An analysis of the Betty Hill "star map"

originally posted by: james1947
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.

It's not beyond the scope, as all your work is based on that. Thanks for the link, I'll take a look, if I have the time.

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.

OK, so you say that Betty's map is an approximation. Did Betty said that?

Well, what can I say; if the software performs as intended then it is working.

"As intended" means that you had an expected result and you got it, but did you confirm that different inputs gave equivalent results?

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).

It's another part of the system, so it should also be confirmed that it is working was desired for this specific situation.

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

I don't know, you haven't told us a thing about the way you tested for false positive results from your system. Being a "retired professional" means very little if you have a confirmation bias, so if you want to present your work as a kind of scientific work you should present all your data and explain your method in detail, so anyone can replicate it and confirm (or not) independently your conclusions.

PS: a self-taught programmer can also be a professional, it only means he/she didn't have academic education on that subject.

originally posted by: ArMaP

It's another part of the system, so it should also be confirmed that it is working was desired for this specific situation.

Poser is a mature commercial product that is used across a variety of industry. It's major competitors are Maya, Daz3D (on either side...) It is suitable for 3D work on everything from TV commercials, to movies, to the Medical Industry.

It most assuredly performs as expected / required in this instance.

I don't know, you haven't told us a thing about the way you tested for false positive results from your system. Being a "retired professional" means very little if you have a confirmation bias, so if you want to present your work as a kind of scientific work you should present all your data and explain your method in detail, so anyone can replicate it and confirm (or not) independently your conclusions.

PS: a self-taught programmer can also be a professional, it only means he/she didn't have academic education on that subject.

False positive...when you find a way to do that, you let me know, I can find a whole industry that want to know how...lol

Confirmation bias...I should be insulted!!! Seriously, just how, short of explicit code, does one put confirmation bias into software?

Actually, yes, I do want this work taken as a scientific work; however, that wee bit about; presenting all my data, and methods...I did exactly THAT!

originally posted by: james1947
Poser is a mature commercial product that is used across a variety of industry. It's major competitors are Maya, Daz3D (on either side...) It is suitable for 3D work on everything from TV commercials, to movies, to the Medical Industry.

I know Poser, and as it's name suggests it was made and optimized for 3D models of human figures, so it wouldn't be my first option to create a 3D scene without any human figures.

It most assuredly performs as expected / required in this instance.

I asked because it sounds like you used it for something that is not Poser's intended work. If I did that I would try to find out if the results were the ones I wanted before using it as my tool for the job.

False positive...when you find a way to do that, you let me know, I can find a whole industry that want to know how...lol

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

Confirmation bias...I should be insulted!!! Seriously, just how, short of explicit code, does one put confirmation bias into software?

Confirmation bias, in this case, would be creating code to show what you wanted it to show instead of creating code to work with the data without trying to reach a specific result.

Actually, yes, I do want this work taken as a scientific work; however, that wee bit about; presenting all my data, and methods...I did exactly THAT!

If I thought you did I wouldn't have asked all these questions.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
In reference to her map, everything Betty spoke about or drew is exclusively human.

originally posted by: james1947
That's a statement you cannot prove...

I did show you through examples how humans create maps. That is proof of how Betty could have taken inspiration for a map through reading encyclopedias. Lines from place to place showing stopping points, exact same route names used, solid and dashed lines used, curvature of the lines to show long distances traveled, a 2-D map that's pulled down and shown then rolled back up. Can you point to anything extraterrestrial in that description? Anything foreign? I fail to see it.

originally posted by: james1947
Actually this isn't a match at all! You are using only 12 of 25 points in the pattern (template).

Look... I'll update my map for you then to show how easy it is to match random dots when you allow yourself to move them. I'll use this as an example of how you can force fit anything to meet a belief if you want to. I used an example that Betty really used a home area map as a template. I allowed myself the freedom to move the position of the towns, as you did with your map and stars, to stay true to the belief that I'm on to something. I don't feel like wasting the effort, so this is the map is as I made it a couple of years ago. Three more towns- Hawleyton, Kirkwood, and Windsor fit the three lower dots below Binghamton. There's your 25 dots:

Here's your map in comparison to Betty's, then mine above with the background removed and in black & white below yours:
See how you can match many things? I believe mine is a better match.

originally posted by: james1947
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.

I enjoy researching but I have no interest in reading up on computer vision and template matching because your map isn't a match on a visual level. There's nothing to get excited about. I think you're being dishonest in your assertion that you've found evidence of extraterrestrial visitation.

One more comment- I've shown you that Betty mentioned several times that the map she saw contained stars and planets. Why doesn't your map have any planets displayed as Betty's map does? I'm still waiting for you to give a reason. Your map is nonsense without them.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
Here's your map in comparison to Betty's, then mine above with the background removed and in black & white below yours:

See how you can match many things? I believe mine is a better match.

