An analysis of the Betty Hill "star map"

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: james1947
Betty's map, as a stand alone object, doesn't have an accuracy. It can't since it is a hand drawn image that was taken completely from memory. The very best Betty's map can say is; "it was something like this."

Thus is may be incumbent upon us to determine that "accuracy". My software says: 99.1%

Could you explain it better, please? What "accuracy" are you talking about? Accuracy of Betty's map compared with what?

This isn't the best starting place, but, sometimes we have to work with what we have.

As you know, garbage in, garbage out. Using bad data is the best way of getting bad results.

What "accuracy" am I talking about? I thought the very same accuracy you were trying to develop. I was trying to explain that Betty's map can't have an accuracy.

originally posted by: james1947
What "accuracy" am I talking about? I thought the very same accuracy you were trying to develop.

I was not trying to develop any thing.

I was trying to explain that Betty's map can't have an accuracy.

I don't really understand it, if it can't have an accuracy how can you use it as a basis to compare different views?

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: james1947

We are all at a disadvantage in this discussion, as we (at least I, I suppose that applies to most people reading this thread) do not know exactly what you mean by "template" and how your system really works, so could you please explain it better?

Template:
computing
a preset format for a document or file, used so that the format does not have to be recreated each time it is used.
"a memo template"

biochemistry
a nucleic acid molecule that acts as a pattern for the sequence of assembly of a protein, nucleic acid, or other large molecule.

I included the biochemistry because it seems to also apply...

For example, you say that you created "a C# application to apply SQL search criteria (everything < 33 parsec)". Less than 33 parsec from what?

Ya know, some things really are strenuously implied; like in this instance...the "center" being Earth. At least as a default, you should consider all distances in this analysis to be "from Earth" unless otherwise specified.

Also, you used Poser to create the 3D model. I don't know how poser really works, but 3D programs, usually, have a camera function that replicates common camera configurations for close filming, not space distances, so I don't know if the camera you chose introduced any distortion or not, but I think it's a possibility.

Default camera: 55mm lens, f2.8

You also say that you removed the second “zeta Reticuli” from Betty's map. Why?

Because; that star is not visible if we actually look at the stars from a point of view that will include all of the stars involved...we should only be able to "see" one of them. Having both of them would actually make a "match" impossible because we wouldn't have a valid template...same goes for the lines.

And that the computer generated view was "filtered to show only stars of interest". What stars did you remove and criteria did you use to say they were not of interest?

I made a list of the 25 or so stars of interest, for that view. It seemed easier at the time.

Finally, how did you test your system? Did you use another star map, showing known stars, to compare with a computer generated model?

As far as I am aware there is no "other star map" to compare this with. What I have is Hipparcos, and the requisite formula for computing 3D coordinates. These coordinates were placed in Python code and given to the Poser Python engine. The "objects" were placed into Poser's 3D space.

Perhaps it might be productive to add that ALL of the stellar data I have, or can get, uses the Sun as the "origin" or coordinates: 0, 0, 0.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: james1947
What "accuracy" am I talking about? I thought the very same accuracy you were trying to develop.

I was not trying to develop any thing.

I was trying to explain that Betty's map can't have an accuracy.

I don't really understand it, if it can't have an accuracy how can you use it as a basis to compare different views?

I'm sorry man, but, I kind of thought that to be obvious.

Betty's map is the "gold standard" for finding a match among real stars. It doesn't require an accuracy, and is only a template, or a pattern we are looking for.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Archivalist

Some details he gave out, ended up very accurate, years later.

Nuh uh.

I wasn't talking to you.

I suppose you guys never saw the hand scanner thing.
Probably didn't delve into the "isle of stability" phrase too deeply.
Dude called gravitons non-sense, pretty early on in that debate. Sure, maybe some magazines had the same standpoint at the time, but he was very clear about the graviton v gravity wave / field separation.

Personally, I don't know why so many people knock his element 115 statements, everything he claimed, is true, for a specific isotope of 115. People throw his statements aside as false, because a different isotope of 115 doesn't adhere to his statements. It's equal as far as I care, 50/50. There is an isotope that matches his descriptions. There is an isotope that doesn't.

Come at me.

originally posted by: james1947
Template:
computing
a preset format for a document or file, used so that the format does not have to be recreated each time it is used.
"a memo template"

I know how to use a dictionary, what I wanted to know is how that applies to this particular case. Was it an image?

Ya know, some things really are strenuously implied; like in this instance...the "center" being Earth. At least as a default, you should consider all distances in this analysis to be "from Earth" unless otherwise specified.

