An analysis of the Betty Hill "star map"

That configuration" being the one on Betty's map, the only one we have seen.

As long as you do not understand that you are working with the wrong data you will always be fooling yourself.

So if someone shows me a rough sketch of roads to take from NYC to LA, and then I try to later recreate the map, how do I know if I got it right? Looking at a 3rd map from Garmin with all the roads would let us verify.

What if the 3rd map doesn't match up at all? Then it's all bogus. But if it happens to match up exactly, you think it's all worthless because we don't have the original map?

The key here is no back in Betty's day had this data available to them to create the map, but we do have that 3rd map with all the roads to verify if there is anything to it.

originally posted by: ArMaP

No, that result is from Betty's map, not from the original.

Yes, ArMaP, it is, but, after all we are trying to verify Betty's drawing are we not?

"That configuration" being the one on Betty's map, the only one we have seen.

As long as you do not understand that you are working with the wrong data you will always be fooling yourself.

Unfortunately ArMap, you do not understand that I am working with precisely the right data for this analysis. We are trying to see if Betty's map has any correlation to real world stars, and I have proven that.

I have demonstrated that Betty's drawing is a very close match to real stars within 33 parsec when viewed from HIP-26737. I have shown that with the selection of stars defined by Betty's map it is very logical that it might be what it is claimed to be.

And, just what "original" are you talking about? ET's original map display? I though we had agreed that ET's maps were identical with ours.

Seriously man, your lack of understanding is getting frustrating...

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
So if someone shows me a rough sketch of roads to take from NYC to LA, and then I try to later recreate the map, how do I know if I got it right? Looking at a 3rd map from Garmin with all the roads would let us verify.

Yes, but that is not the case with Betty's map, as Betty isn't posting on this thread, saying that james1947's result is what she saw, and Betty was the only person that could do that.

originally posted by: james1947
Yes, ArMaP, it is, but, after all we are trying to verify Betty's drawing are we not?

Yes, but what I am saying is that, regardless of any match between Betty's and a real map we don't know how close a match was Betty's map when compared to ET's map.

Unfortunately ArMap, you do not understand that I am working with precisely the right data for this analysis. We are trying to see if Betty's map has any correlation to real world stars, and I have proven that.

I have demonstrated that Betty's drawing is a very close match to real stars within 33 parsec when viewed from HIP-26737. I have shown that with the selection of stars defined by Betty's map it is very logical that it might be what it is claimed to be.

If we accept your results (which I haven't) then I agree, Betty's map matches real stars, but we still don't know how close her map was to ET's map.

And, just what "original" are you talking about? ET's original map display? I though we had agreed that ET's maps were identical with ours.

Yes, ET's original map, what else could it be?
And yes, the stars they see are the same we see, but that doesn't mean their maps are the same as ours, as we don't know what rules they follow to make their maps.

Seriously man, your lack of understanding is getting frustrating...

I do understand what you have been saying, you are the one that appears not to understand what I have been saying, that the fact that the stars are the same doesn't mean that the (debatable) fact that we found a match to Betty's map means that Betty's map was a match to ET's map.

PS: I don't know a thing about star maps, so, a question: on Earth maps we usually draw them with north at the top of the representation, how are star maps drawn, with a kind of "galactic north" at the top?

originally posted by: ArMaP

Yes, but what I am saying is that, regardless of any match between Betty's and a real map we don't know how close a match was Betty's map when compared to ET's map.

So...now ET's map isn't real?

Look man, you have already stated that ET's maps are the same as those of Terrestrial science, so...how is it that you can not accept the reality before you?

If we accept your results (which I haven't) then I agree, Betty's map matches real stars, but we still don't know how close her map was to ET's map.

And that, ArMap is what the analysis was about, determining the "accuracy" or quality of match between Betty's map and reality i.e. "how close is Betty's match". We determined that...

Yes, ET's original map, what else could it be?
And yes, the stars they see are the same we see, but that doesn't mean their maps are the same as ours, as we don't know what rules they follow to make their maps.

Yes, I know, ArMaP, it is possible that ET has a map of stars out to 500 parsec, and doesn't have the location of any of them, or anything other than "oooh shiny". Do you understand just how ludicrous that notion is?

There are certain elements of ET's maps, that must necessarily intersect with ours. Those elements would be all of the astrometrics that Earth has ever collected, unless of course you really think that a space faring species is that stupid...I don't, isn't logical.

PS: I don't know a thing about star maps, so, a question: on Earth maps we usually draw them with north at the top of the representation, how are star maps drawn, with a kind of "galactic north" at the top?

