Stars of the Hill Map

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

Yes...Betty's Orexin deprived memory of a configuration of stars, and the real world...

Quite the same aren't they?!!!?

But, you're not being fair to yourself nor anyone else...you are missing 12 stars...

did you have a point?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418

Please stop answering objective observations with personal attacks. What you call "pattern matching to data set with logical constraints" is just a roundabout way of saying "cherry picking." All of the stars you have forced into Betty's drawing were selected by you to meet your preconceived-- and therefore arbitrary-- criteria. Please respond to the following list of objections without accusing me of being an idiot, as you seem compelled to do:

Again...if you are going to make that statement; you will need to prove it!

The stars have not been forced, and you are well aware of that fact. Further, I didn't select the stars , and you know that as well. You are aware of the criteria, and know that it is not "arbitrary", but founded on solid current science.

1. Why do you assume that Betty's story is anything other than a dream? It is filled with the illogic of dreams. The aliens operate their craft with their back to the windshield. Does that make sense?

I'm not assuming...and you know that. And the reasons, again, the map that Betty came away with is a match to interstellar space. Period!

2. If you believe Betty is misinterpreting things that really happened, what makes you think she understands that she was being shown a map? What if the alien was playing a joke on her, and was showing her an ET board game?

Again...it doesn't matter...Betty came away with an accurate map of interstellar space, against all odds.

3. Why do you think Betty took such care to draw the bodies in the foreground as planets, specifying that the map showed stars and planets in her account of the incident? If you reject one part of her testimony, why do you retain other parts? Isn't that the definition of cherry picking?

Again...because her testimony can not affect the probability of the map matching. That probability is a fixed thing!

4. Why would the aliens have a roll-up 3D map? Wouldn''t some sort of VR be more reasonable?

Again...Graphical User Interface....we've been here before, not long ago...

A demonstration of this concept is available at zeta.wolfmagick.com...

Although this is a "work in progress" right now...

5. Why does the technology described always sound like it is the product of an unsophisticated imagination? Levers on the wall, needles, roll up maps....

Probably because it is being interpreted by a person with an unsophisticated imagine. Betty was from the 60's, you are a product of a new century...after all ; this is 2016...

6. What is the purpose of the map? "Trade routes" is a title, not a function.

Again...as above; a graphical user interface.

7. Why does the leader show Betty the map and ask her if she knows where Earth is?

irrelevant!

Once you have answered these questions, you can begin to evaluate whether there is any point to trying to match Betty's dream to "the real world. Then we can look at the lengthy list of arbitrary assumptions you have made about the map itself.

Answered them again you mean...the rest I've already done...

"arbitrary assumptions"...wow, an upgrade...well you know as well as I that there are no arbitrary elements here, and you also know that the assumptions, are an important part of the overall process...

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

I tried your little demonstration with "original" images...you know; Betty's image and one of mine..

Mine:


Betty's



Ya know...after I made them the same size, and tried to superimpose my image on Betty's I discovered the biggest difference is "camera/eye rotation" (on an image) and very little else.

And remember, Betty drew hers from memory, without modern Astronomy...I used some of the best data available in 2016...

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

I tried your little demonstration with "original" images...you know; Betty's image and one of mine..

Mine:

Betty's

Ya know...after I made them the same size, and tried to superimpose my image on Betty's I discovered the biggest difference is "camera/eye rotation" (on an image) and very little else.

And remember, Betty drew hers from memory, without modern Astronomy...I used some of the best data available in 2016...

Good job! If someone was looking at the chart at an angle or the chart itself was at an angle, this could solve some of the issues with discrepancies.

This afternoon I found the time to start an analysis of each of the map point stars. In this analysis I was looking for any star that is "close" (in this case up to 30 arc minutes) to any of the "map points".

The results I'm sure will receive mixed reviews. however, Only one star pair has the distinction of being close to a "map point"; Zeta (1 & 2) Reticuli. No other star has a neighbor close to its map point...this search was class agnostic, so everything was looked at.