"Implied" doesn't mean other people see it the same way.

Because; that star is not visible if we actually look at the stars from a point of view that will include all of the stars involved...we should only be able to "see" one of them. Having both of them would actually make a "match" impossible because we wouldn't have a valid template...same goes for the lines.

Is it possible that a view closer to both Zeta Reticuli stars would show both?

As far as I am aware there is no "other star map" to compare this with. What I have is Hipparcos, and the requisite formula for computing 3D coordinates. These coordinates were placed in Python code and given to the Poser Python engine. The "objects" were placed into Poser's 3D space.

Sorry, I wasn't clear about what I meant. If you use Celestia, for example, to create a star map, does your system recreate it accurately?

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: james1947
Template:
computing
a preset format for a document or file, used so that the format does not have to be recreated each time it is used.
"a memo template"

I know how to use a dictionary, what I wanted to know is how that applies to this particular case. Was it an image?

Yes an image...if you look back on page 1 you can see the image I used.

"Implied" doesn't mean other people see it the same way.

I am aware, however, every single star catalog ever produced here on Earth has Earth as it center. Perhaps I presume too much.

Is it possible that a view closer to both Zeta Reticuli stars would show both?

Yes actually, you could get close enough to view the two Zetas Reticuli that way. However, nearly ALL of the other stars on the map will no longer be visible in your view. I had to back off from Zeta Reticuli a large number of light years just to accommodate all of the stars.

Sorry, I wasn't clear about what I meant. If you use Celestia, for example, to create a star map, does your system recreate it accurately?

Well, as I understand Celestia, it too used the Hipparcos data, so, the individual star maps would be virtually identical (Celestia may have other astronomical object in their view. Objects not in Hipparcos).

Just figured I would point out that the whole idea of a star map as viewed from a location is useless. To accurately travel stars you would need points of refrence much further away. Like using pulsars to give you accurate locations of all bodies. But even that would be subjective considering the billions you could choose from as your refrence frames.See here's the problem if you could travel between the stars even a couple of hundred lightyears the system could move alot. Over thousands the faster you travel the more extreme the changes in location.

Any star map is not and will not match up to our observations period. We are seeing the galaxy as it was thousands or millions of years ago. But we could not use it for navigation be like taking a map of New York from the 1860s and try to use it today. Landmarks have changed and a lot of stuff has come and gone.

So in other words your wasting your time trying to take a star map and apply it to our galactic observations. Because any alien race with interstellar capabilities would need to keep a real time location chart. Where the systems actually are not where they look like they were at.

If Australian aboriginals can draw and use star maps on rocks, reportedly accurate, I don't see why some chick can't draw a star map on paper, and it be accurate.

I would think it's more about angles created between the spots (sun's) than the spots/pixels them selves.

Very cool work.

Betty's phoney "star map" is like Jim Penniston's equally phoney "binary code"; both offshoots from the main story, like fungus on a rotting tree - presumably inserted for the purposes of verisimilitude, and aimed at duping the credulous, gullible and naive.

Other users seem impressed with the OP's [pseudo scientific] work but I'm not. Why? Before we even get to the so-called "star map" the whole story is on very shaky foundations: (1) Betty was a known fantasist and UFO enthusiast; (2) regressive hypnosis is not a reliable means of retrieving memory. This is more than enough reason to put the Hills and their fraudulent claims in the bin.

There's more reason to believe Betty Hill fabricated her "star map" and so whether it matches a constellation or not is wholly irrelevant.

originally posted by: BenutzerUnbekannt

Other users seem impressed with the OP's [pseudo scientific] work but I'm not. Why? Before we even get to the so-called "star map" the whole story is on very shaky foundations:

Damn man, I should thank you profusely!!! I actually needed a good laugh this morning!

You do realize that virtually all of Betty and Barney's story is irrelevant, right?

There's more reason to believe Betty Hill fabricated her "star map" and so whether it matches a constellation or not is wholly irrelevant.

Well actually Betty's map doesn't match any constellation, though it does have a 99.1% match to a group of stars when viewed from 122 light years from Earth. That match has a probability of 1.024e-94 I do so hope you understand that with a probability like that, there is no way Betty could have "fabricated" the map.

Then there are the four (4) stars on Betty's map, that no one on Earth knew existed until 1992, Betty drew her map in the early 1960's. So, She knew of the existence of 4 stars before any other Human, and recorded it. Just how do you think Betty could have gained that knowledge?

Now, IF you can show us how the map can be fabricated, please do, I'm actually looking for ways that can happen.

a reply to: james1947

I applaud your effort and passion, it looks like you're really convinced that there's a match.

