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

tanka418

Your joking right? You sent me to a UFO conspiracy sight to look at there star map when i told you its based off information from 1969?? Thats the best you can do really???? try reading the article i included from an astronomer who writes in astronomical journals not ufo sites. See your evidence basically amounts to see there are aliens wow i dont even know how to talk to someone like that. As i said do some research you find her map is bogus just look at the link i gave you there are others by the way.Your circular argument is astounding to say the least go to an alien conspiracy website to prove aliens exist!!!!

Well, the paper I sent you to does not use data from 1969, and uses NASA NStars database for much of it's data, The planetary data can be found on various astronomy sites and in the HABCAT database, which was also used.

So the information, positioning etc. of the stars in the opening graphic are100% accurate except for Gliese 67...(typo).

And, if you think that data from 1969 is significantly different that it is today, your are very mistaken...stars don't move that much...

And, perhaps you should do your own research on this, I have...that map reflects the accurate positioning of the relevant stars wen viewed from the correct location in space...do you know where that is? Read my paper on Zeta Reticuli and you'll find out.

Seriously, you should read before you condemn.



Many actions reveal much from their reaction.

ZetaRediculian
Alien-wolf-magic
there he has proof of his alien DNA.

It's all starting to make sense now.

tanka418

tanka418

Your joking right? You sent me to a UFO conspiracy sight to look at there star map when i told you its based off information from 1969?? Thats the best you can do really???? try reading the article i included from an astronomer who writes in astronomical journals not ufo sites. See your evidence basically amounts to see there are aliens wow i dont even know how to talk to someone like that. As i said do some research you find her map is bogus just look at the link i gave you there are others by the way.Your circular argument is astounding to say the least go to an alien conspiracy website to prove aliens exist!!!!

Well, the paper I sent you to does not use data from 1969, and uses NASA NStars database for much of it's data, The planetary data can be found on various astronomy sites and in the HABCAT database, which was also used.

So the information, positioning etc. of the stars in the opening graphic are100% accurate except for Gliese 67...(typo).

And, if you think that data from 1969 is significantly different that it is today, your are very mistaken...stars don't move that much...

And, perhaps you should do your own research on this, I have...that map reflects the accurate positioning of the relevant stars wen viewed from the correct location in space...do you know where that is? Read my paper on Zeta Reticuli and you'll find out.

Seriously, you should read before you condemn.



Many actions reveal much from their reaction.

Ok perhaps your noy understanding the positions were incorrectly plotted of the stars when the information were updated to show their actual positions her map was wrong! The stars didnt move at all come on man its not that hard to figure out. 6 of the stars she plotted on her map were very distant stars and would have been included in thats grouping by even the dumbest aliens in the universe. They had tons of closer stars to choose for their map you just dont want to give up your best evidence. Now n star is not NASAs database it belongs to the university of arizona and its based on the gliese star maps of course its going to be the same its 196os information. Come on man i showed you what an actual astronomer said about the map i explained why its unlikely theres life there and you still want to hold up some dots she drew on a piece of paper as being real when half of them are wrong??

Here is a statement from Stanton Friedman a ufo expert who has used betty and barney it all his lectures when he found out her map wasnt the match he thought it was by the way it wasn't even very good with the 60s information i think she copied it from a bad source.

Yes the Fish map has problems, but he still claimed we have identified "the base": Zeta 1 and Zeta 2 Reticuli, even though the data that identification was based on is now known to be inaccurate.

Hear what hes saying here well yeah her maps wrong but i still see a base there in the area so it doesnt matter really. Wow thats what i call dedication to a fairy tale. Once again follow my links learn about how we plotted the new star charts and then you can see for yourself the map was a bunch of dots on a paper and please if your going to throw star charts at me at least know where they came from ok.

dragonridr

Ok perhaps your noy understanding the positions were incorrectly plotted of the stars when the information were updated to show their actual positions her map was wrong!

Then Please explain "why" the opening graphic n that paper "looks" so much like the "Hill map".

Do you really think that the values for Right Ascension and Declination are much different from Hip to Gleise to NStars, to any other stellar database? Or perhaps you think that thousandths of a second of arc constitutes a large distance at the ranges of the Hill map stars (main stars). And, did you know that all the main stars are within 75 light years of both Zeta 2 Reticuli AND Sol.

I'm sorry man, but you have no argument that can withstand my database...the stars in the opening graphic are exactly where they are supposed to be according to every star catalog available. The configuration of the stars is a "match" for the original Hill map. Course, then again, IF you try to view those same stars from Earth, there will be no match, the only view is not even near Earth.

You are trying to deny reality.

tanka418

dragonridr

Ok perhaps your noy understanding the positions were incorrectly plotted of the stars when the information were updated to show their actual positions her map was wrong!

