An analysis of the Betty Hill "star map"

originally posted by: miracle0year

The Map from Betty Hill, clearly says there is a "Missing Continent" or Land we haven't Found.

Ya know I'm not sure where to start with that load of BS...perhaps if you could provide some actual context. You know in the form of external links that support what you are saying. Like where does Betty or Barney relate the map to anything on Earth. Where do they mention a missing continent? How does the map "clearly say" there is a missing continent?

How does the map become a map of something on Earth when Betty very clearly says that it is a "star map"?

Could you provide some links?

By-the-way; the drawing you provided to represent Betty's "original", isn't the original...

originally posted by: miracle0year
This Locations are the High Mountains, however, the more important issue is, this are general locations for missing pieces of "Flight 370" which was found ................ the more important argument is the "Missing Continent or MU" the lost paradise. [...]

The Map from Betty Hill, clearly says there is a "Missing Continent" or Land we haven't Found.

Finally, somebody with a reasonable explanation.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: miracle0year
This Locations are the High Mountains, however, the more important issue is, this are general locations for missing pieces of "Flight 370" which was found ................ the more important argument is the "Missing Continent or MU" the lost paradise. [...]

The Map from Betty Hill, clearly says there is a "Missing Continent" or Land we haven't Found.

Finally, somebody with a reasonable explanation.

Nail on head

Recently I had the opportunity to discuss the Mathematics I used in my analysis with an Applied Physicist. He pointed out that I over looked an important aspect of probability as it applies here.

I had originally calculated the probability for our 25 stars that would result in the probability of a permutation, and that is incorrect. The correct probabilities are to found only if this problem is viewed as a "collection" of stars. And, that probability is many orders of magnitude different...making the probability of "random" (which is what some of y'all require for your hypotheses to work) much more likely...by 30 orders of magnitude!

We need to find the probability of this as a random event. As we have a collection of 25 out of 2826 stars our probability is:

C(n,r)=n!/r!(n-r)!
p1=1/C(n,r)

Where:
C(n,r) Number of combinations of r objects out of n.
p1 Probability of a match.
n Number of objects to select from.
r Number of objects selected.

This probability is however a bit out of context, we need to find the probability that at least one (1) match might be found. That probability is:

p=1-(1-p1)^(C(n,r))

Where:
p is the probability of finding at least 1 match.
p1 is our probability from above.
C(n,r) is the number of combinations.

C = ‭1.1026076447105967557166786340039e+61‬
‭p1 = ‭9.0694092753408366473070162288531e-62‬
n = 2826
r = 25‬‬‬‬‬‬
P = 0.0E0

This indicates that we should have no expectation of a match between any collection of 25 “dots” and actual stars.
So our estimated a probability is p1 = 9.0694e-62

Still; Vanishingly small.

While our discussion came to a stand still; with him believing that there "should" be at least one match, and old school Mathematics disagreeing with him. He pointed out that to properly perform the math here would require 62 digits of precision, and he is, for the most part, absolutely correct.

He used a math tool called Mathematicia, which allows for arbitrary precision, and he set his calculations for 100 digits.

The problem with his analysis is the fact that he relied way too much on his technology, I suppose that is the new normal for the young...he just got his PhD.

Anyway, MPFR (Multi-Precision Floating point Routines) have some very serious issues when the precision gets 'large'. In tests I have performed the current MPFR libraries begin to break down right around 63-64 digits. This break down invalidates the results obtained by our Physicist. And, in fact, IF the math is done manually, the results are what I've shown above.

Simply stated, this new bit of information / mathematics, while showing that my original calculations were wrong, actually supports my conclusions.

originally posted by: james1947

originally posted by: miracle0year

The Map from Betty Hill, clearly says there is a "Missing Continent" or Land we haven't Found.

Ya know I'm not sure where to start with that load of BS...perhaps if you could provide some actual context. You know in the form of external links that support what you are saying. Like where does Betty or Barney relate the map to anything on Earth. Where do they mention a missing continent? How does the map "clearly say" there is a missing continent?

How does the map become a map of something on Earth when Betty very clearly says that it is a "star map"?

Could you provide some links?

By-the-way; the drawing you provided to represent Betty's "original", isn't the original...

The argument is worthless because the Hills were not abducted, there's no evidence just hearsay.

Wikipedia: Simon's conclusions
After the hypnosis sessions, Simon speculated that Barney's recollection of the UFO encounter was possibly a fantasy inspired by Betty's dreams. Simon thought it was the most reasonable and consistent explanation. Barney rejected this idea, noting that while their memories were consistent in some regards, there were also portions of both their narratives that were unique to each. Barney was now ready to accept that they had been abducted by the occupants of a UFO, though he never embraced it as fully as Betty did.

Though the Hills and Simon disagreed about the nature of the case, they all concurred that the hypnosis sessions were effective: the Hills were no longer tormented by anxiety about their experience.