I also think your map is a better match visually.

I enjoy researching but I have no interest in reading up on computer vision and template matching because your map isn't a match on a visual level. There's nothing to get excited about.

Here is an example where we can compare a visual match to numbers generated by a computer, for how well data points match a straight line prediction:


The dark dots can be seen visually to be a better match to the straight line, and crunching numbers generates r-squared of .985 which I tend to think of as a 98.5% match.
The light dots can be seen visually to be a worse match to the straight line, and crunching numbers generates r-squared of .881 which I tend to think of as a 88.1% match.

You can show this graph without the r-squared numbers to most people and ask them which dots are a better match to the straight line, and of course they can easily tell the dark dots are a better match. People can't generate those numbers by looking at it, but the visual inspection does tell us something, even without having those numbers. The numbers just give us a way to quantify what we are seeing visually.

So I agree, we have to start with a visual assessment, and if that tells it's not a match, then so be it. We may not get a precise number from that nor is such a number necessary, just as no number is necessary to tell us the lighter dots don't match the line as well as the darker dots in the above example...we can tell that visually.

originally posted by: ArMaP

If I thought you did I wouldn't have asked all these questions.

Here's the thing, ArMap; I have given you all the data, and all the procedure to recreate everything I've done. The only thing I have not provided is the skill to do the work, and I'm not responsible for that aspect...only providing you with enough information to recreate my work...and, as I've said, I've done that.

Also, the use of Poser isn't an issue since it is still a 3D modeling and rendering system. What makes it "optimized" for "character modeling" are all of the "feature" adds that are "built-in". I could have used another application, but, my other choice would have been something like 3D Max, or Maya, and I can't afford those systems, and they wouldn't have done a better job.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

Here's your map in comparison to Betty's, then mine above with the background removed and in black & white below yours:

See how you can match many things? I believe mine is a better match.

Congratulations!! You are the first to rise above the 99% mark...

You achieved a match of 99.06%

Unfortunately you used only US cities and towns, not stars. For some reason, you and some others think that you can match to just about anything; you can't!!! You must be matching to stars (I'll leave out the planets part as Terrestrial science hasn't discovered very many exoplanets as of yet... only 3730...

I think you're being dishonest in your assertion that you've found evidence of extraterrestrial visitation.

Who is being dishonest?

One more comment- I've shown you that Betty mentioned several times that the map she saw contained stars and planets. Why doesn't your map have any planets displayed as Betty's map does? I'm still waiting for you to give a reason. Your map is nonsense without them.

And, sir, I've told you on numerous occasion that my map does in fact contain stars, and planets! You have but to look!!

Why does your map contain only Terrestrial cities and towns?

Where on Betty's map is there a planet depicted???!!?

What I see is a Graphical User Interface displaying selected stars, with one star system expanded to its first level.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yeah, we need to take into account the entire Hill incident. We have both written and visual information to study. This story isn't a small 5 minute portion of this map. You can't cherrypick and obsess on only one part because it best suits your own belief.

I've been down this road with james1947 under all of his usernames. I've learned it's pointless to argue the map with him because he's not looking for someone to challenge it. He's looking to convince others he's right like he's done himself. The sad part is that he will continue this delusion.

a reply to: james1947

Where does Betty mention planets on her map? Seriously? You're going to try that strategy again, feigning confusion? You see it as well as anyone else does. It's a weak defense james1947. You say your map does show planets, then in the same post ask where Betty shows planets. Huh?

You can't respond to me logically when faced with a logical question. You can only argue "technical" garble when faced with technical questions. Can you not see you're favoring this connection and making excuses in order to make it fit your belief? You don't want to address anything outside of the map because you know your map will fall apart.

Go on believing you've shown an extraterrestrial map and trying to prove it. When members of this forum argue against you and you can't even get public figures to respond, in particular Hill map supporter Stanton Friedman, maybe that's telling you to take another look at what you're claiming.

With you now acting like you don't understand, I'm done wasting energy on this.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yeah, we need to take into account the entire Hill incident. We have both written and visual information to study. This story isn't a small 5 minute portion of this map. You can't cherrypick and obsess on only one part because it best suits your own belief.

This is getting rather old, man, your refusal to understand that what Betty had for Breakfast years later, or how she felt about Barney years after, or indeed any behavior she might have has, good, bad, or otherwise; has absolutely no effect on Astrometrics, Astronomy, Mathemataics, or Computer Science. Yet, you seem to insist that it does!

