An analysis of the Betty Hill "star map"

a reply to: InTheLight

Just a couple of quick things here;

1. For the Koch - Kyborg map to be considered, we will need the precise day and hour that "map" was "real". It shows planets and moons, both of which move quickly (though not enough to "see" on an animated display...if in real time). So we need to have such information so that we may use ephemeral data to verify.

2. In the article it stated:

In December 1968, Mrs. Fish had completed a three-dimensional model of the nearer surroundings of our sun. It included stars up to 10 parsecs distance (1 parsec = 3,262 ly - ly = light-year).

This is highly inaccurate, and makes me wonder how many other inaccuracies are in there. Its almost as if the authors didn't really care about scientific precision.

By-the-way: 1 parsec = 3.26 light years

originally posted by: james1947
I used the Hipparcos data, it has data on over 118,000 stars and goes out to some 8100 light years. These stars are the same stars known to ET, I presume. So...tell me, just how is it that ET's star maps are different?

I didn't say ET star maps are different, I said we don't know how close to the ET map was Betty's version.

If you are honest about your work, try this: generate a random number of dots on an image, look at the image for 30 seconds or more, then try to draw what you saw couple of days latter and show us the result.

originally posted by: james1947
Betty did not identify enough stars to provide a reasonable match. Plus, Betty's version of the map isn't a match at all, The stars she started to select will not match her drawing. So, Betty's version is disqualified.

And she is the only source of the information you have been working with.

If you think about it, the whole idea of aliens using maps to navigate their advanced interstellar spaceship is ridiculous to begin with.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: james1947
I used the Hipparcos data, it has data on over 118,000 stars and goes out to some 8100 light years. These stars are the same stars known to ET, I presume. So...tell me, just how is it that ET's star maps are different?

I didn't say ET star maps are different, I said we don't know how close to the ET map was Betty's version.

Betty's version is 99.1% match to real world stars, and thus a 99.1% match to ET's map as well.

If you are honest about your work, try this: generate a random number of dots on an image, look at the image for 30 seconds or more, then try to draw what you saw couple of days latter and show us the result.

I really wish y'all could think these things through...

And she is the only source of the information you have been working with.

Not true!!! I've also been using the Fish interpretation, as well as Hipparcos, and ESA Exoplanet data tables.
The ONLY thing Betty is providing is her Template (map).

originally posted by: Blue Shift
If you think about it, the whole idea of aliens using maps to navigate their advanced interstellar spaceship is ridiculous to begin with.

So...ET goes zipping around interstellar space and doesn't know where ANY of the objects (stars, planets, etc.) are?

I seriously doubt that!!! Maybe you are confused about what a map is...
Anyway, IF you keep thinking about it you will discover that ET necessarily has "maps" for the explicit purpose of navigation...helps to keep from bouncing off of stars...

originally posted by: james1947
The ONLY thing Betty is providing is her Template (map).

Betty provided much more than that, such as labels for the stars on her star map, but in a very unscientific manner, you have with great bias chosen only what you like from her and have discarded the rest of what she provided, including labels for the stars on her map which differ from yours.

originally posted by: james1947
Betty did not identify enough stars to provide a reasonable match. Plus, Betty's version of the map isn't a match at all, The stars she started to select will not match her drawing. So, Betty's version is disqualified.

originally posted by: ArMaP
And she is the only source of the information you have been working with.

Exactly.

originally posted by: james1947
So...ET goes zipping around interstellar space and doesn't know where ANY of the objects (stars, planets, etc.) are?

I seriously doubt that!!! Maybe you are confused about what a map is...
Anyway, IF you keep thinking about it you will discover that ET necessarily has "maps" for the explicit purpose of navigation...helps to keep from bouncing off of stars...

Exactly my point. Just like our self-driving cars in a couple of decades, the ship does the navigating. You tell it where to go, and that's where it goes. You won't be carrying a map to make sure it gets where it's going.

You imagine a bunch of aliens staring at their pull-down map and saying, "Oh, well, traffic on the hyperspace bypass to Zeta Reticuli I is terrible this time of day, but the map says there's a Chili's close by, so let's stop for some baby back ribs while it clears up!"