Afterwards, Simon wrote an article about the Hills for the journal Psychiatric Opinion, explaining his conclusions that the case was a singular psychological aberration.[27]

Ditto for Travis Walton, he knew where fame and fortune lay.

a reply to: Hunkadinka

That's some interesting pseudo skepticism

No facts just pure faith that it didn't happen! Kind of a contradiction in terms no doubt.
Each part destroys the other scientifically, like a palindrome of fail!

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: Hunkadinka

That's some interesting pseudo skepticism

No facts just pure faith that it didn't happen! Kind of a contradiction in terms no doubt.
Each part destroys the other scientifically, like a palindrome of fail!

There's no time for mumbo-jumbo. It's pure skepticism. No facts? A famous and trusted psychiatrist and you, in so many words, say he's lying? YOU prove it happened. Supply evidence which proves it happened. You won't 'cause you're a believer and believers cannot supply evidence contrary to their beliefs. Read up, seriously, on the Hill's and you'll go home with your tail between your legs.

originally posted by: Hunkadinka

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: Hunkadinka

That's some interesting pseudo skepticism

No facts just pure faith that it didn't happen! Kind of a contradiction in terms no doubt.
Each part destroys the other scientifically, like a palindrome of fail!

There's no time for mumbo-jumbo. It's pure skepticism. No facts? A famous and trusted psychiatrist and you, in so many words, say he's lying? YOU prove it happened. Supply evidence which proves it happened. You won't 'cause you're a believer and believers cannot supply evidence contrary to their beliefs. Read up, seriously, on the Hill's and you'll go home with your tail between your legs.

Perhaps it is you who should "read up"! But I guess that's partially my bad...I didn't give you a link to the actual evidence (but then it is all through this thread).

Evidence:
wolfmagick.com...

And, there is a bit of "physical" evidence, though, I'm kind of sure you need it to be a "random event" / coincidence. That would be Betty's wee map. The bit I just posted was the Math that shows that Betty's map IS NOT coincidence.

The FACT that there are 4 stars "predicted" by Betty's map virtually PROVES that its source is Extraterrestrial.

Now, IF you can, show me (where so many others have failed) just how does Betty's psychology affect the Astrometrics, Mathematics, and other, more verifiable, modes of science?

originally posted by: james1947

originally posted by: Hunkadinka

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: Hunkadinka

That's some interesting pseudo skepticism

No facts just pure faith that it didn't happen! Kind of a contradiction in terms no doubt.
Each part destroys the other scientifically, like a palindrome of fail!

There's no time for mumbo-jumbo. It's pure skepticism. No facts? A famous and trusted psychiatrist and you, in so many words, say he's lying? YOU prove it happened. Supply evidence which proves it happened. You won't 'cause you're a believer and believers cannot supply evidence contrary to their beliefs. Read up, seriously, on the Hill's and you'll go home with your tail between your legs.

Perhaps it is you who should "read up"! But I guess that's partially my bad...I didn't give you a link to the actual evidence (but then it is all through this thread).

Evidence:
wolfmagick.com...

And, there is a bit of "physical" evidence, though, I'm kind of sure you need it to be a "random event" / coincidence. That would be Betty's wee map. The bit I just posted was the Math that shows that Betty's map IS NOT coincidence.

The FACT that there are 4 stars "predicted" by Betty's map virtually PROVES that its source is Extraterrestrial.

Now, IF you can, show me (where so many others have failed) just how does Betty's psychology affect the Astrometrics, Mathematics, and other, more verifiable, modes of science?

I am still wondering why the aliens would bother showing Betty a map at all when she indicated she had no knowledge of Earth's constellations. It is all very mixed up.

originally posted by: InTheLight

I am still wondering why the aliens would bother showing Betty a map at all

Perhaps they were lost and simply asking for directions to their home planet.

Actually it's not as crass and ridiculous as it sounds - I'm sure it's a universal problem for all species.

Except for salmon.

In any case, I'm sure James has a healthy sense of humour beyond the complex mathematics.

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit

originally posted by: InTheLight

I am still wondering why the aliens would bother showing Betty a map at all

Perhaps they were lost and simply asking for directions to their home planet.

Actually it's not as crass and ridiculous as it sounds - I'm sure it's a universal problem for all species.

Except for salmon.

In any case, I'm sure James has a healthy sense of humour beyond the complex mathematics.

I see your sense of humour is "to infinity...and beyond".

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit
Perhaps they were lost and simply asking for directions to their home planet.

They should have downloaded a copy of the Stellarium app. The whole notion of them using the equivalent of a gas station map to navigate between stars is pretty hilarious to begin with. I could easily see it as a projection of some kind from Betty, who was probably the map reader and navigator during her and Barney's trip through the winding roads of New Hampshire.