However, I do share some of the concerns that others have mentioned before, without wanting to go into too much detail right now. But the thing that's puzzling me the most is the lacking correspondence between the two images in the OP. Perhaps it's just me and I'm missing something there?

I think it would help your theory if you could extract screenshots from the programs you used. As far as I understood, it should be possible to get Celestia (or some other platform) to display the matched perspective of Betty's map? But even then it would seem difficult to make any matches, despite the limitation within a couple of parsecs, because we don't know which distances the original map was based on. And we don't have any points of reference either.

Also, assuming a certain circumference just because the alleged visitors would be subjected to the speed of light limit seems a bit arbitrary, given that we don't know anything about their level of technology. But as said, perhaps I'm just missing something essential in Betty's case that would make a potential match possible.

originally posted by: james1947

Actually, my map does show both stars and planets, though perhaps not as well as I can make it...but then it is version 1.0, lets see what I can do for 2.0. Though the "planets" part might not be as pretty.

Go to the website. If you mouse over a star it will show you its name, if you click on a star it will show you some astrometrics, AND, any planets that have been discovered there.

Many of your questions are more than a little outside the scope of this analysis.
For instance; I'm not addressing the mindset of any individual, nor do I address the cause of any behavior. This analysis only addresses the map, but you already knew that.

First off, how much simpler can I speak? Every point on your map shows stars: Zeta Reticuli, 1 Zeta Reticuli 2, Gliese 86, Gliese 59A, Tau Eridani, 82 Eridani, Alpha Mensae, Sol, Tau Ceti, 107 Piscis, 54 Piscis, Gliese 67. Not a single dot is a planet. Betty drew both stars and planets on her map:

...with numerous sized stars and planets

...showed nickel-sized dots and tiny dots connected by curved lines. Heavy black lines indicated trade routes between planets; some of these went from one planet to another...

She likely drew the large nickel-sized dots as planets and the smaller dots in the distance as stars. That's why she would draw curved lines on the nearest dots to represent the curvature of a planet. Remember too, all of the designation of stars is done by Majorie Fish, not Betty. So now you want to claim she was really talking about the planets that revolve around the stars, not the stars themselves?

In reference to her map, everything Betty spoke about or drew is exclusively human. That suggests that Hill was sitting at her kitchen table looking at human made maps to get reference and inspiration. She could have used 1960's encyclopedia drawings of the silk road, spice routes, etc checked out from her library. There's not a single mention of anything "alien" on a visual level that stands out. There's nothing we question the meaning of. An aliens artistic rendition and use of words is the exact same as a humans? Where is Betty saying there were these weird _______ on the map?

He walked across the room and touched something on the wall. The wall opened, exposing a map which he pulled down. This chart...

All of this is relevant to Bettys era of technology. A physical 2-D map which is pulled down from a wall similar to school style maps in classrooms in the 50's on. Now look at human technological progression of maps only 50 years later. We use GPS in our cars, portable GPS units, phones, tablets, computers, etc yet aliens with the technology to create a spacecraft that travels our galaxy and possible universe uses antiquated human technology of a 2-D map that's rolled down from a wall? Also, if this is really an exploration of our solar system by aliens, no progress map has been created to show the planets and the new study or planned study of each planet in our solar system? "He" only has an overall general map of stars? The alien cartographer should be fired. It also defies logic.

Let me give you examples of how Betty could have used human reference to draw a map.
An older map with lines to show desire/stopping points:


A map that uses solid and dashed lines to show different meanings:


Different routes used on human created maps:


Here's a map made a while back of the area where Betty lives that's a closer match than yours:


I've addressed just the map as you suggested. You believe with your technical jargon and software skills you can talk your way out of a mismatch. I've learned it's a pointless and long-winded argument that has no end, you'll just continue on believing you're right. You refuse to talk about the overall story and Betty's odd behavior after her encounter. If you do address it you can see the entire story is fabricated thus making all of your energy and work pointless.

In order for your map to be real you have to create excuses on every point:
We're to ignore the Hill abduction account because it's "fantasy BS" and "mostly irrelevant". We're to ignore the exact layout of Bettys map because it's only "an artistic impression". Now I can't call you on Betty including planets because that's not what she really meant. You can make anything probable with that way of thinking.

originally posted by: james1947
Also, IF what you are attempting were even remotely true/correct; then Facial recognition wouldn't work, neither would Optical character recognition, and, well, most of the whole Computer Vision area of technology. Computer Vision is kind of dependent on being able to recognize objects and process the acquired data.

But you're not using a facial recognition app, you're using something where I copied word for word from the documentation what it does and you then try to claim that's not what it does.