They don't need maps.

a reply to: Blue Shift

originally posted by: james1947
Betty's version is 99.1% match to real world stars, and thus a 99.1% match to ET's map as well.

If we do not have the ET's map we cannot say that because we don't know the accuracy of Betty's map. Only if Betty's version is a 100% match to the ET's can we say for sure that a 99.1% match to real world stars on her map corresponds to a 99.1% match to real stars on ET's map.

I really wish y'all could think these things through...

Could you explain what you mean by that?

Not true!!! I've also been using the Fish interpretation, as well as Hipparcos, and ESA Exoplanet data tables.
The ONLY thing Betty is providing is her Template (map).

When I said "the only source of information" I was, obviously, talking about her star map.

a reply to: Phage

Webb worked for CHPB starting in 1958.
Could be a case of some Eidetic roof top memory.
I was still a young lad back in 1961 don't remember the details of the UFO case.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: james1947
Betty's version is 99.1% match to real world stars, and thus a 99.1% match to ET's map as well.

If we do not have the ET's map we cannot say that because we don't know the accuracy of Betty's map. Only if Betty's version is a 100% match to the ET's can we say for sure that a 99.1% match to real world stars on her map corresponds to a 99.1% match to real stars on ET's map.

But we do have ET's map, and we know how accurate Betty's map is...I've been trying to explain that to you. Yet somehow you continue to think that ET's map is different from ours.

When I generate a model of stars within 33 parsec, it is the same model as ET generates, with the exception of smaller class M stars and interstellar objects that were not mapped by Hipparcos. Oh, and my model is where the stars were in 1991.

"I really wish y'all could think these things through..."
Could you explain what you mean by that?

What do I mean by that...You don't seem to exhibit any understanding of the process that produced the original drawing. It seems to me that applying a modicum of critical thought and logic would lead One to conclude that Betty's map cant be a 100% match to anything. There are insurmountable odds that tend to prevent that, but, as I have shown (M. Fish as well); there is a very high quality match to real world stars. The probability of a 99.1% match is just as insurmountable.

And to another that seems to not understand that in this instance: database of stellar objects = map.

a reply to: james1947

Thank you for the child hood memories.
When I was abducted they had similar proof of previously unknown stars from extra terrestrial sources.
There is less confusion since children just accept what is going on.
I remember looking over my right shoulder instinctively to get a glimpse of the alien propulsion system that was speeding us deep into the Constellation. The stars were disappearing behind us at the horizon in all directions.
1961 was the year when president Kennedy announced the Apollo moon mission.
I'm sure the Barney and Betty hill abduction was as real as the Apollo project.

originally posted by: james1947
But we do have ET's map, and we know how accurate Betty's map is...I've been trying to explain that to you. Yet somehow you continue to think that ET's map is different from ours.

I don't think ET's maps are different, what I have been saying is that we don't know how different (or not) Betty's map is from the original she (supposedly) saw.

When I generate a model of stars within 33 parsec, it is the same model as ET generates, with the exception of smaller class M stars and interstellar objects that were not mapped by Hipparcos. Oh, and my model is where the stars were in 1991.

I agree, the positions of the stars are the same regardless of who looks at them.

What do I mean by that...You don't seem to exhibit any understanding of the process that produced the original drawing. It seems to me that applying a modicum of critical thought and logic would lead One to conclude that Betty's map cant be a 100% match to anything. There are insurmountable odds that tend to prevent that, but, as I have shown (M. Fish as well); there is a very high quality match to real world stars. The probability of a 99.1% match is just as insurmountable.

What I have been saying is that, as we are not looking at the original map, whatever matches we can find are always going to be between reality and Betty's map, not between reality and the original map, as nobody has a 100% true copy of that.

Humans are not perfect, when trying to replicate a drawing while looking at it most people are not capable of making a 90% of what they are seeing. Also, when trying to remember something we saw several days before, specially something we never saw before, with no known references, we usually forget several details. With both of the above problems, how can we expect Betty's map to replicate truthfully the ET's map?

We can spend the rest of our lives trying to find matches between Betty's map and know stars, but that will never be proof that the ET's map (if true) showed those stars. In the same way, there's nothing that prevents ET's map from having shown whatever we choose to say it showed. In my opinion, while we can find matches with Betty's map, we can never know if we found a match to the original map or not.

originally posted by: ArMaP

I don't think ET's maps are different, what I have been saying is that we don't know how different (or not) Betty's map is from the original she (supposedly) saw.