Then Please explain "why" the opening graphic n that paper "looks" so much like the "Hill map".

Do you really think that the values for Right Ascension and Declination are much different from Hip to Gleise to NStars, to any other stellar database? Or perhaps you think that thousandths of a second of arc constitutes a large distance at the ranges of the Hill map stars (main stars). And, did you know that all the main stars are within 75 light years of both Zeta 2 Reticuli AND Sol.

I'm sorry man, but you have no argument that can withstand my database...the stars in the opening graphic are exactly where they are supposed to be according to every star catalog available. The configuration of the stars is a "match" for the original Hill map. Course, then again, IF you try to view those same stars from Earth, there will be no match, the only view is not even near Earth.

You are trying to deny reality.

Look the star charts you are basing it off of are wrong the European space agency sent up a satellite charting the stars. You using gleiss information which was obtained through observatories. And it was wrong when we charted the actual position of stars some are closer others further away. Ill post this for you but ive already done this and you ignored those but here was the project.

en.wikipedia.org...

Now the cool thing is E space is sending up another probe to map a billion stars this time they want to create a 3d image of our entire galaxy. So back to topic betty had access to gleiss star maps in her UFO meetings she made a poor copy of one but as it turns out we didnt have the correct information a the time. Meaning her map was incorrect as well. Now dont think aliens living there would not have made a mistake on the position of stars around their own planet? Her map should have contradicted what the star map at the time look like it didnt did it?

PS they do charge for there updated star maps but i think you might want to invest for peace of mind there all over the internet.Also sky chart uses the european data if you want to check them out but its from the earths perspective but you can see the distances of the stars included in her map. And then you will see there not near each other.

One other thing you keep talking about the odds of getting a match did you know there is more than one interpretation of her map? One is by Betty Hill herself depicting the constellation Pegasus she didnt think fish was right. A second is by Charles Atterberg depicting nearby stars, but different ones than Fish uses. A third is by two German UFOlogists, who attempt to match it up with our solar system’s major and minor planets. A fourth is by Yari Danjo, who finds the aliens’ home star system to be Alpha Centauri. Amazing one map matches up to so many places isnt it. Oh and even Carl Sagan himself chimed in way back in the 70s and said her map really doesnt resemble the star system even before we updated our star charts.

reply to post by dragonridr


Yes1 I hear what you are saying. I'm telling you that the data I used is the same data.

If you would like I can use the HIP table in my database (a little work converting strings into the numbers they should be, but oh well) to build you another "map", but I can assure you that it will not produce the results YOU want, and the result will not "look" much different.

Please understand. I have the tools to do relational database "look ups", convert selected data points into 3D coordinates, and plot them in 3D space. That is what I did in the original image. I can then place a "camera" anywhere I choose and render a 2D image.

By the way; I've discussed this with astronomy "types" and the consensus was; "If ET was to give us a map of his space, it would look like this".

tanka418
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Yes1 I hear what you are saying. I'm telling you that the data I used is the same data.

If you would like I can use the HIP table in my database (a little work converting strings into the numbers they should be, but oh well) to build you another "map", but I can assure you that it will not produce the results YOU want, and the result will not "look" much different.

Please understand. I have the tools to do relational database "look ups", convert selected data points into 3D coordinates, and plot them in 3D space. That is what I did in the original image. I can then place a "camera" anywhere I choose and render a 2D image.

By the way; I've discussed this with astronomy "types" and the consensus was; "If ET was to give us a map of his space, it would look like this".

Look i understand you put a lot of work into it happens all the time i work in a physics lab i cant count the number of times i had to throw research out the window with new discoveries. In this case the stars just were not where we thought they were. Not to mention the multiple matches i mentioned in my last post maybe its best you try one of those locations. Bottom line is gliese is a bust im not trying to be mean or anything. But her star map depiction was a ruse she created later. I looked and by the way alpha centauri is at least closer to her map and well bettys idea was just wrong.

dragonridr
PS they do charge for there updated star maps but i think you might want to invest for peace of mind there all over the internet.Also sky chart uses the european data if you want to check them out but its from the earths perspective but you can see the distances of the stars included in her map. And then you will see there not near each other.

The data I use are in the form of either a csv, xls, or sql. This data is imported into my SQLServer and becomes a "table"in my personal star database. So far I have a set of tables that I have no idea of the source, but the data are the same as other tables. I have Gliese, Hip, NStars, HabCat. All of these tables have been, or will be soon, modified so that the right ascension and declination data also appear as floating point data in two additional data columns. Doing this allows me to "join" the different catalogs and produce "hybrid" datasets...often rather interesting results, depending on other query criteria

One other thing you keep talking about the odds of getting a match did you know there is more than one interpretation of her map? One is by Betty Hill herself depicting the constellation Pegasus she didnt think fish was right. A second is by Charles Atterberg depicting nearby stars, but different ones than Fish uses. A third is by two German UFOlogists, who attempt to match it up with our solar system’s major and minor planets. A fourth is by Yari Danjo, who finds the aliens’ home star system to be Alpha Centauri. Amazing one map matches up to so many places isnt it. Oh and even Carl Sagan himself chimed in way back in the 70s and said her map really doesnt resemble the star system even before we updated our star charts.

