Stars of the Hill Map

a reply to: tanka418

Yep, you're right...One should read their sources through...I used a different source.

Management lesson #1: before committing resources to a potentially difficult project, perform a cost benefit analysis. This should include gathering all available previous research. In this case, the least you could have done is read the book to determine if the story makes any sense. Why didn't you?

Again; I logically deduced that Betty's other statements about "trade and exploration routes" was a more logical and reasonable explanation of what she saw...course, you don't want any logic or reason here go you...

What is logical about accepting only half of what the only person making a claim says? You simply ignored the fact that she specifically said the map contained things of different sizes, and that some were stars and others were planets. What is logical about assuming that she is wrong about what she saw, then assuming what you personally believe she saw, without any intrinsic reason? Once you reject her interpretation, there are dozens of other interpretations you have been able to find logical grounds to reject.

It is illogical to present stellar and planetary information together in the same "frame", and I would presume that ET's interfaces are better designed than anything you'll think of. The planetary data should be left for "drill down" operations that reveal data on request.

It would be illogical to present continents, states, trees, and vacationers in a single map as well:



This air route map is instantly recognizable to most Americans, and there is no confusion of scale, even though even the geography is highly distorted. This bizarre image accomplishes its purpose. We do not know the purpose of the alien's "map," beyond symbolic representation of "space routes."

I'm sorry that GUI design is not your forte', but, the reality still exists that, in theory, One doesn't display multiple "levels" or "layers" of data together, unless there is a compelling reason.

What do terrestrial standards of visual display of information have to do with an alien culture? Aliens might prefer to present data in the form of talking three dimensional cartoons because they find it amusing. Stop trying to impose your limited, Earth-bound experience on aliens.

So...I don't need Betty's, nor your permission to properly deduce what was actually shown.

No, but then you are throwing all the data out, and creating a fiction of your own.

Then there is the aspect that the probability is so overwhelming that it is not likely to have a match with relevant planets on it.

Which you achieved by deliberately throwing the original data out and choosing to match a biased data set to an ill defined "template" of your own devising.

And; we also have to consider the precision and fidelity of the match...Mine has everyone beat.

Except for all the others.

Finally...when are you going to produce that match of 25 random dots on a page to the stars?

It's not my fault if you can't see what you don't want to see.

I saw you try with your match to a field of dots. Ya know that wasn't even a little clever. Now, if you'd like to try again, this time do it right...

Please revise your attitude. You are straining T&C.

Your failure at that simple experiment proves my point.

Your failure to see I succeeded proves mine.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: tanka418

Also, why are you using Fishs map over Bettys map (the one where she connects it to the constellation Pegasus, Charles Atterbergs map (which uses nearby stars), the one done by 2 German UFOlogists (who matched it with our solar system) or Yari Danjos map (who find the "aliens home" in Alpha Centaur)? How have you decided that those other maps aren't good enough? Atterbergs map is actually A LOT closer to the original drawing than Fishs map is.

The map is nothing more than an exercise in futility. As I've already shown, you can find a match just about anywhere with any set of parameters you choose.

Because the Fish map is the most accurate.

As for the others; I've already gone over the maps and reasons...

Betty's interpretation of her own map doesn't work because it does not represent the original template.

The Atterberg map does not work well because it uses stars unsuited for life at this time...

Yes, the "solar system" attempt. The problem with that is the abound of work involved in verifying it...perhaps you might like to try...it also "visually" isn't as good a match as mine...all kind of distorted and all...

Fundamentally, all the other attempts left the original template rather distorted in order to fit. while mine/Ms. Fish does not distort the original image as much.

You know...its all I that mystical "precision and fidelity"...

Now, if you could, try reading instead of asking again...

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
The funny thing is, it would be very logical, and human, for a woman with limited knowledge of astronomy to create a map like this to try and fool the naive into thinking this is alien.

Yes yes... I know. Your map is a match to Betty's "crude interpretation of an alien interpretation."

So just how does a woman with limited knowledge of the stars create a "map" that actually matches known local stars?


I mean, I've already shown that it wasn't a random thing...so just how did Betty create this hypothetical map of yours?

WRONG... Betty's map was first mentioned in her Nov 1961 written account which was the result of her dreams. This was only two months after the claimed abduction. Through her hypnosis 3 years later, the map was mentioned and Dr. Simon suggested she draw it. This was after March 14, 1964.

Doctor
Well, if you remember some of this after you leave me, why don't you draw it, try to draw the map. Don't do it if you feel concerned or anxious about it. But if you do, bring it in next time, all right?
Betty
I'll try to.

She drew the map on her own a week or two later and it was not influenced during hypnosis or by drugs. In fact, if you read her 1961 account, she draws what she described 3 years earlier from her dreams. Planets, stars, lines, etc.