Well, land maps are 2D, in that all that is needed to get from point "A" to point "B" is a single direction; say 34 degrees North, if there is a second parameter it will be distance. In space we have to navigate in 3D so we have a sort of "compass heading" not unlike 34 degrees (Astronomers call this Right Ascension), and then a "declination", and finally a distance.

So, we don't really have a North, South, etc. per se. just something like: "114 mark 15, Mr. Zulu".

originally posted by: james1947
So...now ET's map isn't real?

When did I say that? Stop implying I said things I never said.

And that, ArMap is what the analysis was about, determining the "accuracy" or quality of match between Betty's map and reality i.e. "how close is Betty's match". We determined that...

The only thing we can determine is the quality of the match between Betty's map and a real star map, we cannot determine a thing about a map we haven't seen.

Yes, I know, ArMaP, it is possible that ET has a map of stars out to 500 parsec, and doesn't have the location of any of them, or anything other than "oooh shiny". Do you understand just how ludicrous that notion is?

What you said is ridiculous, what I was thinking is not.

Well, land maps are 2D, in that all that is needed to get from point "A" to point "B" is a single direction; say 34 degrees North, if there is a second parameter it will be distance. In space we have to navigate in 3D so we have a sort of "compass heading" not unlike 34 degrees (Astronomers call this Right Ascension), and then a "declination", and finally a distance.

You haven't really answered my question. On the map you posted on page 1, why are the stars on those position and not rotated 180º, for example?

Why does your map look like this


and not like this?

a reply to: ArMaP

If the ET mapping of this particular part of the sky was not recorded on Earth in 1961 (that we know of) then:
Why was this star group selected and revealed to Betty but no-one else?
Odds are that the missing star data was known to be unavailable because there had been an alien investigation into the publicly available star charts from that period.
There must be other abductees that could corroborate Betty's story.

originally posted by: Slichter
If the ET mapping of this particular part of the sky was not recorded on Earth in 1961 (that we know of) then:
Why was this star group selected and revealed to Betty but no-one else?

I don't know ET's reasons and I don't know if Betty was the only person to see that map.

Odds are that the missing star data was known to be unavailable because there had been an alien investigation into the publicly available star charts from that period.

Those are only assumptions.

There must be other abductees that could corroborate Betty's story.

Maybe, maybe not. The fact is that nobody on this thread appears to have any other references.

One correction: when I say I think ET's maps are the same as ours I mean to say that they have the same stars on them, not that they are made according to the same conventions.

originally posted by: ArMaP

When did I say that? Stop implying I said things I never said.

From your post above:

Yes, but what I am saying is that, regardless of any match between Betty's and a real map we don't know how close a match was Betty's map when compared to ET's map.

That kind of implies that ET's map isn't real.

You haven't really answered my question. On the map you posted on page 1, why are the stars on those position and not rotated 180º, for example?

Why does your map look like this

and not like this?

Because of camera, or view orientation; your camera is upside-down. And, the first image is the same orientation as Betty's.

One correction: when I say I think ET's maps are the same as ours I mean to say that they have the same stars on them, not that they are made according to the same conventions.

As I stated above; there are certain elements of stellar astrometrics that will necessarily be common between ET's maps and ours. These are things like "Right Ascension", "Declination", "Distance" probably in the form of "Parallax", Stellar Class, and several others. These are elements that ET will develop long before he leaves his home world, and they are required for interstellar travel. Now, I am also very sure that ET's "maps" are far more complete than ours, but in those essentials that are the same. So, we can be sure that if I build a "star map" using my astrometrics, and if ET built a map of the same stars; they would look the same. Though, I think ET's "display" would be far cooler than one I can build, but then, I don't have ET's graphic library. Building those star maps only requires "right Ascension", "Declination", and "distance". Stellar class tells us what kind of star is there.

originally posted by: james1947
That kind of implies that ET's map isn't real.

That was not my intention.

Because of camera, or view orientation; your camera is upside-down. And, the first image is the same orientation as Betty's.

On a map there's no "camera orientation", right?

These are things like "Right Ascension", "Declination", "Distance" probably in the form of "Parallax", Stellar Class, and several others.

How is "declination" defined on star maps made on Earth?

originally posted by: ArMaP
On a map there's no "camera orientation", right?

I don't know, can you look at a map upside-down?

How is "declination" defined on star maps made on Earth?

the angular distance of a point north or south of the celestial equator.

www.merriam-webster.com...

Or as some might say; "up and down."

originally posted by: james1947

the angular distance of a point north or south of the celestial equator.

www.merriam-webster.com...

Or as some might say; "up and down."