Alien: "Which way is Zeta Reticuli?"
Local: "Yah cahn't get theya from here."

originally posted by: james1947

originally posted by: Hunkadinka

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: Hunkadinka

That's some interesting pseudo skepticism

No facts just pure faith that it didn't happen! Kind of a contradiction in terms no doubt.
Each part destroys the other scientifically, like a palindrome of fail!

There's no time for mumbo-jumbo. It's pure skepticism. No facts? A famous and trusted psychiatrist and you, in so many words, say he's lying? YOU prove it happened. Supply evidence which proves it happened. You won't 'cause you're a believer and believers cannot supply evidence contrary to their beliefs. Read up, seriously, on the Hill's and you'll go home with your tail between your legs.

Perhaps it is you who should "read up"! But I guess that's partially my bad...I didn't give you a link to the actual evidence (but then it is all through this thread).

Evidence:
wolfmagick.com...

And, there is a bit of "physical" evidence, though, I'm kind of sure you need it to be a "random event" / coincidence. That would be Betty's wee map. The bit I just posted was the Math that shows that Betty's map IS NOT coincidence.

The FACT that there are 4 stars "predicted" by Betty's map virtually PROVES that its source is Extraterrestrial.

Now, IF you can, show me (where so many others have failed) just how does Betty's psychology affect the Astrometrics, Mathematics, and other, more verifiable, modes of science?

Been there, done that. No serious researcher accepts the Hill's (primarily Betty) tale. This case has been through the wringer and your beliefs are the opposite of reality. The case and you are not worth my time to try to educate you. Maybe someday you'll see the light at the end of the Hill tunnel.

originally posted by: Hunkadinka
Maybe someday you'll see the light at the end of the Hill tunnel.

Oh, that's not going to happen with our boy here. He's on a mission. Abducted by the map and statistical analysis.

originally posted by: Hunkadinka

originally posted by: james1947

originally posted by: Hunkadinka

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: Hunkadinka

That's some interesting pseudo skepticism

No facts just pure faith that it didn't happen! Kind of a contradiction in terms no doubt.
Each part destroys the other scientifically, like a palindrome of fail!

There's no time for mumbo-jumbo. It's pure skepticism. No facts? A famous and trusted psychiatrist and you, in so many words, say he's lying? YOU prove it happened. Supply evidence which proves it happened. You won't 'cause you're a believer and believers cannot supply evidence contrary to their beliefs. Read up, seriously, on the Hill's and you'll go home with your tail between your legs.

Perhaps it is you who should "read up"! But I guess that's partially my bad...I didn't give you a link to the actual evidence (but then it is all through this thread).

Evidence:
wolfmagick.com...

And, there is a bit of "physical" evidence, though, I'm kind of sure you need it to be a "random event" / coincidence. That would be Betty's wee map. The bit I just posted was the Math that shows that Betty's map IS NOT coincidence.

The FACT that there are 4 stars "predicted" by Betty's map virtually PROVES that its source is Extraterrestrial.

Now, IF you can, show me (where so many others have failed) just how does Betty's psychology affect the Astrometrics, Mathematics, and other, more verifiable, modes of science?

Been there, done that. No serious researcher accepts the Hill's (primarily Betty) tale. This case has been through the wringer and your beliefs are the opposite of reality. The case and you are not worth my time to try to educate you. Maybe someday you'll see the light at the end of the Hill tunnel.

Well actually, Hunka, you haven't. You have not shown any methods for how the astrometrics, mathematics, physics, have been affected by any of Betty's story.

For your hypothesis to work Betty's map absolutely must be a coincidence. And, I've shown that is rather simply not the case. I'm guessing the sheer magnitude of the numbers involves scare you and make your brain hurt. But, fact is face even if it is mathematical...sorry.

As you can clearly see above (in the math I just posted) the probability of Betty's map being a match to any group of 25 stars is so small that "vanishing small" is a gross understatement...a probability like that is a virtual impossibility!

Yet, you, and some others here will attempt to argue against something without ever looking into the hypothesis presented. You attack it like it was an invading alien and you had to protect Humanity from ... an hypothesis!

Instead of arguing that you don't have the time to educate me, why don't you take the time to educate yourself; read the damn white paper...and please don't say yo have, I have logs. (almost no one has read it)

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Hunkadinka
Maybe someday you'll see the light at the end of the Hill tunnel.

Oh, that's not going to happen with our boy here. He's on a mission. Abducted by the map and statistical analysis.

Actually, no, I'm not on a "mission". You simply have decided I am; therefore, I am?

You have misunderstood this whole thing from the beginning. All I have done here is post an hypothesis along with some evidence that I thing gives enough support to elevate my hypothesis to the status of theory. Like any good researcher, I update these findings; you know as new information or process becomes available.

With these new posts, all I was really doing is admitting an error, and presenting the new/revised mathematics. Yet, again, you misunderstand.

Like I said to Hunkadinka; you should read the white paper.