Stars of the Hill Map

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
So two questions mentioned above that have remain unanswered were:

1: How many positions from space can we look at with the 46 star model and find as good a match as the original map?

2: Even if we find a good match or a 'best match' does that necessarily tell us anything about the original as UFOs?

And further, as I believe Jacques to point out in some of his other works (including Dimensions, Confrontations, Messengers of Deception):

WHY DRAW A 2D MAP WHERE THE REFERENCE POINT IS FROM NO KNOWN CELESTIAL OBJECT?

We as humans don't send astronauts to the moon with maps of directions to the moon let alone the rest of our solar system. Why would an advanced race send its explorers on a voyage using a 2D map to navigate the the 3D space time continuum? With all the telemetric and GPS tracking technology we have today, I would assume anyone who is a proponent of the Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis would agree that an alien race is (presumably) far more advanced than we are, why on F###### earth would they need a map to navigate the cosmos?

I'm sorry Tanka, but if the Betty Hill map isn't completely contrived, then at the very best it's an example of Psychological Warfare.

Well firstly, thank you for something fresh...the old arguments are just that...old!

1: How many positions from space can we look at with the 46 star model and find as good a match as the original map?

Firstly, what 46 star model? Do you have more data on that?

secondly; there is a small region of space, about 150ly beyond Zeta Reticuli where the template can match stars within 33 parsec (100ly from Earth)...so in answer to the question...one (1) region...when talking about "positions" in space you really need to be a bit more specific, as "position" can become a bit ambiguous...so are you referring to a specific location, as in a set of coordinates? or a position as in a somewhat more general location (RA (range), Decl (range), approx dist)?

By the way; IF you have a list of all of those 46 stars, could you post them or a link so that I can update my 3D models...AND, in the event that you don't have that list; it just became irrelevant.

Have you ever seen Territory maps produce by some companies? You know, the ones that are a bit skewed from reality, but still contain enough information to be recognizable? Actually, I'm certain you have, unless you have been living in a vacuum. That is more along the lines of what Betty was presented with, as opposed to something being used as a navigational tool...actually to think "navigational tool" here is naïve at its best, and deceptive at its worst.

Finally...

I'm sorry Tanka, but if the Betty Hill map isn't completely contrived, then at the very best it's an example of Psychological Warfare.

There are two issues here;
1. The map, even with only the 25 or so stars I used is virtually impossible to produce randomly...as the probability is 1 : 1.7E+86 ...
2. The star Zeta Reticuli wasn't known to be a binary when all this work was originally done...and of course Zeta Reticuli as a binary fits so well...

So basically the isn't contrived at all due to probability, and the map isn't Psychological Warfare because it contains data that was not known at the time.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
Bettys map highlights the two nickel sized points. These would be a main and important part of her map for the "aliens" and that's supported not only by their size, but the multiple "trade route" lines drawn back and forth. With your map, you only have one of these dots noted as both Zeta 1&2. I'm assuming because both are so close to each other that if you tilt the map in 3-D space to match Betty's, it throws off all of your other points.

No actually it is because no amount of "tilting" will provide the "separation" you mistakenly demand. The stars are separated by less than 1 ly, and viewing it from a place that will include all the other "map" stars makes Zeta(s) Reticuli appear as a single point...So...no, it does not "throw off" all the other points...moves them a small amount though...

Betty also makes a clear distinction of the middle left point being far away from any of the others. You have yours bunched into the center and same area of the other points above it. During her claimed recall of the map, the two large points and lines would logically be the easiest to remember visually. Especially a line that extends way beyond the rest.

Perhaps it would be prudent to remind you that Betty drew her map from memory; while I used Hipparcos. Betty actually drew a "template", I constructed a "map"...

From a visual standpoint, your updated Fish map isn't the slam-dunk strong evidence required to support the probability of alien involvement on Earth. It's an attempt, but not convincing enough and still leaves a lot of questions unanswered.

What questions would those be?

How is this not strong enough evidence? Please explain this...in detail!

Ya know man, all you need do is show that the probability is not what I've calculated it to be, and you can "prove" your point...And perhaps you should be aware, although I thought it was obvious, that I'm not using all stars to compute the probabilities here. If we were to use 2MASS instead of Hipparcos, the probability of a random template match would become so small as to be virtually non existent...we're talking 100's to 1000's of orders of magnitude smaller! It could even prove impossible to compute with a modern computer. (All values in the computation are Double Precision values...computed with standard Math libraries. Double Precision:

Holds signed IEEE 64-bit (8-byte) double-precision floating-point numbers that range in value from -1.79769313486231570E+308 through -4.94065645841246544E-324 for negative values and from 4.94065645841246544E-324 through 1.79769313486231570E+308 for positive values. Double-precision numbers store an approximation of a real number.

)

You also try to divert from Betty and Barneys testimony dismissing it as an interpretation by others, which it is not. You don't want to address Betty's wild claims like a spacecraft crashing in her town LINK or the objects from UFOs she claimed to have scientifically analyzed LINK. Or the illogical marking of our sun as a multiple lined visited trade route and not a dashed exploration route as Betty described this encounter.

Yes, I do tend to discount much of what Betty and Barney say. That is because nothing they say will change the template. Once drawn and released into the wild, it became an independent object with its own probabilities, it is those independent probabilities I'm addressing here.

Also, the template can, and probably should, be regarded as "connector style" agnostic. That is how I have treated it

Also, using solid and dashed lines on a map to represent a path between cities and their purpose is historically human:

Irrelevant...using a different connector style seems more of an "intelligent / sentient" thing than simply "Human"...

a reply to: tanka418

I can make them available. However, these files are 3D data, and I will need to know what format you want...i.e. what 3D engine do you have to view them with?