Actually the facial recognition point you bring up is the most devastating argument of all to your work, and I only mention this for the benefit of others who are open-minded to want to know the truth. You have such a huge confirmation bias that I have zero hope that any rational argument will have any effect on you to help you get closer to the real truth, but there are others here who are open-minded enough to want the real truth and this is noted for their benefit.

In facial recognition, if the camera and software are working correctly, and if you compare those results to the facial recognition of perception from a human who is also working correctly (no partial blindness or vision or perception problems), you generally will find that the humans and the machine agree on the facial recognition.

So the machine confirms what humans can see, and humans are pretty good at recognizing patterns, especially faces.

Humans are also good at recognizing other types of patterns too. So when we look at the star map and probably everybody except you with your confirmation bias sees the patterns don't match, the only conclusion we can come to is that the software app you are trying to use saying they match is somehow ineffective for the application you are attempting because it is unable to discern what we humans can easily discern, that the patterns are not anywhere near a match.

So in the case of facial recognition, suppose the facial recognition app says two different faces are a match when you can look at the faces and tell they are completely different.

Your argument in this analogy is like saying, "just ignore the fact that your eyes and brain tell you the faces don't match and trust the machine which says they match". So you have any idea how silly that seems? But that's what you're suggesting. The truth is if that happens anybody with any sense would know that means there is something wrong with the machine. So really think about this facial recognition thing, we shouldn't try to use machines to tell us that two faces match when we can tell they are NOT the same faces. We should instead fix the broken machine.

originally posted by: jeep3r
a reply to: james1947
But the thing that's puzzling me the most is the lacking correspondence between the two images in the OP.

Obviously it's not just you because I already mentioned they do not look similar to me and I believe others have noted this also. I think james1947 may be the only one who can't tell they don't match partly because of his confirmation bias and partly because of his over-reliance on what a machine is telling him, when an ordinary person who sees a machine identifying a match where there is none could easily point out the machine is malfunctioning; james1947 doesn't seem to have that ability.

originally posted by: james1947
Yes an image...if you look back on page 1 you can see the image I used.

OK, then how is that image compared with the other? Are the points extracted and a coordinates comparison is used, so we get a kind of shape comparison? Or are the pixels compared? How is it done?

I am aware, however, every single star catalog ever produced here on Earth has Earth as it center. Perhaps I presume too much.

If you presumed everybody knows that then yes, you presumed too much. When we are talking to people we don't know we don't know what they know, so we should present all of our data and explain how we got there and what and how we used to get there.

Yes actually, you could get close enough to view the two Zetas Reticuli that way. However, nearly ALL of the other stars on the map will no longer be visible in your view. I had to back off from Zeta Reticuli a large number of light years just to accommodate all of the stars.

Doesn't that mean that you are altering the map just to fit your preconceived idea? If the map, how it was drawn, doesn't match, then it doesn't match.

Well, as I understand Celestia, it too used the Hipparcos data, so, the individual star maps would be virtually identical (Celestia may have other astronomical object in their view. Objects not in Hipparcos).

I'm not sure if I understand what you mean. What I meant is that you could use Celestia to create an alternate star map, with stars you know, and then use that map in your system. As that map would have been made with know stars, a comparison with the same known stars should give you an 100% accuracy. If it does not then it means your system is not working as it should.

At least that's how I, a self-taught programmer, would try to confirm the working of your system. As you (probably) know, any system that is not tested to see if it works as expected is not trustworthy.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

In reference to her map, everything Betty spoke about or drew is exclusively human.

That's a statement you cannot prove...

"Here's a map made a while back of the area where Betty lives that's a closer match than yours:"
-- your image

Actually this isn't a match at all! You are using only 12 of 25 points in the pattern (template).

I've addressed just the map as you suggested. You believe with your technical jargon and software skills you can talk your way out of a mismatch. I've learned it's a pointless and long-winded argument that has no end, you'll just continue on believing you're right. You refuse to talk about the overall story and Betty's odd behavior after her encounter. If you do address it you can see the entire story is fabricated thus making all of your energy and work pointless.

"Technical jargon?"

It appears that in some respects Sagan was correct; if you remove the lines the image "falls apart". Y'all are completely incapable of recognizing that is actually rather plane.



Maybe this will help, thought I'm kind of sure you will still deny reality and say there is no match...