You have any sources on this? I do for my interpretation...see above.

dragonridr

Look i understand you put a lot of work into it happens all the time i work in a physics lab i cant count the number of times i had to throw research out the window with new discoveries. In this case the stars just were not where we thought they were. Not to mention the multiple matches i mentioned in my last post maybe its best you try one of those locations. Bottom line is gliese is a bust im not trying to be mean or anything. But her star map depiction was a ruse she created later. I looked and by the way alpha centauri is at least closer to her map and well bettys idea was just wrong.

You keep saying this (bold text) but the actual star data does not agree with you. So, I'll ask you to explain please. Just how does a star move so much simply because it being observed by a satellite as opposed to a ground based telescope?

Please, I've checked all my database tables and they all seem to agree on the position of each star. Oh, and those "other matches"; still need links...

reply to post by tanka418


Ok not going to keep going back and forth your star maps are wrong. Ill go over this one more time first lets look at betty hills original drawing.



and this was fishs interpretation of the drawing.



Now first thing you should notice is fish changed the drawing to match the stars she thought were correct back in 1974. This is why it matches your star chart you have. Now lets discuss fishs map number #13 and #15 which has now been proven to be much farther away and out of bounds of Fish’s display model.The distance of Gl 86.1 was previously thought to be 41.30 light years in 1969, and now HIPPARCOS has determined that the correct distance is actually 183.651 light years which puts this star far outside the boundary of Fish's model.Fish was under the impression all those stars were within 55 light years of earth. Kappa Fornacis was thought to be 42 light years distance in 1969, today HIPPARCOS has put this star at 71.49 ly this was number 15 on her map.Now GL 95 the remaining star was thought to be 45 light years in 1969 and has been subsequently corrected to 12.68pc (41.33ly) a slight improvement distance wise.But the fish map she used the triangle she created by the way as the basis of proof she was right and one star doesnt make a triangle.Now even Betty hill insisted her map that those stars made a triangle on the alien map see hers meaning 13 14 and 15 on fishes map. We can continue there are some other changes since than as well but frankly i already spent to much of my time and a friends in our astronomy department. So instead ill point you to an astronomy blog from a planetarium where a real astronomer looked at her drawings. Ill assume youll not read it and insist your star charts are up to date but hey who knows at least others can figure out the map is bogus.By the way just the fact fish had to alter bettys map discounts it in the first place.

www.armaghplanet.com...

reply to post by dragonridr


Good work there but don't think for a second that this will stop him or even slow him down.

dragonridr
We can continue there are some other changes since than as well but frankly i already spent to much of my time and a friends in our astronomy department. So instead ill point you to an astronomy blog from a planetarium where a real astronomer looked at her drawings. Ill assume youll not read it and insist your star charts are up to date but hey who knows at least others can figure out the map is bogus.By the way just the fact fish had to alter bettys map discounts it in the first place.

www.armaghplanet.com...

Lol...

You should perhaps spend a wee bit more time with this one, it's obvious you have never researched the map at all, nor has your astronomer. And, you have not looked closely at mine.

In the blog; Gliese 67 is thrown out due to it being a multiple star system. You need to understand that being a multi-star system does not preclude planets nor life. Zeta Retculi is a binary system, but the stars are separated by a large enough distance (about 0.1 ly). Sirius is a binary system, though it is far to young to sport much by way of life. Its stars get as close as 7AU (if memory serves), while that pushes things a bit, planetary systems are still possible, as well as life. If you look on my map you will notice Gliese 67 isn't used, and has been replaced with Upsilon Andromedae...a near-by "F9" star. Upsilon Andromeda has planets (4).

In the blog 54 and 107 Piscium were "thrown out" because they are "variable stars", however both are classified as main sequence and do not have any "variable" classification attached...in any star catalog.

Tau 1 Eridani; is not listed as a multi-star system anywhere that I can find.


2 others that this fellow "threw out" I didn't even use in my "pattern match".

It would seem that this Astronomer needs to do a little catch-up in his own field. From what I've seen of the "latest data" some of what he says is clearly not accurate.

Now, about my "star charts" as you put it...the data I have is what is currently published for HIP, Gliese, NStars, HabCat. These tables have been modified (to make searches easier) and placed in a relational database (Sql Server). I very seriously doubt you can find a more complete and up-to-date database of stars.