I use Poser Pro (pz3), but can render them as 3DS, LWO, or OBJ...these should be compatible with most 3D engines...let me know...

I think what would help the community the most is if you could post some snapshots of the 3D renderings so no one has to have special software to see what you are trying to say. Or some 2D maps that show different starting points and then stars in RED that are closest to that starting point.

In regards to the list of 46 stars, I was referring to the experiment with beads done by Majorie Fish. Hence the reason why I referred you to Jacques Vallee's book, and most likely the reason why another poster early on in this thread referred you to Stanton Friedman. Because both of those two men have spent far more time and consideration on The Betty Hill Map than you or I put together.

How you've managed to convince yourself that YOU and only you have managed to make the most profound scientific breakthrough in the history of our species is beyond laughable.

With quotes like these:

This map, when used in its proper context becomes a template, a sort of "key" to some of the answers we all seek here.

Something you have still not even elaborated on...

It continues, too.

Are we alone? Because of this "template" we can say ... no.
Have we been visited? Again, because of this template; Yes!

Still making vague assumptions based completely on a lack of Empirical Data. A map alone doesn't prove the existence of ET. And even if (hypothetically) this map was completely accurate (though I and many other remain unconvinced) it's certainly not the end all be all Alien Artifact that you claim it to be.

And the list goes on.

Oh, sorry man; but it's not what I see in the data, rather what the computer sees...

Computers don't see, they detect and collect measurements/calculations based on the model it was programmed to work from. This model is of course completely human in design and subject to a margin of error (and that's being polite). Ergo, even if your model is more or less accurate, the model and the calculations alone aren't proof of extraterrestrial life. By inserting your subjective interpretation into the so called experiment that you've performed, instead you've proven that your analysis is inherently flawed by design. By that I mean it was designed to produce the results that you were seeking in the first place, without using a control.

They are circumstantial points that you are using to draw upon an Empirical conclusion. That might get OJ Simpson acquitted but fortunately the Scientific community doesn't work like that.

And the ridiculous quotes continue...

So you haven't been able to separate the fantasy BS from the reality of the map...

No, because it's all fantasy BS. The only thing tangibly real in the sense of the word is the map. Now whether the map itself is an accurate depiction of a star system capable of harboring life (let alone intelligent life) was an assumption then and continues to be an assumption now.

And the list of quotes goes on...

We have that one single bit of "template", a wee drawing that regardless of its origin is still an accurate depiction of interstellar space as viewed from a location scores of light-years from the Earth. This is an "object" that could not have been faked, nor "invented"...it is not a product of chaos (randomness).

Yes, it could have been faked and or invented. And if you managed to read the four pages of Jacque's book I uploaded you would realize that the Betty Hill map itself if drawn to scale doesn't even correspond to the brightness of the stars in Zeta Reticuli. And personally I believe the whole thing to be a product of Betty's imagination. And let me reiterate myself. If it's NOT fabricated by Betty, than during her hypnosis it could have been implanted and or falsely manipulated during the extraction of her thoughts by the hypnotist.

It continues

The template is a "fixed" bit of data that cannot be changed at the whim of either the source or the analyst.

You're definitely on trial for this one. PLEASE elaborate further.

Not sure what you actually mean by this, however; the accuracy of the original drawing isn't really an issue. We have been given an image and told that it its the "original" and copies have been made. The accuracy therefore, isn't in question.

Well with that logic, how can anyone argue that something that was told to us isn't true? I mean after all none of us have been lied to ever, right?

By treating it as a template, rather than an accurate depiction 3D space we will have an easier task of matching (or not) to real 3D space.

I can take a 2D image of a triangle, any triangle, acute, obtuse, golden, isosceles, or even right and hold it up to the night sky and if I look hard enough I can find stars that match the vertices in these shapes. And THAT, mind you is from a reference point of earth.

You've still completely ignored Jacques' most important and logical questions, starting with:

WHY WOULD AN ET DRAW A 2D MAP OF A 3D GALAXY AND REFERENCE IT FROM NO KNOWN CELESTIAL OBJECT? AKA Earth or another life inhabiting planet?

Why would an intergalactic explorer use a 2D map, let alone any map what-so-ever to navigate through space? We certainly don't do that when we're making intergalactic expeditions, why should an advanced extraterrestrial species use something as primitive as a map to navigate through the cosmos?

And the next crucially important question that you've dodged with this answer:

What I've done and shown here is produce a pair of "maps"; one derived from Betty's original "star map", and another from a view on 3D space.

The question I am referring to of course is:

How many combinations of exact matches to Betty's 2D map can you find in your 3D model?

This is important because, as Jacques mentioned in his 1989 book: THE RESEARCH HAS NOT BEEN DONE.

Actually it does..."prove" the extraterrestrial theory.

CALL THE PAPERS! TELL THEM YOU HAVE INFALLIBLE PROOF FROM 50 YEAR OLD DATA THAT FOR SOME REASON HAS MORE VALIDITY TODAY THAN IT DID THEN!

If you produced a page with dots at a rate of 1 per nanosecond it would take more time than has elapsed in the history of the universe to produce a match.

Please show your work for this, because I know people here will be eager to see you 'do the math' on that.

And on with more quotes:

Actually sir; I have.

Again, this is not the statement from someone scientifically informed.

ETA: Also, the amount of "detail" in Betty's drawing is irrelevant, for the most part, as long as there is enough to make the template unique.

The amount of detail is entirely relevant if you are using it as the basis to support your Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis. A template a rough guide or model, intentionally meant to be vague. The fact that you have to make assumptions to support assumptions only discredits your ability to follow the scientific method.