I agree, the positions of the stars are the same regardless of who looks at them.

What I have been saying is that, as we are not looking at the original map, whatever matches we can find are always going to be between reality and Betty's map, not between reality and the original map, as nobody has a 100% true copy of that.

Betty's map is derived from an ET map that she saw in 1961. When M. Fish found her match she used the gliese tables which are epoch 1951.

It is reasonable to presume that a starcraft, or even ET shuttles would have very current stellar data. So, what Betty saw was probably epoch 1961 (or the equivalent thereof). So, some "distortions" between Betty's map and one that we would produce are expected due to "proper motion".

The tables I use are the Hipparcos mission data, and that is epoch 1991.

By the way, it was probably "proper motion" not being considered that lead to so many inaccurate statements about Betty's map.

I can regress Hipparcos 30 years, and that will be virtually identical to what Betty actually saw. However, to do that I will have to write software to manage the task, and, I'd probably only do it for "local" stars (regressing all 118k stars would be a rather large task, and I like my machine available). It would also take up to a couple of weeks. However, if it isn't going to help much I'd be less inclined to do that much work.

Humans are not perfect, when trying to replicate a drawing while looking at it most people are not capable of making a 90% of what they are seeing. Also, when trying to remember something we saw several days before, specially something we never saw before, with no known references, we usually forget several details. With both of the above problems, how can we expect Betty's map to replicate truthfully the ET's map?

Did you see the part of the analysis that dealt with "blob analysis"? Those basic shapes are rather easy to remember, and reproduce later. Further, they are shapes that will impress themselves rather quickly. So, I don't really see any issues with basic memory.

We can spend the rest of our lives trying to find matches between Betty's map and know stars, but that will never be proof that the ET's map (if true) showed those stars. In the same way, there's nothing that prevents ET's map from having shown whatever we choose to say it showed. In my opinion, while we can find matches with Betty's map, we can never know if we found a match to the original map or not.

Well, what can I say...for all practical purpose there is only one probable match, more than that are so improbable ( and increasingly so) that they may be considered impossible. Of course, that first match is virtually impossible as well.

I don't remember if I put this out before. The Planck Second (you should look that up) is a period of time so small that it is considered the smallest segment, or element, of time possible...in the existence of space-time there have not been enough Planck seconds to exhaust all the possibilities contained in Betty's map, IF an event per Planck Second removed, or solved, one(1) of those probabilities.

Anyway, its your opinion, and that's cool.

originally posted by: james1947
Did you see the part of the analysis that dealt with "blob analysis"? Those basic shapes are rather easy to remember, and reproduce later. Further, they are shapes that will impress themselves rather quickly. So, I don't really see any issues with basic memory.

Talking is easy, that's why I spoke about doing the test (looking at random points on a dark background and try to remember them several days after), to see how someone reacts to a somewhat similar situation and so we could get an idea of a probable error margin.

Anyway, its your opinion, and that's cool.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: james1947
Did you see the part of the analysis that dealt with "blob analysis"? Those basic shapes are rather easy to remember, and reproduce later. Further, they are shapes that will impress themselves rather quickly. So, I don't really see any issues with basic memory.

Talking is easy, that's why I spoke about doing the test (looking at random points on a dark background and try to remember them several days after), to see how someone reacts to a somewhat similar situation and so we could get an idea of a probable error margin.

Anyway, its your opinion, and that's cool.

Okay...

Firstly, I don't see how you little experiment is going to accomplish anything; at least not until we have performed that experiment on several hundred people at the minimum.

Second; remembering a bunch of "dots" isn't really the task at hand, and because of that it would be a waste of time. Now IF we put some lines connecting some of the dots, maybe, but still need hundreds to establish a base line.

Third; Its not necessary for the task of analyzing Betty's map. The error margin is not applicable in this instance. We are analyzing a known object, which is "fixed". We already know it is not accurate, but has to be a reasonable representation of actual stars in local space. We have established that is the case.