I was wanting primarily to look for any class "M" stars that mighe be interpreted as a "match" for any map point. And it seems that we only have this single set of stars that enjoy such a close match

a reply to: tanka418

Again...if you are going to make that statement; you will need to prove it!

Let's see... you use a data set that is biased against M stars, but you consider that a good thing because, in your opinion, M stars are just "static." It has been shown to you that the "template" can be imposed on random dots, constellations, and cities in Britain, but you insist that it is unique to stars in an arbitrarily defined volume of space.... If you cannot admit the obvious to yourself, there is no way I can prove it, is there?

The stars have not been forced, and you are well aware of that fact. Further, I didn't select the stars , and you know that as well. You are aware of the criteria, and know that it is not "arbitrary", but founded on solid current science.

You gave yourself an unlimited degree of freedom to rotate the visual perspective, and an infinite degree of freedom to fit the positions of the stars to the "template." If you remove the lines, the resemblance disappears, as has been demonstrated. If one were to add background stars, there would be no resemblance whatsoever.

I'm not assuming...and you know that. And the reasons, again, the map that Betty came away with is a match to interstellar space. Period!

So... everything Betty experienced was a drug induced hallucination, but the "map"she saw, which matches cities in random dots and cities in England, proves what, exactly?

2. If you believe Betty is misinterpreting things that really happened, what makes you think she understands that she was being shown a map? What if the alien was playing a joke on her, and was showing her an ET board game?

Again...it doesn't matter...Betty came away with an accurate map of interstellar space, against all odds.

So if you don't think the context matters, why do you assume it must be a map of interstellar space? Maybe it was a subway map?

3. Why do you think Betty took such care to draw the bodies in the foreground as planets, specifying that the map showed stars and planets in her account of the incident? If you reject one part of her testimony, why do you retain other parts? Isn't that the definition of cherry picking?

Again...because her testimony can not affect the probability of the map matching. That probability is a fixed thing!

Given that the probability of matching the pattern to an infinite number of random points has been shown to be 100% (despite your "calculations") that is a rather arrogant thing to do. Why is Betty credible when she calls the thing a "map," but not credible when she specifies that it shows planets, and draws the foreground planets with great care. You are picking and choosing details which suit your predetermined criteria. What's that called again?

4. Why would the aliens have a roll-up 3D map? Wouldn''t some sort of VR be more reasonable?

Again...Graphical User Interface....we've been here before, not long ago...

Of course, how else would they regenerate the dilithium crystals. Makes perfect sense.

5. Why does the technology described always sound like it is the product of an unsophisticated imagination? Levers on the wall, needles, roll up maps....

Probably because it is being interpreted by a person with an unsophisticated imagine. Betty was from the 60's, you are a product of a new century...after all ; this is 2016...

So Betty was completely clueless about everything she saw, but managed to reproduce the roll up "graphical interface" perfectly.

6. What is the purpose of the map? "Trade routes" is a title, not a function.

Again...as above; a graphical user interface.

What does it allow the user to "interface" with, and towards what end?

b]7. Why does the leader show Betty the map and ask her if she knows where Earth is?

irrelevant!

Irrelevant? What if he was intentionally trying to deceive her? You may have fallen into his cunning trap!

Once you have answered these questions, you can begin to evaluate whether there is any point to trying to match Betty's dream to "the real world. Then we can look at the lengthy list of arbitrary assumptions you have made about the map itself.

Answered them again you mean...the rest I've already done...

Are you actually satisfied with your answers? It doesn't matter that nothing the aliens do makes any logical sense, it doesn't matter what Betty thinks the map is or why the alien showed it to her, it doesn't matter that the objects in the foreground have a phase, it doesn't matter that the pattern can be imposed on random dots, all that matters is that, if you squint and use your imagination, it resembles some nearby stars?

"arbitrary assumptions"...wow, an upgrade...well you know as well as I that there are no arbitrary elements here, and you also know that the assumptions, are an important part of the overall process...