A quote from Vallee:

The question posed to the computer was the wrong one. Given the stars in the model and the viewpoint chosen by Marjorie Fish, the computer was bound to display the same pattern that she had already found with her beads and threads. It would be a lot more interesting to ask the computer to place itself in succession at each of the possible space viewpoints and to calculate how many would give a good fit to the original mp. To do this would require some definition of "goodness" [sic] and a lot of patience - not to mention a lot of computer time.

Please try harder.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

The tone with some of these posts is ridiculous, like the earth is going to stop spinning because someone made a post you dont agree with on the ats site. Its one of the more interesting posts on alien forum and I wish I had more time to look into it myself.

Even for the crazy posts, like the magnetic wave who took over a human body... I think its absolutely absurd, but so many tiny egos flying in there to show the world how immature they can be. Is it really necessary?

Im not convinced one way or another on this map, but at least it is something tangible we can run some tests against.

If it's NOT fabricated by Betty, than during her hypnosis it could have been implanted and or falsely manipulated during the extraction of her thoughts by the hypnotist.

I dont see how you implant that many dots or fabricate it and still have it match up( if it really does, Im not sure of that either yet)

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
In regards to the list of 46 stars, I was referring to the experiment with beads done by Majorie Fish. Hence the reason why I referred you to Jacques Vallee's book, and most likely the reason why another poster early on in this thread referred you to Stanton Friedman. Because both of those two men have spent far more time and consideration on The Betty Hill Map than you or I put together.

Doubtful...I have put a significant amount of time into this...The gathering of datasets, the writing of software, etc. Probability would suggest I have put more into this than wither of your heros.

How you've managed to convince yourself that YOU and only you have managed to make the most profound scientific breakthrough in the history of our species is beyond laughable.

No what is laughable is your insistence on applying inappropriate and ill thought characterizations to me and my work. It seems to me to be more than a little ignorant, and insulting. Perhaps IF you could actually read my paper with an open mind and apply just a little science and mathematics to what I've written, you may begin to gain a small understanding.

Still making vague assumptions based completely on a lack of Empirical Data. A map alone doesn't prove the existence of ET. And even if (hypothetically) this map was completely accurate (though I and many other remain unconvinced) it's certainly not the end all be all Alien Artifact that you claim it to be.

What vague assumptions would those be? And, where exactly is the lack of empirical data?

No a map alone doesn't prove the existence of ET, but it may give valuable data regarding ET and his "stomping ground" as it does in this case.

Okay, now for this cute bit; please explain just "how" the "map" isn't accurate...if you can...

I never stated that this was the "be all end all" of anything,,,and I believe I said it was only evidence.

I'm not sure IF you are being willfully ignorant or if you simply don't understand the science here.

originally posted by: tanka418
No actually it is because no amount of "tilting" will provide the "separation" you mistakenly demand. The stars are separated by less than 1 ly, and viewing it from a place that will include all the other "map" stars makes Zeta(s) Reticuli appear as a single point...So...no, it does not "throw off" all the other points...moves them a small amount though...

Mistakenly demand? When Betty's map shows two large stars/planets with multiple lines drawn to and from it as a central point, yeah, they should be reflected on your map. If it can't be done by tilting your map, that means it would have to be a version that's close to these objects. The problem is once you get in that close, you lose all of your other stars.

Perhaps it would be prudent to remind you that Betty drew her map from memory; while I used Hipparcos. Betty actually drew a "template", I constructed a "map"...

The objective is to create a map that matches what Betty was shown by "alien beings." You're saying her map is a template or starting point. That sounds more like a weak attempt at getting off the hook of providing the good match required.

Sorry, but this:

Is not this:

Particularly the two blue points. Represented as two "nickel sized" areas on her original map.

How about this kooky map?

A constellation in our galaxy? a view from our solar system? Nope, something a little more simple:



An exercise in playing connect the dots. See how your imagination can run wild?

How is this not strong enough evidence? Please explain this...in detail!

It's not strong enough evidence because at best, it's only a general match. And not even a close one at that. You want to trivialize something as extraordinary as intelligent alien beings visiting Earth down to a maybe? Maybe your map is a match - Maybe any surrounding planets would support life - Maybe those planets would evolve intelligent life - Maybe that intelligent species would survive self destruction or a species ending event i.e. asteroid - Maybe they would develop light-year space travel - Maybe they would choose Earth out of billions to visit - Maybe they would abduct a random couple and that couple would speak nonsense about them, while being accurate with an archaic line-drawn space map.
See, when you dismiss everything else with the story, you're stuck with the map alone to provide this convincing evidence. Sorry, but it does not.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
Computers don't see, they detect and collect measurements/calculations based on the model it was programmed to work from. This model is of course completely human in design and subject to a margin of error (and that's being polite). Ergo, even if your model is more or less accurate, the model and the calculations alone aren't proof of extraterrestrial life. By inserting your subjective interpretation into the so called experiment that you've performed, instead you've proven that your analysis is inherently flawed by design. By that I mean it was designed to produce the results that you were seeking in the first place, without using a control.

"Computers don't see." Is that a fact!??!

You speak like you know about computers and their programming...do you?

Do you know that computers are fully capable of "seeing", recognizing objects, and reacting in a manner that was NEVER programmed into the system...that last little bit is called AI, the first part is simply "computer vision"...both are rather mature technologies. A computer is fully capable of matching a template to random image data. The process isn't even very hard, and may be included in open source vision libraries...actually is included in the one I use.

the model and the calculations alone aren't proof of extraterrestrial life

You keep trying to insert things into this that are not a part of my original work...of course the model and calculations aren't "proof", I never indicated they were, that misinterpretation is all yours.

