat matched up with something else, then that's just a curious coincidence and has nothing whatsoever to do with "aliens."

And there is another aspect to this, could Betty's map be just a coincidence? And, if you had read my paper you would have seen that it most certainly isn't a coincidence.

But, let me put that another way; I can demonstrate that in all probability there is no coincidence here, on the other hand you can not demonstrate that there is. For this to be a coincidence, then Betty's map is just a random appearance...with the probabilities being what they are random is not happening...

Have you tried it? "Proven it," as it were? Sit down with a piece of paper, make some random dots and lines on it, and then use it to see if you can come up with a match. It's called using a control. Although, that still doesn't stop her map from being a complete coincidence. It just means that sometimes you come up with a match (which I still don't see), and sometimes you don't.

You're just not getting this whole "proof from evidence" concept.

Well, actually, I don't have to; try it that is...but if you want to prove me wrong...please! I've already have someone try that tack...they were all hung-ho to produce a collection of dots and show me that they match the Hipparcos table, just like Betty's map. They gave up after a few days...

You see the reason they failed, the reason I won't even start is the fact that to match those dots is a 1 in 1.7102e+86 probability...making even a serious try with a super computer a serious waste of time and resource.

If you produced a page with dots at a rate of 1 per nanosecond it would take more time than has elapsed in the history of the universe to produce a match.

I'm guessing that you either didn't read my paper well, or have no appreciation for the magnitude of these numbers

If you don't see the match; it is because you don't want to...I think they call that "willful ignorance"...it doesn't work well, and is rather unbecoming.

originally posted by: tanka418
Course, I suppose that if you want to remain ignorant we can always let the peripheral (and deliberately corrupted) data dominate and lead us to inappropriate and vastly incorrect conclusions.

An aspect of this case has, since the very beginning, been mishandled, misunderstood, over thought, and corrupted beyond any usable state.

How are Betty and Barneys own words deliberately corrupted? This isn't secondhand interpretations by "UFOlogists" or debunkers, again it's their own words.
I didn't say the case should be dominated by single part, but instead looked at in it's entirety to come to your conclusion. You conveniently choose to toss out a huge part, the story, because of how silly and ridiculous it can sound in parts.

While there are other avenues for this, IF you think this is so remarkable, then please feel free to share with anyone you please.

That's cute but.. the "remarkable" part is your attitude when speaking about the map. You seem to believe you've discovered alien visitation gold.

Re: The map
The Hills claimed they were physically examined by these beings to get an understanding of humans. Betty claimed she was asked questions about what we ate, how we aged, and so on. She thought they were the first humans to be abducted and examined by alien beings and that would be supported by the physical exam and questions she claimed. With that said, why is our sun marked with multiple solid visitation lines as a "regular trade route" and not a single dashed line exploration route on the map? A trade route would indicate an area that has been examined, established, and found to have something of value to trade. An exploration route would indicate an area that has yet to be explored or is in the process of exploration. This is exactly how Betty described this encounter, the exploration of our species. According to Betty's own story, there should be a single dashed exploration line to our sun, yet there's not. Another inconsistency.

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: Ectoplasm8
How are Betty and Barneys own words deliberately corrupted? This isn't secondhand interpretations by "UFOlogists" or debunkers, again it's their own words.
I didn't say the case should be dominated by single part, but instead looked at in it's entirety to come to your conclusion. You conveniently choose to toss out a huge part, the story, because of how silly and ridiculous it can sound in parts.

Actually, I've never "seen" Betty's "own words". I've seen what some "other party" author "says" are Betty's words, but those are necessarily corrupt...it is Human nature to change things...

Your guess as to why I tend to discount the other data here is wholly wrong! I tend to discount it because it does not affect the map. What Betty has said, what others have said does not have an affect on the probabilities of matching a group of dots to a group of stars.

And for what it is worth; I don't wholly discount what has been said; I just give it a vastly different "confidence" level...

That's cute but.. the "remarkable" part is your attitude when speaking about the map. You seem to believe you've discovered alien visitation gold.

Actually sir; I have.

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.

Interesting; yet it wasn't until the later 60's that any sort of realistic interpretation of the map appeared when Ms. Fish finished her work. Which was later attacked because it used astrometric data from the Gliese table, and there was an attempt to debunk using Hipparcos data. Much of which was later proven vastly incorrect using the same Hipparcos data. I use Hipparcos data by the way.

In stead of exposing other peoples failures in an attempt to expose mine, it might be more practicle for you to simply prove my analysis wrong...good luck on that.

And as for the NY Times attempt...not a very good match or attempt... For instance; "Where exactally are those stars viewed from?" Ans then of course; "why was the NY Times interpretation never accepted?"

In any case man; I've used the most widely accepted and published data. So I'm afraid that unless you can provide other data that contradicts my work; you have nothing... ETA: You will need to provide any such data in a usable format...not like the NYT stuff.

And I have found that golden "Extraterrestrial visitation evidence".