Yes, I tend to stay away from the "story", mostly because the "story" cannot affect the drawing (it's 50 years old and fixed), nor can it affect the astrometrics, the stars are the very same stars that were around 50, 100, 1000 years ago, and haven't changed, except for minor drift in position. And of course those positions are well known as is the drift. And then there is the technology, but, I don't remember anything about "Betty Hill" in any of my classes, so, I don't think she could have affected technology enough to make any detectable difference.

It is beyond the scope of both my paper, and this thread to educate y'all on Computer Vision, and "Template Matching", but, here is a pointer in the right direction.

a reply to: james1947

that says it all - i is done with this farce

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Actually the facial recognition point you bring up is the most devastating argument of all to your work,

In facial recognition, if the camera and software are working correctly, and if you compare those results to the facial recognition of perception from a human who is also working correctly (no partial blindness or vision or perception problems), you generally will find that the humans and the machine agree on the facial recognition.

Actually, Facial Recognition is the perfect analogy. I can put on makeup in such a pattern, and color combination that you can not easily see me. And, if you do, you cannot recognize me at all. A computer might have some difficulty discerning me, but once it did "get" my face; there is no amount of "makeup" that will cause the computer to not recognize me immediately. BTW "makeup" does not include facial implants or augments.

Again:

Obviously it's not just you because I already mentioned they do not look similar to me and I believe others have noted this also. I think james1947 may be the only one who can't tell they don't match partly because of his confirmation bias and partly because of his over-reliance on what a machine is telling him, when an ordinary person who sees a machine identifying a match where there is none could easily point out the machine is malfunctioning; james1947 doesn't seem to have that ability.

I know you don't want this to be a match, you probably have way too much invested in your own ideas, and don't really care about reality, but, new science, new technology says these two images are a close match. There is no confirmation bias, there is no room for confirmation bias...this whole thing (so far) has been done with the accuracy, precision, and innovation of modern computer science, and technology. If you are going to continue to insist they don't match; you should show us "how" they don't match...please.

So...rage against the machine as you will; the machine won't care. And in this instance, the machine had far better vision than you...

Have you ever tried to solve one of those "hidden image" puzzles on the internet? One can search for minutes, yet a computer could solve one in seconds...that what pattern and template recognition can do.

originally posted by: ArMaP

OK, then how is that image compared with the other? Are the points extracted and a coordinates comparison is used, so we get a kind of shape comparison? Or are the pixels compared? How is it done?

It is kind of beyond the scope of this format to attempt to explain how a third party algorithm works. But, if you want to find out, aforgenet.com... has the C# source code (its open source), that will tell you very definitively "how" it does it's thing.

"Yes actually, you could get close enough to view the two Zetas Reticuli that way. However, nearly ALL of the other stars on the map will no longer be visible in your view. I had to back off from Zeta Reticuli a large number of light years just to accommodate all of the stars."

Doesn't that mean that you are altering the map just to fit your preconceived idea? If the map, how it was drawn, doesn't match, then it doesn't match.

No. I don't know how to communicate this idea to y'all; that Betty's drawing is only an approximation of a group (configuration) of stars that she saw on an extraterrestrial monitor. It can not be a perfect (100%) match to the real world...I've shown you the probability of that event. Yet y'all seem to insist that there must be an exact match.

I'm not sure if I understand what you mean. What I meant is that you could use Celestia to create an alternate star map, with stars you know, and then use that map in your system. As that map would have been made with know stars, a comparison with the same known stars should give you an 100% accuracy. If it does not then it means your system is not working as it should.

At least that's how I, a self-taught programmer, would try to confirm the working of your system. As you (probably) know, any system that is not tested to see if it works as expected is not trustworthy.

Well, what can I say; if the software performs as intended then it is working. If it is using valid to do what it is supposed to do, then, what it does is 100% accurate. The fact that it built a sphere of stars all appropriately placed around the origin (no wild stars/points), that kind of indicates that the trigonometry is correct.

Since I use the same data as Celestia, then the only other issue would be the 3D engine; Poser has a very well proven engine (Poser has been around since the 1990's).

Oh, and, as a "self-taught programmer" do you think you verify your work any better than I, a retired professional, do?
Just askin...

a reply to: james1947

Here goes the map by Marjorie Fish and Betty's original drawing for reference:


I used Celestia to get a view of Zeta Reticuli such that both Zeta Reticuli 1 and 2 line up approximately as indicated in those maps. The view is limited to visible stars within a circumference of 41 light years and this is the result:

Click image for larger view

At first glance it looks like a good match, but there are some other nearby stars that are not included in Betty's map. And what if we increase the limit above 41 light years? Then there would be many more possible connections and we could get many more "close" matches. This shows IMO that the original map does not contain enough details and it's therefore not really possible to conclude anything of substance.