My subjective interpretation...??? really? Sorry man, but, no subjective interpretations on my part...yours perhaps.

instead you've proven that your analysis is inherently flawed by design.

Uh-huh; well now you will have to provide some data indicating just "HOW" my design is flawed...Oh and, seriously man; you have to provide this "demonstration", otherwise most of your statements will become null...

Demonstrate a "control" in this context! I bet you can't...

Now whether the map itself is an accurate depiction of a star system capable of harboring life (let alone intelligent life) was an assumption then and continues to be an assumption now.

Well that would be an assumption that is held by the Astronomical community. The kinds of stars, and whether they have planets in the habitable zone is not something open to assumption but rather Astrometric data. Thus; IF I say there is life around Tau Ceti, it is relatively safe to presume there actually is...oh by the way; I will state that there is life associated with Tau Ceti! But that is actually a different topic.

Yes, it could have been faked and or invented.

Demonstrate that...by the way; you can't, it will take you the rest of your life, and you will never succeed.

And if you managed to read the four pages of Jacque's book I uploaded you would realize that the Betty Hill map itself if drawn to scale doesn't even correspond to the brightness of the stars in Zeta Reticuli. And personally I believe the whole thing to be a product of Betty's imagination. And let me reiterate myself. If it's NOT fabricated by Betty, than during her hypnosis it could have been implanted and or falsely manipulated during the extraction of her thoughts by the hypnotist.

Did you know that Betty's map is necessarily not to scale? Perhaps you need to pay a bit close attention to some of this. Betty's map (template) was drawn via post hypnotic suggestion, on notebook paper...it was never intended to be anything other than a loose representation of what she observed.

The probability of template being drawn at random are far too great for it to actually be a random event; thus it could not have been "fabricated", and, since the template contains information that was not known when Betty drew the template, any manipulation is also impossible.

You need to get over your issues and begin to actually think these things through...

originally posted by: ColdWisdom

"The template is a "fixed" bit of data that cannot be changed at the whim of either the source or the analyst."

You're definitely on trial for this one. PLEASE elaborate further.

Huh??!!!? Try applying logic and common sense!!!

You've still completely ignored Jacques' most important and logical questions, starting with:

WHY WOULD AN ET DRAW A 2D MAP OF A 3D GALAXY AND REFERENCE IT FROM NO KNOWN CELESTIAL OBJECT? AKA Earth or another life inhabiting planet?

Why would an intergalactic explorer use a 2D map, let alone any map what-so-ever to navigate through space? We certainly don't do that when we're making intergalactic expeditions, why should an advanced extraterrestrial species use something as primitive as a map to navigate through the cosmos?

What makes you thing there is no "celestial object" as the pov reference? Yeah, yeah; I know, nobody has stated where the pov is from...probably because when Ms. Fish did her analysis, and when I did mine, we focused on near by stars, and the actual location of the POV is further out that our artificial limit on distance. Course then again, neither ET nor I actually need that location for an adequate analysis of the dataset.

And the next crucially important question that you've dodged with this answer:

How many combinations of exact matches to Betty's 2D map can you find in your 3D model?

Actually, I answered that; ONE.

This is important because, as Jacques mentioned in his 1989 book: THE RESEARCH HAS NOT BEEN DONE.

However; this is not 1989...it is 2016, and computers are vastly improved.

"If you produced a page with dots at a rate of 1 per nanosecond it would take more time than has elapsed in the history of the universe to produce a match."

Please show your work for this, because I know people here will be eager to see you 'do the math' on that.

I done that too (shown work), please pay attention!

Again...the first 25 terms of 2826! (factorial) or 1.7E+86...Read my paper its all in there.

"the amount of "detail" in Betty's drawing is irrelevant, for the most part, as long as there is enough to make the template unique."


The amount of detail is entirely relevant if you are using it as the basis to support your Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis. A template a rough guide or model, intentionally meant to be vague. The fact that you have to make assumptions to support assumptions only discredits your ability to follow the scientific method.

it is almost incomprehensible that you failed to understand that statement...perhaps the bolded part will help you.

Now then you make another assertion; you will have to show where I'm making assumptions to support assumptions...otherwise you only discredit yourself.

A quote from Vallee:

The question posed to the computer was the wrong one. Given the stars in the model and the viewpoint chosen by Marjorie Fish, the computer was bound to display the same pattern that she had already found with her beads and threads. It would be a lot more interesting to ask the computer to place itself in succession at each of the possible space viewpoints and to calculate how many would give a good fit to the original mp. To do this would require some definition of "goodness" [sic] and a lot of patience - not to mention a lot of computer time.

You seem determined to portray Vallee as an idiot, I don't believe he is...but then again, he isn't some scientific god either. I mean hell, he has about the same education as I, and if I remember correctly, at the same school...

No actually the question posed to the computer is/was the correct one; is Ms. Fish's interpretation of the Hill template
correct. i.e. does it "fit"...and the answer is a definite yes. Then given the probabilities involved; it would be rather impractical to attempt a complete search...since, as I've already said; at the rate of one test per nanosecond; it would take longer to complete those tests than the current age of the Universe...in fact it would several of the Universe's "lifetimes" (so far) to complete those tests.

Thus the use of mathematics becomes more prudent, as it will tell us that the map being produced at random simply won't happen.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
Mistakenly demand? When Betty's map shows two large stars/planets with multiple lines drawn to and from it as a central point, yeah, they should be reflected on your map. If it can't be done by tilting your map, that means it would have to be a version that's close to these objects. The problem is once you get in that close, you lose all of your other stars.

So, willful ignorance is the method of the day? That never works well...