The assumptions are the process. You assume the dream was real. You assume the roll up vision showed stars. You assume that Betty didn't know what she was talking about when she called them planets. You assume her first sketch was definitive. You assume that you don't need to revise the pattern after she matched it to Pegasus. You assume that the map portrays a volume of space in the known universe. You assume that it takes the aliens a finite amount of time to traverse interstellar distances. You assume relativistic velocities are possible and non-lethal. (Doppler shifting turns all the light in the universe in the direction of travel into X- and gamma- radiation you know.) You assume that they are only interested in exploring stellar systems similar to our own. You assume they display visual information in ways similar to our own. You arbitrarily reject the possibility that the map (if real) portrays information in a stylized fashion. You assume that the content of the information is irrelevant. You assume that the motivations of the alien in showing Betty the "map" are irrelevant....

originally posted by: DJW001
Let's see... you use a data set that is biased against M stars, but you consider that a good thing because, in your opinion, M stars are just "static." It has been shown to you that the "template" can be imposed on random dots, constellations, and cities in Britain, but you insist that it is unique to stars in an arbitrarily defined volume of space.... If you cannot admit the obvious to yourself, there is no way I can prove it, is there?

Well...firstly; I didn't say class "M" stars were "static", I characterized them as "noise"...demonstrating that yo don't know the difference are ya?

second; and this is an important one. You insisting that because the template matches a field of random dots proves that the template will match anything is wrong, and you know it! You know that isn't true yet you insist it is...

You are well aware that the "volume of space" isn't arbitrary, yet you insist that it is.

And, yes, there is a way for you to prove your point, but you have avoided it like the plague.

Simply match 25 random dots to Hipparcos stars. With a view point not from earth, and with all stars within 100ly of your view point and Earth...You seem to think this is easy, yet you have gone to extreme lengths to avoid doing it...why is that?

You gave yourself an unlimited degree of freedom to rotate the visual perspective, and an infinite degree of freedom to fit the positions of the stars to the "template." If you remove the lines, the resemblance disappears, as has been demonstrated. If one were to add background stars, there would be no resemblance whatsoever.

You wanna try that one again; I don't think you got it quite right...just how do I have "an infinite degree of freedom to fit the positions of the stars to the template."?

Does not the template itself constrain the stars?

So it has been demonstrated that IF the lines are removed the resemblance disappears? Where? When" Or perhaps I should say BullS... And just what resemblance are you talking about? Resemblance to interstellar space? Nope, sorry man, that's well preserved. Oh I know, it looses its resemblance to the original template...course then the original template contains the lines, so, I guess some of that is lost; however, the points in space still correlate to points in the template, and in that sense there is no loss in fidelity. And, the adding of background stars has no affect on the solution either...

So you are just spouting a bunch of made up crap in hopes of pulling the wool over peoples eyes...why so dishonest?

Have yo ever seen those stars , the "template" with all the background stars? I'd just about bet yo haven't! But ya know what? I have!!!

So... everything Betty experienced was a drug induced hallucination, but the "map"she saw, which matches cities in random dots and cities in England, proves what, exactly?

Geez, there ya go again with the confabulation! I never said anything about Betty hallucinating! In fact it is unlikely that she was hallucinating...the state I'm talking about is that state where One is neither awake, nor asleep...but, you know that, and are simply attempting to twist this to your needs.

And, you are fully aware that matches to anything other than Hipparcos is a false path, designed by you to help bring substance to your deception.

Given that the probability of matching the pattern to an infinite number of random points has been shown to be 100% (despite your "calculations") that is a rather arrogant thing to do. Why is Betty credible when she calls the thing a "map," but not credible when she specifies that it shows planets, and draws the foreground planets with great care. You are picking and choosing details which suit your predetermined criteria. What's that called again?

Well...more misrepresentation?!?

I have already said that matching to a field of random dots was 100% Guess you forgot? (BS) And no not arrogance, at least not on my part! However, that calculated probability of those 25 stars matching Hipparcos? Still stands, as you have done nothing to show it is wrong... You are insisting that your "math" is correct, when you know it is not! You are fully aware that matching the template to a random field is not what we are doing here, and that the match to the non-random Hipparcos dataset IS what we are doing. Yet you insist that I am wrong, and that the probability is 100%

You know that stance is a lie, yet your persist...

