The Betty Hill Starmap - New insight

very good thread. i actually got into a friendly argument @ work today with a co-worker about possible life on other planets. he believed that we are alone in the universe. my point was that there are billions of galaxies containing billions of stars and planets within them. so we are talking trillions upon trillions of planets. to me the numbers just dont add up. we barley(or at least thats we are told) know about our own solar system let alone our galaxy to even say for sure one way or another about other life forms. my opinion is that we arent alone. now how alien life plays a part in our lives is something i havent decided yet.

Nice post dude i learnt alot just from reading the information you submitted. In my culture my people followed the stars for navigation, for planting food at a particular time and even for having babys LOL. thanks..

Great thread.

Thank god some good posters are finally breathing some life back into this forum.

I vote for this topic to be stickied to the top! All those in favor?

reply to post by fooffstarr


In favor? AYE!

Originally posted by nablator
- The solar system at the time of the "abduction" is a better match than the stars proposed by Marjorie Fish: www.kochkyborg.de...

It may be a better match, but judging by their image they used the wrong date, the abduction was on September (9), not October (10), as we can see on the top left of their image.



And Celestia does not show anything like that for 19-09-1961.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7d82688fd1d1.jpg[/atsimg]

PS: sorry for the Portuguese names.

Great OP... S&F! I also vote Aye for stickying this thread...I'm still picking through the reference links provided. Thanks for bringing this back up again I have to agree that the possibility of Betty Hill reproducing this through some chicanery is remote at best.

Yes I've seen those theories of drawing lines in the solar system. As a matter of fact it is difficult to deny that what those people are trying to impose is at least as correct as the rest. Now, where I cast a cloud of doubt, when you pick the particular arrangement that those people use to justify the lines and the starmap, that is definitely a preferred moment in time map of the solar system.

If we have to assume (yes, it's an assumption) that stellar travellers have offered a human person to view a map, that's certainly not the kind of map i'd have offered. Keep me honest, (I'm from Belgium) when I drive to France, Spain or Germany, and when I want to ask a local where I am, I don't show them a map of the neighbouring villages. If I was to travel stars I would not show the locals where I land a map of their place.

In particular, it's certainly easy (as per reference) to pick a particular planet configuration and draw lines. It's not that easy to make those lines match a 50ly panorama of stars (all invisible, or nearly, to the naked eye) where all of them are in "the vicinity" of each other, particularly where they would define a logical "flight path".

Once again, I'm calling to the people common sense: what is the chance? I have more chance winning the lottery. I actually have even more chance winning all the lotteries on earth on a given Friday than picking at random those dots on a white sheet of paper.

[Edit:]
2 not nice typos

[edit on 12-4-2009 by SpookyVince]

reply to post by SpookyVince


I would have to agree with you.

I could draw random dots on a paper, and you could possibly find it to correspond with stars in the sky somewhere, somehow.

However, it is a VAST leap in coincidence to think that those star could actually be of what is considered a "habitable system".

Had her map been able to correlate to just random stars, this would be something that is much more "iffy" than the reality that the map correlates to stars that are very Sol-like.

Guys, I heard this whole map thing is questionable because (allegedly) Betty saw this chart hanging on the wall which was very similar to hers?

Added additional text due to the stupid forum policy....

reply to post by ArMaP

Well spotted my friend! Anyway my theory is that with enough dots that you are allowed to ignore, you can match any set of random dots to any type of stars or planets.

reply to post by nablator


For nablator and ArMap.....

All respect, but as regards the Betty Hill 'map'...do we know yet what POV we're talking about here?

We must consider the three dimensions of space....the 'memory' of Betty Hill was of a representation of an image....she had no way to know WHERE the vantage point was.

I hope this makes sense, to nablator and ArMap....

IF you take one star as the focal point, the 'hub'....then you have an infinite number of views as you move around in three dimensions.

Think of it as how to draw....how do you draw a cube (a three dimensional object) on a paper (a two dimensional plane)? Well, we know how, with the use of perspective.

Does this make any sense??

Originally posted by nablator
reply to post by ArMaP

 

Well spotted my friend! Anyway my theory is that with enough dots that you are allowed to ignore, you can match any set of random dots to any type of stars or planets.

I must disagree.

This is exactly where I come to disagree with those theories that it is supposedly easy to get those dots on paper with any desired pattern. Let's suppose at first that we agree that the drawing made by Betty Hill is indeed what she is supposed to have been showed. This is indeed the first condition to state what you stated. If you didn't believe that what she drew was that starmap, the whole discussion is dismissed.

So, let's say then that indeed she drew a starmap that she had been showed. You bluntly say that picking desired stars in a set is easy enough to get a satisfying match.