And, yes; "mistakenly demand" course it not really a "mistake" is it? You know full well that betty's map, and thus the one she observed are intentionally skewed...an artistic representation of interstellar space...yet you steadfastly refuse to accept the reality of the template, and the fact that a match has in fact been found and verified by several independent analysts. This is quite dishonest of you...and tends to taint everything you say.

The objective is to create a map that matches what Betty was shown by "alien beings." You're saying her map is a template or starting point. That sounds more like a weak attempt at getting off the hook of providing the good match required.

You are reaching to attempt some validity...Betty's drawing can not be anything other than a template...it is in the crude nature of her drawing, and of course the method to derive it.

An exercise in playing connect the dots. See how your imagination can run wild?

A completely invalid analogy...

It's not strong enough evidence because at best, it's only a general match. And not even a close one at that.

Prove it! Using the available data, you prove its not a close match...prove its not a good match.

Hint: you don't have the tools....

Listen Tanka,

I've viewed your link to the page you refer to as your source. I assume since you've linked graphs, images, equations & the like into this thread from wolfmagick that the work included in your source is indeed yours. It's impressive to say the least. I've already complimented you on your patience and diligence in dredging up this old conundrum that has plagued skeptics and believers alike since the 60s. I'm not downplaying your understanding of Mathematics & Astronomy. Let's extinguish this flame of condescension and semantics.

So all insults and demeanors aside, I am going to ask you some questions so that we are CLEAR on what this thread is actually about.

Do you believe Betty & Barney Hill were abducted in 1961?

Do you believe they were abducted by Extra Terrestrials?

Do you believe that Betty actually saw a map?

Do you believe that map to be one produced by Extra Terrestrials?

Do you believe that her drawing of a map is a replica of an Extra Terrestrial Artifact?

If her map was inaccurate either slightly or extremely, why do your new calculations support the idea that it was an Extra Terrestrial artifact?

Even if Betty's map (or the map you've worked very hard to engineer) accurately represents a star system that can be verified by the technology of 2016, how does that prove (or support) the existence of Extra Terrestrial visitation?

How can you completely rule out the possibility of some kind of interference from post hypnotic regression?

I understand your position when you say that even if Betty's map or her hypnosis was contrived that those two factors alone won't affect whether or not there is intelligent life in the universe.

BUT

If her map was faked, forged, or imagined - and your current calculations of Zeta Reticuli are indeed more precise today than in the 1960s, then what does that have to do with Extra Terrestrials visiting earth?

This is what I meant when I said you are using assumptions to support assumptions. Your first assumption is that we've been visited by ETs. And the next assumption you make to support the first one is that Betty's map (or your map) is accurate and therefor proof of ET visitation.

I've been under the impression this whole time while reading this thread that the connection you are trying to make is that since there is a star system that matches her map (either vaguely or arbitrarily) then that alone is evidence of Extra Terrestrial visitation.

You say that it would be impossible for anyone in the 1960s to know the Astrometric details of Zeta Reticuli, but how can you be certain? Isn't it possible that NASA, the Russians or even some other hidden intelligence agency had more accurate data that simply hadn't been published yet? I mean so many people here talk about disclosure so you have to wonder.

And I'm still sticking to my guns on this one when I say intelligent ET's wouldn't need a map to navigate the cosmos. And furthermore I find it quite irrelevant as to what our current model of an "inhabitable star system" is by today's standards because it thrives on the assumption that intelligent life would exist on planets with the same elemental/atmospheric composition as ours. For all we know there could be other forms of intelligent life that are made of plasma, or even non physical entirely.

Lastly, computers don't see because they aren't conscious. When a computer uses facial recognition software such as the software you've been using to construct your models, they aren't seeing in the conventional sense that humans see with their eyes. The computers are measuring/detecting data and comparing that data using algorithms. Algorithms are written, designed, and implemented by a consciousness aka the human mind.

The purpose of this post is to serve as both a clarification and a constructive critique on argumentative viewpoints.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
Listen Tanka,

I've viewed your link to the page you refer to as your source. I assume since you've linked graphs, images, equations & the like into this thread from wolfmagick that the work included in your source is indeed yours. It's impressive to say the least. I've already complimented you on your patience and diligence in dredging up this old conundrum that has plagued skeptics and believers alike since the 60s. I'm not downplaying your understanding of Mathematics & Astronomy. Let's extinguish this flame of condescension and semantics.

Thanks...

Do you believe Betty & Barney Hill were abducted in 1961?

Yes; logically they were.

Do you believe they were abducted by Extra Terrestrials?

Again, yes.

Do you believe that Betty actually saw a map?

Yes.

Do you believe that map to be one produced by Extra Terrestrials?

Yes.

Do you believe that her drawing of a map is a replica of an Extra Terrestrial Artifact?

Yes; her drawing is a crude representation of an artistic representation of Zeta Reticulan Trade and exploration space.

If her map was inaccurate either slightly or extremely, why do your new calculations support the idea that it was an Extra Terrestrial artifact?

What my calculations show is the probability of Betty Hill producing her Map (template) at random, and matching a view upon stars within 33 parsec of Earth in real space (according to Hipparcos). What I found is that to find good matches for 25 out of 2826 stars is very highly improbable... 5.84795e-87 or 1 chance in as many combinations that are possible; 1:1.71e+86.

The probability of Betty drawing that at random is so small as to be truly insignificant.

Even if Betty's map (or the map you've worked very hard to engineer) accurately represents a star system that can be verified by the technology of 2016, how does that prove (or support) the existence of Extra Terrestrial visitation?

Here's what I don't understand; What's up with this; "Even if" stuff? What I'm not getting is you questioning the accuracy of the maps...

Betty's map IS the "artifact", it is the exemplar. It is our only template, and, it is this template, Betty's data, that we must "match" to the real world.