She drew a "map" on a scrap of paper, and it has become "FIXED"...it cannot change, and contains everything it did when it was created, and that includes 4 stars that were not known at the time (you kind of like to ignore that).

"You can't cherrypick and obsess on only one part because it best suits your own belief." Actually, man, I'm not cherrypicking!!! There is no data that can contradict Betty's map, or any conclusions derived from it...

I've been down this road with james1947 under all of his usernames. I've learned it's pointless to argue the map with him because he's not looking for someone to challenge it. He's looking to convince others he's right like he's done himself. The sad part is that he will continue this delusion.

No, the sad part is that you think this is a delusion, yet have not taken the proper steps to prove that it is, course, you can't do that, but, to not even try?!

And, you are wrong on the "challenge" part of your statement too. I would truly love for someone to come along an challenge this. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, I only want people to actually make some attempt to understand. That has not happened yet...YOU might try actually reading what I have, instead of posting your knee-jerk attempts at circumventing science.

Where does Betty mention planets on her map? Seriously? You're going to try that strategy again, feigning confusion? You see it as well as anyone else does. It's a weak defense james1947. You say your map does show planets, then in the same post ask where Betty shows planets. Huh?

The never has been any "feigning confusion", that's all you man. And, YES I "see it" as well as anyone, perhaps better. You see, I know what stars have discovered planets, I know where theses planets orbit, I even know what kind of planets there are, and their suitability for life as we know it. Hell, man, I know more about the "stars and planets" in Betty's map, than Betty did, and much more than you. I ask you to point out one of Betty's "planets" and you can't. If you were to ask me; I'd show you 16 (perhaps more) planets, some of which could support life as it is known on Earth.

But, you wouldn't know about any of that, because, you won't look.

You can't respond to me logically when faced with a logical question. You can only argue "technical" garble when faced with technical questions. Can you not see you're favoring this connection and making excuses in order to make it fit your belief? You don't want to address anything outside of the map because you know your map will fall apart.

Logic...I don't think you could recognize a "logical response", you don't seem to have applied much logic, or critical thinking to this. "Technical garble", cute term that usually means that you don't understand the technology...bone up man!

Go on believing you've shown an extraterrestrial map and trying to prove it.

Well actually man, I have proven it! You may not have the vision to see it, but...after demonstrating that Betty's map is an excellent match for stars in local space, and showing that all the stars in the map are a logical "fit" to the kind of "map" it is supposed to be. AND, identifying four stars that are in Betty's map that were not known to her, proving that the stars are real, and thus a prediction.

James Oberg stated, here on ATS, that IF an abductee could come back with information that science could later prove correct, that would go a very long way to proving extraterrestrial involvement. I have shown that in Betty's map.

With you now acting like you don't understand, I'm done wasting energy on this.

Huh? You getting a bit confused?

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
I've been down this road with james1947 under all of his usernames. I've learned it's pointless to argue the map with him because he's not looking for someone to challenge it. He's looking to convince others he's right like he's done himself. The sad part is that he will continue this delusion.

It reminds me a little of all the people who are really into the Roswell myth and read the Ramey Memo and are absolutely convinced that they're reading about "discs" and "bodies" being "forwarded" to Wright-Patterson. Absolutely convinced because it fits in with what they really, really want to believe.

It takes a lot of effort to smash your idols.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Ya know, IF y'all could actually mount a logical argument, based on something solid, like science, you might have an easier time making your illogical, and quite incorrect accusations of bias, cherrypicking, delusions, or what ever, actually having some small amount of substance. But, as it is you are yelling nonsense at a scientist and making fools of yourselves...

I do understand how what you have is appealing to many, especially those who, like yourselves, are a bit afraid of the implications of this research. But, your feelings, like Betty's psychology, do not affect the science involved here.

Anyway, that was part 1, and there is a part 2. In part 2 I will show how this map of Betty's still matches to a very high degree even when compared using manual / mechanical methods...

The stars of Betty's map are all logical elements, in that all 25 of the original stars, even the predicted ones, are all suitable for life, some perhaps as advanced as Earth. And, of course I'll introduce you to the "point of view".

So, while I prepare part 2, why don't y'all try to rationalize four (4) predicted stars on Betty's map. And, then try to explain how they got there...

originally posted by: james1947
But, as it is you are yelling nonsense at a scientist and making fools of yourselves...

What scientist?

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: james1947
But, as it is you are yelling nonsense at a scientist and making fools of yourselves...

What scientist?

I'm sorry; scientist / engineer.

originally posted by: james1947

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: james1947
But, as it is you are yelling nonsense at a scientist and making fools of yourselves...

What scientist?

I'm sorry; scientist / engineer.

I don't go to that church.

a reply to: james1947

I don't understand, what do you mean by "scientist / engineer" and who is he?