Of course, how else would they regenerate the dilithium crystals. Makes perfect sense.

Wake UP! You are starting to loose it...


So...IF you would like to get real about this, use real Mathematics, Astronomy, etc. we might be able to make some real progress here. Unfortunately we do have to utilize the real world, real math, and of course real science.

I would appreciate it if you would stop the continued gross misrepresentation of this...and perhaps discuss it like you actually knew something about the Math and Science. (and we both know you do...)

So despite the improperly applied mathematics of my opponents;

The probabilities remain pretty much stable...

If we attempt to use these numbers to compute the probabilities that I am correct we find that the probability of this theory being correct is virtually "1". Which is to say, that while not a certainty, it is so close that none of us will ever be able to find the difference.

The results kind of speak for themselves; There is no way probable that Betty could have randomly produced a "map" or template of interstellar space with such high fidelity unless it was shown her by ET...she certainly didn't see it or receive it from a Terrestrial, as her map contains information, data, that was not known at the time. AND, it contains data that is difficult at best to obtain today...views of interstellar space where the POV is not Earth, aren't exactly commonplace.

So...there we have it; proof that the Hill incident was far more "real" than accepted, proof of extraterrestrial visitation, proof of extraterrestrial life, and of course, proof that Betty's map is an artifact of extraterrestrial visitation.

We have heard all sort of argument, all have failed...

a reply to: DJW001

You gave yourself an unlimited degree of freedom to rotate the visual perspective, and an infinite degree of freedom to fit the positions of the stars to the "template." If you remove the lines, the resemblance disappears, as has been demonstrated. If one were to add background stars, there would be no resemblance whatsoever.

Been demonstrated has it...I don't recall...so here a real comparison of the stars...

With lines:


Without lines...


They kinda look the same to me...

a reply to: tanka418

My last word on this subject, because I know you will never admit the truth to yourself, so this is directed at people who might be seduced by your work. What you have done is got it in your head that "Treasure Island" is a true story, and that the map in the book must be a real island. After all, it shows the cove, the hut, the spring... everything mentioned in the story, therefore it must be a real place. By comparing the outline of the illustration in the book to every island in the Caribbean (and it is a known fact that pirates buried treasure there) you have managed to find the exact location of Tom Gunn's treasure. Congratulations.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: tanka418

My last word on this subject, because I know you will never admit the truth to yourself,

I think I predicted this...

Now we all can see just how impossible a task it really is to match 25 random dots to the stars (Hipparcos)!

Argue as you might, the one thing you can't do, and haven't done, is disprove my hypothesis...Although, it seems to me that if perhaps you would have used more real science, as contrasted to all that deception, you might have made me think even more...you should look into the virtues of tenacity.

So it is elevated to Theory...

Now I have to finish the website, and the white paper...

You may want to admit the truth to yourself...

ETA: Thank you for your criticism, and assistance...

a reply to: tanka418

originally posted by: DJW001]

Interesting...not sure what you are trying to do here...show a contrast between some "almosts", fantasy, and the real world perhaps.

It does appear clear that you haven't given up on your fantasy though. so how about we look at each in turn?

Betty's original star map. Our template...this is what we are trying to match to local Hipparcos stars. It is also the template you matched to an "infinite field of dots"...did you know that if the dot field is "infinite" that it looses its randomness? And of course is capable of matching everything. Which is part of why you were wrong in your attempt to match to it.

The New York times "match"? Well actually its not a match as it only uses about half of the required stars...so it really isn't a good choice to enter into this discussion...far too incomplete...but I suppose it is good for attempts at obfuscation and to help introduce a little deception...

The Wilson attempt. Ya know that was actually not a bad attempt. it did succeed in matching the stars to the template, well sort of. It's not really a very high quality match, and some of the stars are a bit suitable, but, what the hey, I'd give it maybe 50%

Oh back to the NYT thing...I think once is quite enough don't you? Besides this only shows how bad that really is...

Your attempt at a match. The problem is that you have not matched to any stars what so ever. You have taken a "star map"? of sorts, and drawn on it...and that is all. Then you expected it to be of some value in your arguments...it wasn't except to show your level of desperation...