As for the accuracy of my map; you have the images I placed in my paper (though, I am going to upload some images to here)

And it isn't a single star system that is represented here; it is a vast volume of near by space.

Since Betty couldn't have produced her map at random, then she must have seen it somewhere. Since the view is not from the Earth, and in fact is from over 100ly from Earth, Betty could not have shown the original by a Terrestrial. Hence, ET.

How can you completely rule out the possibility of some kind of interference from post hypnotic regression?

Would any such influence affect the probability of a random instance? Actually, it doesn't matter; even IF she suffered such influence, the result was a template with stars in all the right places to match the real world.

If her map was faked, forged, or imagined - and your current calculations of Zeta Reticuli are indeed more precise today than in the 1960s, then what does that have to do with Extra Terrestrials visiting earth?

Here again is a point of misunderstanding. How, could Betty's map possible be "faked", "forged", or "imagined" given the probabilities involved? Remember, there are things in that map that were not known in the early 1960's.

And "early 1960's" brings us to the next point...it is not that my calculations are more precise (vastly faster perhaps), but rather that the base line dataset being used is more precise. It was known for decades that the Gliese dataset did not have good parallax data. So in 1989 the Hipparcos satellite was launched to accurately collect astrometrics on over 117,000 near by stars.

Some of this was addressed in my paper. An old "debunk" tried to use this more accurate distance data against Ms. Fish's interpretation. The problem is that most of the distance difference was only a few light years, except for Kappa Fornacis.

This is what I meant when I said you are using assumptions to support assumptions. Your first assumption is that we've been visited by ETs. And the next assumption you make to support the first one is that Betty's map (or your map) is accurate and therefor proof of ET visitation.

I view this more as a logical conclusion...

But, Betty's map, with its associated probabilities, is indeed of extraterrestrial origin, as there was no agency on Earth at that time that could have produced and implanted it...there are elements that were not known at the time.

Given that Betty received the map from ET, and was incapable of traveling to Zeta Reticuli for a visit; it seems logical that beings from Zeta Reticuli visited Betty...right here on Earth. The Template is the evidence.

I've been under the impression this whole time while reading this thread that the connection you are trying to make is that since there is a star system that matches her map (either vaguely or arbitrarily) then that alone is evidence of Extra Terrestrial visitation.

Already explained...

You say that it would be impossible for anyone in the 1960s to know the Astrometric details of Zeta Reticuli, but how can you be certain? Isn't it possible that NASA, the Russians or even some other hidden intelligence agency had more accurate data that simply hadn't been published yet? I mean so many people here talk about disclosure so you have to wonder.

In the 1960's the technologies required to acquire some of the data necessary here did not exist. I was a part of the development of those early computer and solid state technologies. In 1989 Hipparcos was launched, and it took until them to develop the technology to do what Hipparcos did. So...no, no agency on Earth had the requsite data at that time.

And, we are not talking about a single star called Zeta Reticuli, but rather two stars. a binary system where the two stars are separated by a large distance (about 3700 AU). However when Betty drew her map it was not known that Zeta Reticuli was a binary star.

edit on 26-3-2016 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
And I'm still sticking to my guns on this one when I say intelligent ET's wouldn't need a map to navigate the cosmos. And furthermore I find it quite irrelevant as to what our current model of an "inhabitable star system" is by today's standards because it thrives on the assumption that intelligent life would exist on planets with the same elemental/atmospheric composition as ours. For all we know there could be other forms of intelligent life that are made of plasma, or even non physical entirely.

No, you are correct no intelligent species would use maps like that to navigate space. But, they might use a map like that to show their trade and exploration routes / area.

Actually todays "standards" aren't based on assumption, but rather upon science. For instance; if we find a planet out there with conditions like Earth...well we actually know that life just we have here can exist on that world.

And yes, there undoubtedly an infinite supply of exotic lifeforms out there...however, none of this affects the present inquiry.

Lastly, computers don't see because they aren't conscious. When a computer uses facial recognition software such as the software you've been using to construct your models, they aren't seeing in the conventional sense that humans see with their eyes. The computers are measuring/detecting data and comparing that data using algorithms. Algorithms are written, designed, and implemented by a consciousness aka the human mind.

The purpose of this post is to serve as both a clarification and a constructive critique on argumentative viewpoints.

I'm sorry, but those of us who actually implement such thing think of it as "seeing". Not so much in the sense that you are thinking of it, but more of a generic sort of thing.

However, please don't hold your breath on the "conscious" part...

How do you know that some Intelligence Agency here on Earth didn't already have more accurate data on Zeta Reticuli in the 50s & 60s? What if there were a group of scientists working for a Black Budget program that had amassed more valuable data on local inhabitable star systems? If such a scenario were to be true, everything about the Betty & Barney Hill abduction story could be true except that the occupants of the craft were of terrestrial origin and therefor so was the map. I'm saying it could have been human intervention and a deliberate Psy-Op carried out from within the United States government. This would require me doing more research in order to organize it into a real hypothesis with evidence, links, sources etc. But I am willing to do it as soon as my schedule permits it.

I am just wondering, though. Have you ever considered this?

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
How do you know that some Intelligence Agency here on Earth didn't already have more accurate data on Zeta Reticuli in the 50s & 60s?

As I thought I already indicated...the technology didn't exist at that time.

The Gliese dataset, used extensively from the 60's through the 80;s was the best available. It wasn't until the 90's that technology developed enough to provide the kind of observational accuracy to refine the parallax enough to provide the updated data contained in the Hipparcos dataset.

What if there were a group of scientists working for a Black Budget program that had amassed more valuable data on local inhabitable star systems?