Excuse me, but I have to say no to that. I know full and well that people including Carl Sagan have used that reason to "explain" the map. I must say that Carl Sagan is (was) an astronomer of great value, however I have not been agreeing with everything that he said. Let me develop.

You pretend then that by picking the desired stars, you'd be able to produce a 3D model that would match that one that Betty is supposed to have been showed. This is at best optimistic. I defy any person to build a 3D model of all stars in the 50ly+ vicinity of the earth and to spot a location from where the perspective would give the same "dots on a sheet" with different stars. Even knowing that 80% or so of the whole stars are not what they're supposed to be, i.e. similar to the sun.

The excuse used by Sagan and others to dismiss that starmap is merely that: an excuse. None have tried to produce that 3D model to prove their assumptions. None have shown that Ms Fish has been misleaded into getting the wrong stars and/or the wrong perspective. None have done that. What people have done is that they've been using an excuse as a reason to dismiss it. Because they didn't like the idea.

I have searched the web and more. There is (up to now at least) no 3D stellar map system that allows one to be positioned "on the other side of zeta reticuli" from here, and see those stars labeled on that map in that perspective. Moreover, there are countless other stars that would be "polluting" the view if indeed it could be done, because once again, 80% nearly of all the stars are close to, M class or fainter even.

Nevertheless, even with the necessary tools, it would take an amazing time to properly produce a 3D map of those stars mentioned in that map, simply ignoring the rest. Why? Because those stars are just like many more others in the rest of the sky: unremarkable! Why were they all plotted there? The question seems to be alien (hum...) to some, but to me it is fairly clear that they had a reason to be there on the map.

Again, coincidence? All right, trust me, I'm gonna win the lottery next week. You don't believe me? Well, you'd better do! Because that's more likely than producing such a map out of chance...

[edit on 12-4-2009 by SpookyVince]

reply to post by SpookyVince


That is well said, and is why I'm trying to ascertain what was the POV.

I mean.....we can only observe (so far) from our perspective and view the sky from our limited position of observation....

IF you have a properly encoded program to (hopefully) be able to skew around and see the different POV (points of view).

This MUST be seen as more than just thinking in two dimensions....it requires a thinking of at least three dimensions....and probably more, but thatis best left to other threads....because, they are hard to understand....

reply to post by weedwhacker


That is why I used Celestia, it allows us to see the stars and planets from any position, so I used it to see how things would look at that date from "behind" Saturn, to see if those people from the site for which Nablator posted the link were right.

I haven't looked to match the map with any stars or point of view, I was just comparing that other theory because it was easier to do.

Springer,

Please delete your post or take some of your points away. As you may have heard, single sentence posts are against the rules. Please observe these rules as they were put in place for a reason. You are now under double-secret probation.

So let it be written, so let it be done.

This is truy a stellar thread. This is just what was needed to corroborate the Betty star map, and after reviewing your research, I am far more inclined into believing it is genuine than I was before. S&F.

reply to post by ArMaP


ArMap....I acknowledge and respect all of your contributions to this site.

I also acknowledge the incredible ability you have to read and understand English, even though it is not your 'first' language...

You are a completative thinker....there is no doubt.

Using your intellect...and thinking in at least three dimenions....there MUST be a perspective view in order to make the Betty Hill 'starmap' comport to observed stellar patterns.

It is really about the the POV, isn't it? The 'Map' as displayed to Betty Hill was only seen from one perspective....it is useless WITHOUT a reference point of the observer!!!!

Again, we are talking about a huge area of Space.....

reply to post by weedwhacker


So whacker...are you agreeing or disagreeing with the authenticity of the hill map?


As far as Sagan goes he was like any other scientist today,they don't want to believe there is something out of their control and knowledge.

EDIT to add:Gawd...why can't my thread be this civilized!lol

[edit on 4/12/2009 by jkrog08]

reply to post by jkrog08


JK....I think that what BETTY HILL saw, or more importantly, what she was shown....was a perspective of a particular grojup of stars.


I see the link to the star identified as 'Sol'....

ALL I am saying is....we have NO IDEA from what BETTY HILL saw.....we have no origin......we have no point in space....it is ludricous to assume that the view of the 'star' patterns was from the earth's perspective.

I would HOPE that the beings who answered Betty's question showed her a view BASED on the perspective as viewed from Earth...but, given the time involved (the eqrly 1960s), THEY probably felt confident in providing that info that was likely not going to be made public, in any case...

reply to post by weedwhacker


I don't think it would matter what perspective.........................those stars order don't change,yes from some views they would seem different,but don't you think a race that has FTL has a cpu that can compensate for what planet they are on?Also did you get my u2u?