So what's that? Are they doing a movie, and you have a copy of the script? It appears you have misconstrued what I said.

so how about we put it this way...

I would also like to point out that when Betty originally saw the image, she was under the influence of an Orexin antagonist; in essence she wasn't awake when she saw the original image...she wasn't asleep either.

Or perhaps you are now insisting that she didn't see the original image while she was onboard the ET craft...as she says she did...

originally posted by: DJW001

"Finally...when are you going to produce that match of 25 random dots on a page to the stars? "

It's not my fault if you can't see what you don't want to see.

Yeah uh-huh...I've asked before, and I'll ask again; when are you going to finish that?

Actually, in this instance is is your fault that One can not "see" what you want them to see; you left out the names/id of the stars...making it impossible to give any credibility to your drawing...

The little whiz-bang of yours is not what you represent it to be...Perhaps IF you could furnish the names of the stars involved...

I saw you try with your match to a field of dots. Ya know that wasn't even a little clever. Now, if you'd like to try again, this time do it right...

Your failure at that simple experiment proves my point.

originally posted by: tanka418
Or perhaps you are now insisting that she didn't see the original image while she was onboard the ET craft...as she says she did...

First off, she wasn't aboard an "ET craft." She was probably sitting at her dining room table drawing what she believed would look like an alien map and using her 1961 written account as a reference point.
So the "Orexin antagonist" refers to the alien and Betty's state in the moment? That was my misunderstanding. I thought you were speaking of the hypnosis and Dr. Simon.

So just how does a woman with limited knowledge of the stars create a "map" that actually matches known local stars?

Out of curiosity, I visited a random dot generator page HERE and purposely chose a low dot density of .15%. That gives about 27/28 dots arranged randomly on the page. I figured I could find a match to her map within 10 tries. Believe it or not, the very first try resulted in the dot arrangement below. I emphasized the dots myself since they are small on the actual page.

I connected the dots to create my resemblance to Betty's "alien" map:

As you can see, it's fairly easy to visually match Betty's "template" with a random arrangement of dots by chance. Connect the dots to fit your belief.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

As you can see, it's fairly easy to visually match Betty's "template" with a random arrangement of dots by chance. Connect the dots to fit your belief.

Tanka will now insist that the experiment is meaningless because the random dots don't have names or spectral types.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
So the "Orexin antagonist" refers to the alien and Betty's state in the moment? That was my misunderstanding. I thought you were speaking of the hypnosis and Dr. Simon.

Yes. When ET typically abducts there are a whole basket of symptom involved: sleep paralysis, missing time, doing thing normally done while awake, and not remembering, spotty memory...It turns out that all of that and more can be easily induced with what is now termed an "Orexin Antagonist" ... its even a new class of medication...

Out of curiosity, I visited a random dot generator page HERE and purposely chose a low dot density of .15%. That gives about 27/28 dots arranged randomly on the page. I figured I could find a match to her map within 10 tries.

As you can see, it's fairly easy to visually match Betty's "template" with a random arrangement of dots by chance. Connect the dots to fit your belief.

Not surprised...matching the template to random dots shouldn't be difficult...the trick is when those random dots...are real stars...listed Hipparcos stars...that is the challenge, and what carries the outrageous probabilities.

Though, your random dots are close...

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

As you can see, it's fairly easy to visually match Betty's "template" with a random arrangement of dots by chance. Connect the dots to fit your belief.

Tanka will now insist that the experiment is meaningless because the random dots don't have names or spectral types.

That's right! Until you match to actual, real, Hipparcos stars; you've done nothing...

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: TerryDon79

Funny...

I'm sorry man, but, I'm a professional data scientist / software architect...I use advanced methodologies to prevent that sort of BS...specifically

Also...did you know that the stars I've selected, aren't my selection? While I have my little "changes" that whole thing is Ms. Fish's original selection...just updated with more modern astrometrics...you didn't know that did you...perhaps you should read my paper and the thread...

Now if you are through grasping at straws perhaps we can recover from your distraction and associated BS.

Ok This just kind of makes me wonder now. It's clear you have knowledge of space, stars and science based on the paper on your website HOWEVER if you're a software architect why in the hell did you use a program to make a interpretation of the map in software that is not made for anything remotely like it and enter the data in to one that is capable?! I'm not trying to come off like an ass or anything and this is why I suggested Blender cause you could make the map actually look like it's more then a black plain with glitter and red lines.