I graduated to being a "working stiff" in the very early 70's; I was an electronics / hardware engineer working with the cutting edge of technology. I worked for a company that built a microprocessor test system...made it possible to mass produce them. For my job as product engineer, I had to learn to program every single microprocessor available. That would include any devices that might be used by a "Black Budget" group. Governments, militaries, black budget groups don't like to use the "cutting edge"...they are afraid of critical failures on hardware that doesn't have a 20+ year history.

The microprocessor was invented in 1970...so give it 20 years and the RCA 1802 is acceptable for use in space technology. The RCA 1802 was the first low power microprocessor, and became very popular with Jet Propulsion Labs in the late 70's...but you need to understand that satellites were, at the time, very primitive even by the standards used in the 90's.

It might also help to understand that back in the 50's and 60's electronic systems were, for the most part, vacuum tube systems, which actually made for rather unreliable satellites. and, even IF a group was using better than cutting edge technology. the ability to construct circuitry small enough didn't come about until the 70's, along with integrated circuits.

If such a scenario were to be true, everything about the Betty & Barney Hill abduction story could be true except that the occupants of the craft were of terrestrial origin and therefor so was the map. I'm saying it could have been human intervention and a deliberate Psy-Op carried out from within the United States government. This would require me doing more research in order to organize it into a real hypothesis with evidence, links, sources etc. But I am willing to do it as soon as my schedule permits it.

I am just wondering, though. Have you ever considered this?

No actually I've not considered it. But, understand, I have a long history with the technology y'all take for granted. I tend to think of myself as a "veteran of the Silicon Wars"...by the way; I spent more than half of my engineering career in Silicon Valley, working on "cutting edge" technology, so I feel I have a very good handle on what was available back in the day.

When I was in college, late 60's / early 70's; I was taught Vacuum tubes, solid state electronics / transistors were mentioned...it was a significant change when I reached the work place and found that nobody was using tubes anymore...I sort of started my career during one of the most important transitions in technology. Transitioning from vacuum tubes to bipolar silicon, to Field effect devices (mosfets).

So anyway; the technology to get the kind of accuracy provided by the Hipparcos satellite wasn't available until the late 80's, and in the early 60's everybody would have been using Gliese for astrometric data. Oh, and perhaps just as important; ALL stellar observations were ground based, there were no satellite based telescopes for observing the stars In the 50's and 60's...

An alternate view was requested so I put together this view of the stars of the "square root symbol" as viewed from Zeta Reticuli. Here we get to see how they might be seen from the Gray's homeworld. "Map" stars are 2X scale, and green in color.

Tanka,

I'm loving all the data you are contributing to this case, really. And I intend to propose a valid Psy-Op theory when my work schedule slows down. This theory will not contradict the star data that you have contributed, but only serve to reinforce that it is irrelevant.

But while I have the time here:

Why do you insist on making the connection to the Grays? That seems like a culturally influenced opinion. Even if your intent is to include ETs in your hypothesis it seems to me that speculating on the social identity of the ETs is premature if not completely irrelevant. I mean we don't even know that there are other forms of life in Zeta Reticuli yet. And the identity of these assumed life forms shouldn't be taken into consideration at all if we are trying to do good science here. Again, these are assumptions to support assumptions. But please don't take this as a suggestion to stop hypothesizing.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
Tanka,

I'm loving all the data you are contributing to this case, really. And I intend to propose a valid Psy-Op theory when my work schedule slows down. This theory will not contradict the star data that you have contributed, but only serve to reinforce that it is irrelevant.

But while I have the time here:

Why do you insist on making the connection to the Grays? That seems like a culturally influenced opinion.

Yeah, I know...Here is where that is at; I'm a person with some experience in paranormal things like telepathy, remote viewing, and some other exotic stuff. What that experience has taught me is that "first expressions" are typically more valid. So...Betty's first expression about her abductors were that they small gray men (not exact words), much of the later elaboration may perhaps be less valid, but the idea of "small gray men" is what should be considered the most valid in my opinion. Thus the "Grays" are from Zeta Reticuli. Zeta(s) Reticuli are also old enough for something very Earth like to have evolved.

Even if your intent is to include ETs in your hypothesis it seems to me that speculating on the social identity of the ETs is premature if not completely irrelevant. I mean we don't even know that there are other forms of life in Zeta Reticuli yet. And the identity of these assumed life forms shouldn't be taken into consideration at all if we are trying to do good science here. Again, these are assumptions to support assumptions. But please don't take this as a suggestion to stop hypothesizing.

Yes such hypothesizing is probably a bit pre mature, but then again; Astronomy today is start to state that there is a rocky earth-like planet around all Sun like stars, not just many, or most, but [b]all. I'm not so sure about that, but it does give a great deal of "confidence" (as a technical thing) to the probability that there is life, or some sort, that calls Zeta (2) Reticuli home.

By the way; an assumption, is very much like a hypothesis. Its just that a hypothesis begins to explain an observed thing, and probably has some minimal amount of data to support it.

Where as an assumption is just a guess...

a reply to: tanka418

Why so shy tanka418? I'll post a few exchanges we've had in the past about your alien/UFO knowledge so ColdWisdom can have a better understanding of your mindset. My quotes in yellow:

Give me a time and place. No more than 3 "space planes"...will need at least 6 week lead time. (maybe it will work) Would that work for ya?"

1- You think you can summon UFOs at will or predict where they will be.

More intensive research, subsequent to the reports you read have shown the skull isn't quite terrestrial.

2- You believe the 'Starchild' skull could be alien.

Yes absolutely, abductions do happen, both alien and domestic. I know this because of the physical trace, and mathematical probabilities involved.

3- You believe alien abductions are actually happening.