So...anyway...there's you astronomer's analysis in a nut shell...and mostly incorrect...which I find surprising, but unfortunately true. (unless of course you have data that supports his claims)

Oh, one other little point; the true "names" of some of those stars is also incorrect. For instance; Gliese 59. Did you know there are no less than 3 Gliese 59's? Gliese 59.1 actually rather close to the Gliese 59 shown, which is actually Gliese 59A, and there is a Gliese 59.2...if you look in the upper right part of my map you should see an unlabeled star...Gliese 59.2

Gliese 86; Even the Astronomer shows two Glese 86's, and doesn't distinguish them at all...for what its worth...my map only attempts to match one of these Gliese 86 (the star with drawn connection to Z2R).

So far you have made counter claims, and provided nothing to back them up other than existing star data which contradicts many of your statements, and an astronomy blog that is clearly incorrect.

tanka418

In the blog; Gliese 67 is thrown out due to it being a multiple star system. You need to understand that being a multi-star system does not preclude planets nor life. Zeta Retculi is a binary system, but the stars are separated by a large enough distance (about 0.1 ly). Sirius is a binary system, though it is far to young to sport much by way of life. Its stars get as close as 7AU (if memory serves), while that pushes things a bit, planetary systems are still possible, as well as life. If you look on my map you will notice Gliese 67 isn't used, and has been replaced with Upsilon Andromedae...a near-by "F9" star. Upsilon Andromeda has planets (4).

Can the Anthra-Andromedans get there via Zeta craft?

reply to post by tanka418

You should perhaps spend a wee bit more time with this one, it's obvious you have never researched the map at all, nor has your astronomer

Why spend time on something that is an obvious misrepresentation? The Hill map is a memory recovered while under hypnosis. Even if real aliens abducted her, chances of remembering that are nil. Memories are easily constructed under hypnosis even if there is no confabulation with the therapist. This wasn't known back in those days. you are already starting off on an extremely weak foundation if there is even a foundation at all. Spending time researching the validity of a false memory of a dream is pretty much useless.

reply to post by draknoir2

Can the Anthra-Andromedans get there via Zeta craft?

Not since the war. I contacted the galactic council which OK-ed the use of deadly force when andromedan ships arrived. Thus I deployed my advanced robot army which devastated the andromedan mother ships and evaporated the andromedan home world. The whole affair lasted approximately 2 nanoseconds and left tanka the only andromedan left. Needless to say he is still pissed about that.

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)

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)

How about we discuss what delusions are instead? The data you used is your data. Its unique to you and you only. Of course you cant be wrong or even a little off. Your numbers are as meaningless as your alien dna.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


How about YOU "put up or shut up"

You say a lot of stuff, you NEVER back any of it up with useful data. and you always dodge, and avoid supplying credible references.

So, NO! most emphatically! YOU show how the map is wrong! You show how my data is wrong!
alternately: shut up.

Oh, and by the way, the subject is "arguments against ET visitation", care to be on topic...just once? I've given a strong argument in favor of visitation, and no one has yet provided better data.

tanka418
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

How about YOU "put up or shut up"

You say a lot of stuff, you NEVER back any of it up with useful data. and you always dodge, and avoid supplying credible references.

So, NO! most emphatically! YOU show how the map is wrong! You show how my data is wrong!
alternately: shut up.

Oh, and by the way, the subject is "arguments against ET visitation", care to be on topic...just once? I've given a strong argument in favor of visitation, and no one has yet provided better data.

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

I'm rubber you're glue

A riposte used when someone calls you a name. Indicates that whatever names or words someone uses in an attempt to offend or insult you, those words will bounce off you, and stick to the name-caller, indicating that he or she is actually indicative of the connotation he or she originally wanted to impart upon you. Also, what I say to Peter to make him cry.

I'm rubber you're glue, your words bounce off me and stick to you.

I am rubber and you are glue

here is Betty Hill showing signs of advanced delusions

tanka418
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

How about YOU "put up or shut up"

You say a lot of stuff, you NEVER back any of it up with useful data. and you always dodge, and avoid supplying credible references.

So, NO! most emphatically! YOU show how the map is wrong! You show how my data is wrong!
alternately: shut up.

Oh, and by the way, the subject is "arguments against ET visitation", care to be on topic...just once? I've given a strong argument in favor of visitation, and no one has yet provided better data.

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

I already did and yet you continue on about a map she drew even though its been pointed out it was wrong and had to be altered in order to match.Not to mention several other interpretations of the same map but of course putting dots on a page wouldnt match multiple places would it? But you have decided you know more than astronomers because you researched it even though its been pointed out to you that the european space agency has a much more complete database on star positions. But you still choose to rely on nstar and such because i assume at this point you're just blind to reality maaybe its to much time spent staring at out of date star charts.