I'm not trying to say you don't know anything but if you're a software architect you should know more then most how to make something like this look better and have more information on it then a standard Poser Scanline Render. I don't think this thread would be a long as it is if no one was interested. It would had died probably 10 pages ago. The Poser Render is only making your points and what not seem completely gone. Maybe it's just me and I haven't woken up completely but I have a feeling if you used a program you could put the info you have on your page it would produce much better results and satisfy people who are saying "It doesn't match".

a reply to: Keiyentai

Something you should prolly understand; I used Poser because it was the best tool for the job in my toolbox. Yes, I suppose I could have written something, but, something that would produce an accurate 3D model of the stars would take months, several months as I would have no help...
and there would be several thousand lines of source...Even IF I found an acceptable open source engine, it would still take a very long time. Time probably better spent on projects that actually make money, or perhaps the support of my existing software products.

And, for what its worth; if Poser's Python interpreter did all that its supposed to do...the image would have been much better...But, as is with the data; we work with what we got...

And, I don't know; I thought "Firefly's" renders were of good quality...

and have more information on it then a standard Poser Scanline Render.

More information? Such as???

a reply to: tanka418

Not surprised...matching the template to random dots shouldn't be difficult.

Ergo, matching the template to a biased set of data points also isn't difficult. That is why your entire exercise is pointless. The Hipparcos data is a random pattern of dots biased towards F, G, and K stars. Your results are therefore meaningless. What else needs to be explained for you to understand?

a reply to: tanka418

That's right! Until you match to actual, real, Hipparcos stars; you've done nothing...

The scientific method uses observations to find patterns that lead to falsifiable predictions. If a hypothesis makes an accurate prediction, it is probably correct.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418

Not surprised...matching the template to random dots shouldn't be difficult.

Ergo, matching the template to a biased set of data points also isn't difficult. That is why your entire exercise is pointless. The Hipparcos data is a random pattern of dots biased towards F, G, and K stars. Your results are therefore meaningless. What else needs to be explained for you to understand?

Well you could explain just why you insist on demanding that my data is biased, when I've explained that it isn't. Course you need to hold on to that little lie don't you...makes your misconceptions work.

Or perhaps you could explain "why" you cant match those random dots to Hipparcos stars...

Or explain why you keep dancing around the real issues, and have to use manufactured distractions to help keep your non-existent point alive.

ETA: Just thought I'd give you the actual query I used to get those stars...
"select * from xhipp where dist >0 and dist le 46" ... Oh, you do "speak" SQL right?
le = less than or equal...this editor won't display the correct character code...

Stellar class is held in a value names "sptype" and typically contains both stellar class and type i.e G1V...indicating a class G main sequence star. You will notice that there are no conditions imposed on "sptype"...

Besides...you should be happy that I'm not using all the class M stars...would make a match even easier...right? But, NO...I limited the search to only F, G, K stars...and still found a high quality match...Oh wait...no I didn't actively limit my search, I included the class "M" stars, and still got the same match! And if you look closely, there are no class 'm' stars near the match points...

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418

That's right! Until you match to actual, real, Hipparcos stars; you've done nothing...

The scientific method uses observations to find patterns that lead to falsifiable predictions. If a hypothesis makes an accurate prediction, it is probably correct.

lol Now you going off on another tangent...anything to avoid the task of having to match to reality...

By the way; Betty's template has already successfully predicted that Zeta Reticuli is a binary star...

And, we have more predictions as well; Zeta 1 & 2 Reticuli both have rocky Earth like planets in the habitable zone.

There are actually quite a few "predictions" that can be made using that template.

So man, it is really quite simple...match your "dots" to Hipparcos, or stfu!

I for one am getting tired of you squirming, and avoiding that single simple central issue.

a reply to: tanka418

Well you could explain just why you insist on demanding that my data is biased, when I've explained that it isn't.

Actually, you have admitted that it is. I have explained why your choice of data has a natural bias to begin with: M stars will be under-represented in the volume of space you have chosen because they are dim, A are naturally rarer, leaving you with exactly the classes of objects you have arbitrarily decided are the "most likely" candidates!

Or perhaps you could explain "why" you cant match those random dots to Hipparcos stars...

Because I don't have to! My objective was to establish a control population to determine how difficult it is to match your "template" to a data set. No problem: you can match your template to any random data set; you have admitted as much. Therefore, your results have zero significance.

Or explain why you keep dancing around the real issues, and have to use manufactured distractions to help keep your non-existent point alive.

You're the one who responds to fundamental critiques of your methodology with irrelevant details about computer software.

ETA: Just thought I'd give you the actual query I used to get those stars...
"select * from xhipp where dist >0 and dist le 46" ... Oh, you do "speak" SQL right?
le = less than or equal...this editor won't display the correct character code...

Stellar class is held in a value names "sptype" and typically contains both stellar class and type i.e G1V...indicating a class G main sequence star. You will notice that there are no conditions imposed on "sptype"...

See what I mean?