And what is the definition of "celestial equator"?

a reply to: ArMaP

Fairly common error to put film slides in backwards and/or upside down.
Then the memorization issue is resolved for remembering the map.
600 years ago some people were doing the same thing from memory though.
We really don't know if Barney and Betty were "chosen" to be abducted.
My intuition tells me there was an attempt to make Earth a more hospitable planet by abducting key individuals beginning back in the late 1950's.
In my experience they were targeting young children, at 3-7 Y/O the ego is still very flexible and there is a thirst for knowledge.
Same stories shared by other abductees of isolation,quarantine and "testing".
Similar Training techniques including Time travel/point of departure/revisionist history analysis.
Carl Sagan died of cancer and pneumonia from pot use, but he was an adult during that period.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: james1947

the angular distance of a point north or south of the celestial equator.

www.merriam-webster.com...

Or as some might say; "up and down."

And what is the definition of "celestial equator"?

The celestial equator is a great circle on the imaginary celestial sphere, in the same plane as the Earth's equator. In other words, it is a projection of the terrestrial equator out into space. As a result of the Earth's axial tilt, the celestial equator is inclined by 23.4° with respect to the ecliptic plane.

-- en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: ArMaP

If we accept your results (which I haven't) then I agree, Betty's map matches real stars, but we still don't know how close her map was to ET's map.

It doesn't matter, if the story went they projected the map into her brain, it's still the same problem. Does the map represent something unique in modern star maps?

If she came up with something unique that represents a system of stars from a perspective she had 0 chance of knowing about, then the story she got it from aliens is practically academic. How could I draw an accurate road map from NYC to LA as a foreigner if I had never lived in the US or seen a map of it?

How unique is Betty's map? Definitely debatable.

a reply to: james1947

Thanks, that's what I thought it was.

Doesn't that mean that the star maps we use are a representation of how we see the stars from our own planet?

If ETs use a similar method, wouldn't that mean that their maps have a celestial equator that is a projection of their own planet's equator?

So, if their planet has a completely different axial tilt or if they use a different method (for example, using the orbit plane of their planet as the basis for their celestial equator) their maps, although showing the same stars, would show them in a different way, with some tilt when compared with star maps made on Earth, so this

could bee something like this

on an Earth-based map.

This and not knowing what's the accuracy of Betty's map are the main reasons I have been saying that we do not have enough data to say for sure that what Betty saw is this or that.

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
It doesn't matter, if the story went they projected the map into her brain, it's still the same problem. Does the map represent something unique in modern star maps?

It matters if we are trying to find what she was shown based on her map, and that's the topic of this thread.

a reply to: ArMaP

My conjecture is that the original map was an "in house" sort of secret thing.
Was there ever an autopsy of either Barney or Betty to look for implants?
Not sure what purpose this thread even serves anymore, anyone else sense the wrath from an alien ghost?



Which begs the question:
Was Betty related to "Rosemary Hill"?

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: james1947

Thanks, that's what I thought it was.

Doesn't that mean that the star maps we use are a representation of how we see the stars from our own planet?

If ETs use a similar method, wouldn't that mean that their maps have a celestial equator that is a projection of their own planet's equator?

So, if their planet has a completely different axial tilt or if they use a different method (for example, using the orbit plane of their planet as the basis for their celestial equator) their maps, although showing the same stars, would show them in a different way, with some tilt when compared with star maps made on Earth, so this

Well actually ArMap, the images you provided for this are incorrect, as they show a rotation of the camera, and not a difference in Axial Tilt. but, that's okay since Axial Tilt has nothing to do with it. eta: you are showing a change in "roll", not a change in "pitch". Axial tilt is "pitch".

So...now Trigonometry is wrong? I spent all those years learning Mathematics only to find out, in a most inappropriate way, that what I was taught is BS?

Ya know I don't think so...

Yea, ArMaP, ET will have different numbers in his data tables, that SHOULD be expected, and, IF ET doesn't have different numbers, then something is seriously wrong.

But, you see it doesn't matter, since ET is at a different location in space, so the "origin" of ET's map are probably his home star, just like with Terrestrials. And, all of the math is based on that.

If I want to "see" (literally) what the stars look like form ET's home world, I can move a camera there and take a look. AND, if necessary rotate my view until it is the same as ET's, and still preserve the integrity of the Galaxy. Oh, and I will get to see exactly what ET sees, all while using OUR numbers for a star map. The reason is that ET's star map, must necessarily be identical to ours, save for the origin.

Oh, and "axial tilt" in some instances is a constant (known as a "CONST") that is used in some, not all, computations. But, is unused in our computations.

You seem determined to attempt to dissemble this until nothing remains. But, your "argumentum ad nauseam" is getting old, and accomplishes little...