Finally; Just HOW would you apply your "error margin"? And, are you aware that "probabilistic modifiers" HAVE already been applied? Things like the quality of the match, you know that little 99.1% thing? And, after that we can apply the Blob analytics match quality and establish a range of probabilities. Unfortunately, the amount of probabilistic modification isn't going to help, as Betty's probability of coincidence won't be changed enough to make any significant difference.

a reply to: james1947

What I am trying to relay to you is that if a map was shown to Betty, it must have been a simplistic star and planetary map that she would be able to identify. Here is an analysis that fits into what I am trying to relay.

In their analysis of the "Leader's" presentation of the star map to Betty, they discerned that the "Leader" had obtained enough information to determine Betty's limited astrnomical knowledge; mostly about the planets in our own solar system. They then postulated that the "Leader" presented information to Betty in a frame of reference with which Betty should have been familiar. When Betty "failed the test" by not recognizing the location of Earth in the map, the "Leader" closed the map from view. Perhaps, Koch/Kyborg reasoned, it WAS OUR OWN SOLAR SYSTEM that Betty was shown. Wondering if the two small curved lines across the two large circles in the map foreground indicated the rings of Saturn and Jupiter, they used a computer to plot the positions of the various bodies of our solar system at the time of the Hill abduction. With some work, and one major assumption, they found a good match to the Hill Star Map within our own solar system. The "major assumption" to which we refer is that their best solution comes not on the day of the actual abduction but on a day about one month later during the nights that Betty Hill experienced nightmares of the abduction and saw the star map again in her dreams. These nightmares ocurred only once.

To us, the most suggestive detail is that the Koch/Kyborg solution accounts elegantly for a detail of the Hill Star Map that the Fish solution does not address: small central circle drawn with a thick line. The position of our sun coincides with this feature of the map in the proposed solution. This was discovered after the other correspondences were accounted for.

The researchers' logic is plausible, with the possible exception of the date and its rationale.

See what I am getting at? There is a small central circle drawn with a thick line in Betty's original map drawing. So, what do you think? Can you plot the map using that reference point as Earth?

www.sacred-texts.com...

a reply to: InTheLight

No.

The positions of the planets, and the moons of the the planets are only good for a short period of time. These positions, are given in an Ephemeris and are typically hourly.

One very serious problem with the Koch/Kyborg map is the fact that it includes one of Jupiter's moons, and several asteroids. I'm not even sure where to find ephemerial data on those bodies, and I have serious doubts about the original authors.

So with the Koch/Kyborg map we have a large problem with repeatability...basically if we can not reproduce the map, we can't verify it.

Also, it was originally stated that the "map" was of "stars and planets", Koch does not satisfy this.

originally posted by: james1947
Firstly, I don't see how you little experiment is going to accomplish anything; at least not until we have performed that experiment on several hundred people at the minimum.

The idea was not to accomplish any thing, it was only to get an idea of how an average (I suppose) person would perform in that task. I know that one person would hardly be representative of any thing, but one person would be better than zero.

Second; remembering a bunch of "dots" isn't really the task at hand, and because of that it would be a waste of time. Now IF we put some lines connecting some of the dots, maybe, but still need hundreds to establish a base line.

You're right, I forgot about the lines.

Third; Its not necessary for the task of analyzing Betty's map. The error margin is not applicable in this instance. We are analyzing a known object, which is "fixed". We already know it is not accurate, but has to be a reasonable representation of actual stars in local space. We have established that is the case.

We know it's not accurate but we don't know by how much. And you haven't established a thing, you just stated that as if it was proved.

Finally; Just HOW would you apply your "error margin"? And, are you aware that "probabilistic modifiers" HAVE already been applied? Things like the quality of the match, you know that little 99.1% thing?

Even if we accept that debatable 99.1% match, what does it mean if we don't know the accuracy of Betty's map? Suppose her map has only an accuracy of 50%, how can we find a match between the map she saw and a real star map?

We don't have all the data we need, so any work to try to find a match will always be just a guessing game.

Unfortunately, the amount of probabilistic modification isn't going to help, as Betty's probability of coincidence won't be changed enough to make any significant difference.

Sure, it doesn't change the probabilities of coincidence, but without knowing how accurate her map was those probabilities mean nothing to try to know what the map she saw looked like.