It is equally as logical that ET would have DNA that is so "Earth like" that y'all can't tell the difference.

4- You think aliens could be exact matches and indistinguishable from humans.

You misunderstand the nature of Her office! But that's okay; ET has already addressed the UN; held meetings with G8 and G20, as well as any global governments.

5- You think aliens have addressed the U.N. G8 and G20.
SOURCE

There are a couple more, including your claim of telepathic messages with an alien or alien beings, but I'll leave it at that. I keep hounding you with these tanka418 because once you make extraordinary claims such as these on a public message board, it should be backed up.

originally posted by: tanka418
Betty's first expression about her abductors were that they small gray men (not exact words), much of the later elaboration may perhaps be less valid, but the idea of "small gray men" is what should be considered the most valid in my opinion. Thus the "Grays" are from Zeta Reticuli. Zeta(s) Reticuli are also old enough for something very Earth like to have evolved.

Todays gray alien description:
- 2 to 4 Feet Tall.
- Gray Skin.
- Large Heads.
- Small Spindly Bodies.
- No Ears and No Noses- Only Small Orifices.
- Completely Hairless Bodies.
- No Clothing.
- Telepathic Communication.

Betty Hills description:
- 5' to 5'4"
- Gray Toned Skin, Blue Lips.
- Humanoid.
- Caucasian Looking (from The Interrupted Journey) and Normal Heads.
- Large Chest (Larger than humans).
- Large Long Noses - Jimmy Durante Style.
- Dark Hair.
- Wore Clothing- Light Blue Trousers and Zipper Style of Sport Jackets.
- Slip on Boots.
- Military Cap.
- Spoke English with a Foreign Accent.

Betty Hill's own account of her dreams written November, 1961. Source and screen grab from Walter Webbs NICAP report:


As you can see with her "first expression" in 1961, Betty Hill did not describe these aliens in the same manner as todays popular Gray. Her aliens evolved throughout the years. You really do need to do a little more research. Plus, you continue to pick and choose what you want in order for it to fit your belief. What you've done is remove the core of the testimony of Betty and Barney Hill calling it BS and removed the main structure of the map drawn by Betty calling it a crude representation of another representation. The more generations you can claim of the map, the easier it is to twist and fit, right?

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
1- You think you can summon UFOs at will or predict where they will be.

Sure, but you forgot to post the truth about all of those; I'll fill that in for ya.

This first one; A success! Complete with an independent report at NUFORIC...

2- You believe the 'Starchild' skull could be alien.

Yep I sure...and all the data supports my belief on this...

3- You believe alien abductions are actually happening.

Yes I believe in alien abduction, but then when One spends a life time being abducted;
One tends to believe...

By the way; I have designed a technological solution to the alien abduction...a vastly better way to "detect" an abduction, and record it...

4- You think aliens could be exact matches and indistinguishable from humans.

Well...not quite. I don't think ET is an exact match to you terrestrials
; but by the same token I don't believe you could tell the difference. Partly because you "think" you already know, and because many of you won't pay attention.

5- You think aliens have addressed the U.N. G8 and G20.

I think its is kind of cute how you select things you think I can't "prove" or provide some evidence. And with this I of course never attempted to support it, so ..no data..but, then again, you have nothing but your bias.

There are a couple more, including your claim of telepathic messages with an alien or alien beings, but I'll leave it at that. I keep hounding you with these tanka418 because once you make extraordinary claims such as these on a public message board, it should be backed up.

I see...so tell me; just what is that white paper I published?

I'd make an attempt to defend the telepathy, but, it is useless when talking to someone who has already made up their mind that such thing aren't possible...regardless of the truth. And of course I can't provide any evidence...at least no evidence that you would accept.

But then again; you seem the sort that would call recorded empirical data, "anecdotal" simply because you didn't like it.

Todays gray alien description:
- 2 to 4 Feet Tall.
- Gray Skin.
- Large Heads.
- Small Spindly Bodies.
- No Ears and No Noses- Only Small Orifices.
- Completely Hairless Bodies.
- No Clothing.
- Telepathic Communication.

Betty Hills description:
- 5' to 5'4"
- Gray Toned Skin, Blue Lips.
- Humanoid.
- Caucasian Looking (from The Interrupted Journey) and Normal Heads.
- Large Chest (Larger than humans).
- Large Long Noses - Jimmy Durante Style.
- Dark Hair.
- Wore Clothing- Light Blue Trousers and Zipper Style of Sport Jackets.
- Slip on Boots.
- Military Cap.
- Spoke English with a Foreign Accent.

Betty Hill's own account of her dreams written November, 1961. Source and screen grab from Walter Webbs NICAP report:

As you can see with her "first expression" in 1961, Betty Hill did not describe these aliens in the same manner as todays popular Gray. Her aliens evolved throughout the years. You really do need to do a little more research. Plus, you continue to pick and choose what you want in order for it to fit your belief. What you've done is remove the core of the testimony of Betty and Barney Hill calling it BS and removed the main structure of the map drawn by Betty calling it a crude representation of another representation. The more generations you can claim of the map, the easier it is to twist and fit, right?

I/m not sure what your point is here; today's descriptions are wholly irrelevant.

No...I didn't "pick and choose", at least not in the sense that you want to convey (that is actually rather dishonest of you). I took an event instance, and extracted data that can't be affected by all the rest . Data that may show some of the reality.

It did...it showed that Betty's map is an artifact of alien visitation and abduction...like it or not man...its reality

Now then...IF you wish to disprove / debunk my work...use science not rhetoric, not BS, but real, actual, science!

Please do not try to discredit me with your BS and willed failure to comprehend...it is dishonest, and dishonorable.

Tell me...why is it that you have to be so hostile about this?