You never provided star names/id's...if you had you might have built a viable argument...alas!

ETA: Ya know, I really wanted this one to "pan out", and was seriously hoping that you would have provided the rest of the work...oh well

And the last one...mine. Are you aware that that is the only accurate map of interstellar space you 've shown here? It also shows the stars of the template in precisely the locations they need to be to provide a 99%+ match to the original. If you "blow up" that image to original size (about 1350 X 795) you can find a collection of some 12 or so "green" stars (dots) which mark the actual locations of the stars in the template.

Ya know, I think that one of these two would be a better example of my interpretation

Upgraded your hypothesis to theory? lol

Place both set of "stars" in the same area of space (677x600) as they are drawn, remove the suggestive lines:


As you can see, even with your new map, they still look nothing alike. They aren't even close enough alone to suggest a resemblance to each other. It's probably better illustrated below in the top panel side by side.
You're playing connect the dots and forcing a pattern. You can force all types of patterns with these dots and have a rough match to each other:

All of these similar patterns have nothing to do with the arrangement of the dots and everything to do with using chosen lines to force a visual connection in your mind. If Bettys "template" looked like any of the patterns above on the left, you could draw and claim a "99% match" on the right also using the exact same stars. There's no miracle match with your map.
Oh, the bottom two starting points were for you because I know you would use the argument that the main stars of Zeta 1 or 2 is the alien home planet.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
Upgraded your hypothesis to theory? lol

Place both set of "stars" in the same area of space (677x600) as they are drawn, remove the suggestive lines:

As you can see, even with your new map, they still look nothing alike. They aren't even close enough alone to suggest a resemblance to each other. It's probably better illustrated below in the top panel side by side.
You're playing connect the dots and forcing a pattern. You can force all types of patterns with these dots and have a rough match to each other:

Yes...Betty's memory vs the real world...Personally I think she did a great job.

But you want to talk about line and dots, and not just dots right? So we still have straw to grasp at... huh...

Do yourself a favor, and learn a little about computer vision, and computer template matching methods...

All of these similar patterns have nothing to do with the arrangement of the dots and everything to do with using chosen lines to force a visual connection in your mind. If Bettys "template" looked like any of the patterns above on the left, you could draw and claim a "99% match" on the right also using the exact same stars. There's no miracle match with your map.
Oh, the bottom two starting points were for you because I know you would use the argument that the main stars of Zeta 1 or 2 is the alien home planet.

I'm pretty sure that you, like DJW, actually understand that this isn't about random lines and dots...even IF you try to insist it is.

The only application "random" has here is in the probability of Betty drawing her map and it randomly matching reality. Which, as I've more than adequately shown is virtually impossible...

And those "lines"; they were provided by the template, so, having those lines connect specific logical points is kind of required. And you saying that there are many other "patterns" extant that don't take these "logical points" into account, is actually kind of meaningless, and digresses from the point. Does help to provide an environment more suited to deception though.

But you never paid attention to the logical progression of star through the template, did ya?!!!? By that I mean class, locations, distances, etc. You didn't notice that! You also weren't paying attention when I announced that I had found Betty's point of view... There is quite the little story about how at 122 ly I found a star never mentioned by Betty or any other investigator...

The reality is that those lines while relevant to the overall analysis, do not define the stars in play, those very stars do that, and like many other things, start to become meaningless when taken out of context...

So, let us attempt to preserve the context, lest we loose ourselves in a field of stars.

Perhaps, IF, all y'all would actually pit some time into analyzing this, as I did, instead of jerking your knee, you might actually learn something. Unfortunately; y'all have your minds made up and you will fight science and reality "tooth and nail", and 'to the bitter end" to support something that you really have no knowledge of, just an unfounded, biased, opinion.

I've used the very best science and technology has to offer in my analysis; what have you used?

a reply to: tanka418

The only application "random" has here is in the probability of Betty drawing her map and it randomly matching reality. Which, as I've more than adequately shown is virtually impossible...

picasion.c... om/