Besides...you should be happy that I'm not using all the class M stars...would make a match even easier...right?

Yes, but it wouldn't exclusively give you the stars you want: FGK!

But, NO...I limited the search to only F, G, K stars...and still found a high quality match...Oh wait...no I didn't actively limit my search, I included the class "M" stars, and still got the same match! And if you look closely, there are no class 'm' stars near the match points...

Because your data set was biased against M stars, as I have explained at least twice now!

a reply to: tanka418

By the way; Betty's template has already successfully predicted that Zeta Reticuli is a binary star...

No, Fish considered Zeta Reticulae a match because she knew it was a double star.

And, we have more predictions as well; Zeta 1 & 2 Reticuli both have rocky Earth like planets in the habitable zone.

Wow, I'd love to see how you know that prediction has been confirmed.

originally posted by: DJW001
I have explained why your choice of data has a natural bias to begin with: M stars will be under-represented in the volume of space you have chosen because they are dim, A are naturally rarer, leaving you with exactly the classes of objects you have arbitrarily decided are the "most likely" candidates!

And what dataset would be acceptable to you? I used data collected by the European Space Agency in the early 1990's...it is among the very best datasets available...

And I have explained "why" these class "M" stars are mostly noise. But apparently you would prefer that this be as "muddy" as Humanly possible.

Yes you have explained "why" at least in your mind, but you ignore that this "bias" that you want removed, cannot be removed, it is there because of the way nature has put the Universe together...so there is no dataset that will meet with your approval, is there? Making your objections; null...

Because I don't have to! My objective was to establish a control population to determine how difficult it is to match your "template" to a data set. No problem: you can match your template to any random data set; you have admitted as much. Therefore, your results have zero significance.

Your ignorance of the processes and protocols is showing...Anyway, fundamentally; no...it is amazing how you twist this to your advantage. What you have done is show that the template can be match to any field of random dots, given there are enough random dots. What you haven't shown, and can't, is the matching of the template to a non-random set of points...which is what you need to do...see how you misunderstand this exercise?

You're the one who responds to fundamental critiques of your methodology with irrelevant details about computer software.

Based on your reaction they were completely over your head... Ya know, they explained things in their context, explanations that might have helped you understand...alas...

See what I mean?

No...

Yes, but it wouldn't exclusively give you the stars you want: FGK!

Actually my query gave me everything less than or equal to a distance of 46 parsec.

originally posted by: DJW001
No, Fish considered Zeta Reticulae a match because she knew it was a double star.

Wow, I'd love to see how you know that prediction has been confirmed.

Well...actually, it wasn't Ms. Fish who made the prediction, it was betty's template...you know the one, from before it was known that the Zeta(s) Reticuli were a binary...

And my prediction, is a prediction, because it has not been confirmed yet...you understand how that works, right? I say something not known, later, someone says; "Oh, look, it's true!" In the mean time we can use probability to help us decide...before we know. And, in this instance, my prediction is the best "bet". Primarily because probability, and modern astronomical thinking strongly suggest "Earth like rocky planets" in the HZ of virtually all F, G, and K stars.

a reply to: tanka418

Okay, I have explained all of your methodological errors to you, but you insist that your "reason" and "logic" are sufficient to overcome them. You justify many completely arbitrary assumptions based on them. This implies that you understand how the aliens think and reason. Perhaps you could explain why the aliens give their spacecraft a wide windshield, but the crew who operate the craft keep their backs turned to this windshield as they fly?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418

Okay, I have explained all of your methodological errors to you, but you insist that your "reason" and "logic" are sufficient to overcome them. You justify many completely arbitrary assumptions based on them. This implies that you understand how the aliens think and reason. Perhaps you could explain why the aliens give their spacecraft a wide windshield, but the crew who operate the craft keep their backs turned to this windshield as they fly?

Have you now...explained all my methodological error eh?

Well, perhaps in your mind. So you came off with some "methodological"...stuff. Like that wee bit about the "control group"...that one was really rich...

Do you understand that there is no control group for this sort of thing? Seriously man, there is no way to build one. Well, perhaps IF you could get those "random dot" Hipparcos star matches, that might be a sort of start.

This implies that you understand how the aliens think and reason.

Again, only in your imagination. Although, it seems reasonable, that IF ET can travel here from his home world, that ET is a logical, sensible creature, an thus does in fact "think" much like me... But, I do understand that you may have issues fathoming the logic and reason here.

On that spacecraft "windshield"; the misinterpretation that comes with the Orexin deprived brain...ya know, not being awake, while not sleeping isn't a typical state for any of us...that and they don't want any bugs stuck in their teeth...


Oh, and I would really like you to point out arbitrary...I can find it anywhere, maybe I see something you refuse to...