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

I fail to see how matching through overlaying Betty's star chart with a state is meant to demonstrate anything other than a visual match? As one can also take locations from the a state in America and assuredly find state's all over the world that fit positive matches. All that would mean is the dots have a repeatable pattern.

Furthermore, taking a state map of any country could potentially match with any kind of visual layout, from construction blue prints to a selfy. Matching dots and lines doesnt remove the importance of Betty's image because she identified it with no prior knowledge of the zeta system, along with advanced knowledge then what was academically known at the time, while at the same time aligning with actual maps that later academically came into being.

That is as significant as hypothetically i whom has no knowledge of the oceanic surface, was presented by aliens a complete mapping of the world's sea bed, to which we currently do not posses as of 2019, were to recreate this map and present it to academia, we would find in decades to come that i was indeed contacted by aliens.

And you could also in the future overlay my recreated map of various lines and dots with other images of city maps and the such, but it woulnt escape what the map is demonstrating ahead of its time.

originally posted by: james1947
What I see is a Graphical User Interface displaying selected stars, with one star system expanded to its first level.

That could be the case, there's no reason to deny it.

But what are the odds of Betty Hill recreating a star map freehand from what she remembered to 99% accuracy?

That's the only unbelievable part of the whole story.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: james1947
What I see is a Graphical User Interface displaying selected stars, with one star system expanded to its first level.

That could be the case, there's no reason to deny it.

But what are the odds of Betty Hill recreating a star map freehand from what she remembered to 99% accuracy?

That's the only unbelievable part of the whole story.

What are the odds? Glad you asked...

We want the first 25 terms of 2826 factorial (2826 is the number of stars returned for our search): result = 1.7102778772488529E+86. So there are 1.71e+86 combinations of 25 stars, there are also 46,656,000 possible angles to view from. The probability of the match is: 1 chance in 7.978176e+93 or 1.25e-94.

-- from my white paper

With a probability like that; it is virtually impossible to create/draw such a map.

a reply to: andre18

First off, the map I drew was specifically related to this incident and not just a set of random points for a reason. It shows where the Hills lived and where their claimed abduction happened. Just as james1947's map was related to this incident. So I didn't make an active search for a map of cities to favor the map. If I did, I could find a much better one. All I had to do was look no further than the case. I have however used a random dot generator under one of his other usernames to show random points can be created then lines connected to make a map similar to Betty's. He believes his template excuse gives him leeway to do anything with the dots as long it's a match in a general and basic way.
Here is Betty's map side by side with james1947 with the suggestive lines removed:

Do you see a close match?

Here is an actual overlay of james1947 (white dots) map onto Betty's (red dots) map with Zeta Reticuli 1 being aligned with both and the background black:
Do you see a close match yet? Do you see something to get excited about?

Next, Betty describes in her account that solid trade routes go from planet to planet:

The heavy black lines indicated trade routes between planets; some of these went from one planet to another in a series of lines. Light lines were routes to planets or stars occasionally visited. Broken lines were expeditions or exploration trips to distant bodies.

PDF The Hill Report page 9
Now look at Betty's map and tell me which dots have heavy black lines drawn to them:

The first two nickel-sized dots in the foreground with curved lines drawn on them and one to the right have heavy black lines drawn between them. As per her description, these would be planets. Where do the fantasy stars Zeta 1 & 2 come into play when Betty not only says it, but draws the two closest points as planets? NOT stars. I'm only repeating what she said.

Let's imagine james1947 claim is right, both of these are really the Zeta Reticuli 1 & 2 star system and Betty didn't mean planets, but instead meant planets in orbit around both stars. Has there been any evidence that planets that orbit Zeta 1 & 2 harbor intelligent life? Has SETI ever discovered a signal received from this part of our galaxy? They aimed a telescope in Australia and received nothing. Do we have any supporting evidence in the last 50+ years that intelligent life has occurred there? You would think after more than 5 decades "they" would have visited Earth more than once. Betty claimed they were curious in 1961:

he did ask questions, what do vegetables look like? My favorite one? Squash, what did it look like, how do we eat it.

They were unfinished in their study. She also suggested the leader meet with scientists or top leaders of the world to get a better understanding of our scientific knowledge.

These are only a few logical question to ask of this case in which james1947 wants to dismiss and distance himself from. He has no choice but to obsessively grab onto this map. It also helps his own claim of decades-long abductions in which he has no evidence. It's also important to consider the source and background. He has claimed on this forum he can predict where UFOs will be, he has telepathic communication with aliens, believed the starchild skull was real, says ET addressed the UN and held meetings with g8 and g20, and others with no supporting evidence whatsoever.