The Hill Star Map and Exoplanets

reply to post by whitelam10


How long would it take us do you think to reach these great post

I just recently read that book "Captured!" by Stanton Friedman, an allegedly "good" book about the Hill case.
Of course, I knew about the Hill case for many years already, it's THE classic UFO abduction case.

"Captured!" did NOT convince me in the slightest. There would a be a lot to write now as to why.

To me it became even more clear that Betty was a witness with very poor observational skills, sometimes even getting fundamental things wrong in her observations. At times, her and Barney's account even differ in simple things like who actually walked the dog or other very basic things about their memory recollections.

I can, NOT IN A MILLION YEARS, imagine that Betty Hill then "all of a sudden" and in this instance only had such a phenomenal photographic memory that she was able to recall a star map and then draw it 100% accurately. There is no fricking way on Earth. Most of the other things she recalls are vague and subjective, makes me question her capability as a witness what they experienced on that day as a whole.

Funny thing is, even Friedman at some point admitted that Betty's capability as a witness is mediocre at best.

I therefore have to reject the "star map" and the "research" done with it.

Thanks for this thread OP I'm about to digress a little off topic.

It is quite amazing and unexplainable how an average couple (especially Betty) can have such vivid and bizarre memories of things that wouldn't at all serve a purpose if her objective was to punk the world!

I had the pleasure not only to meet Betty in 2002 but speak with her briefly ---- and I walked away with a profound consideration.

I don't believe Mrs Hill was a liar. Not at all. Nor do I think most of the famous folks (Travis, Jim/Jack Weiner etc) associated with this phenomenon are either.

So I ask: how is it Betty, an average social worker from New Hampshire, was able to memorize almost verbatim, a star map that wasn't part of our present day knowledge?
Or how was she able to describe the details of amniocentesis even before it was ever heard of (but now used all the time in risky pregnancies)?

That's when I thought, perhaps some of us get stuck in some vortex and are reliving past (and/or future) experiences. It may be as simple as that complex thought!

We can easily accept that we are all star-dust, right? In fact, we sing song about that so...is it really that much of a stretch to consider we're the biological creation of some earlier race that evolved first?

I don't believe for a minute that this life is all we were created for. Not this blink of reality. It defies quantum and spiritual logic.
I believe with every fiber of my being, we've been here for billions of years and experience 'life' in different vibrations/dimensions and stages.

So can these experiences be flash-backs of some past life of ours being re-lived sporadically and without warning, during this life time?
I sincerely believe that that might be what's going on here because the conventional explanations leave too many stone unturned.

Originally posted by flexy123
I can, NOT IN A MILLION YEARS, imagine that Betty Hill then "all of a sudden" and in this instance only had such a phenomenal photographic memory that she was able to recall a star map and then draw it 100% accurately. There is no fricking way on Earth. Most of the other things she recalls are vague and subjective, makes me question her capability as a witness what they experienced on that day as a whole.

I once had a car accident with another car that ran away. A serious crash though no one was injured.

I tell wou what, I am unable to identify that other car. There were 3 other persons with me in the car, and we all 4 had a different opinion on what make/model it was, and even the color.

I clearly remember many other details though, like my clothes or the fact that a refrigerated meat truck was parked on the left side of the road a few dozens of meter ahead of me. That was in 1996.

Memory is not something easy to understand. And there is absolutely nothing against having discrepancies in different people's accounts of the same events. Sometimes, it is not that, that matters.

reply to post by TeslaandLyne


No, I'm sorry to tell you but your ignorance and blatant attempt to claim that your "Tesla ship" conspiracy as actual fact and explanation behind the UFO phenomenon will be called out for what it is, none factual fiction without a shred of evidence in favor of such a conspiracy, especially when dealing with the incidents like this one.

By your statements in this thread the Hill's are liars who perpetrated not only a fraud with the American people but with all kinds of other agencies as well during the investigation into this incident. According to your "Tesla ship" fantasy every single UFO encounter, abduction, government documentation secret and none secret and thousands upon thousands of eye witness testimony has all been "made up".

Anyone who has read the mounds of endless documentation regarding these craft and this phenomenon knows better than to claim these UFO's are the work of one man who's so called overnight "engineering" completely defies everything that we know about physics.

Originally posted by Jocko Flocko
reply to post by TeslaandLyne

 

...are the work of one man who's so called overnight "engineering" completely defies everything that we know about physics.

edit on 8-1-2013 by Jocko Flocko because: (no reason given)

That's what Edison claimed when he learned of Tesla's brushless dynamo and Alternating Current. It was beyond his understanding, and in direct competition with his brushed Direct current power system.

Some are threatened by that which they do not understand.....and it takes time to be adopted, time and experimentation. I wouldn't cast off all doubt based only on that assessment of our current knowledge of physics.

We will know more tomorrow than today, but less than we will the day after.

reply to post by Krakatoa


Prove it, show me a working model and the mathematics behind such a propulsion system. Until I actually see such "anti-gravity" Tesla technology at work, the "Tesla ship" story holds no more water than other theories relating to the UFO phenomenon.

The first thing that come to my mind about such "star map"... Really? There are billions of stars in the sky... If you draw a bunch of random dots in a paper, the chance you get a similar star position is almost 100%. Don't matter where you put your dots, you can find one if you look in a astronomical map.

Is anyone still interested in this?

I may be new to ATS but I have been researching the Hill/Fish map for a number of years. As an astronomy student I've also kept up with most of the latest developments in exoplanet/exomoon research and astrobiology in general as they are subjects of great interest.

This thread was a good start but sort of went off topic a little bit.

I'd prefer to stay focused strictly on the astrobiology and exoplanet research related to the Hill/Fish map. I am not interested in other interpretations of the map nor getting into discussions of the abduction phenomena, the Hills etc.

My focus is narrow for the simple reason that I've found new, recent information from the field of planetary evolution and astrobiology as well as some other related fields which seems to bolster the Hill/Fish interpretation of the star map.

Like I said I'm new to ATS but I try to be very thorough in my research and I provide a lot of links and graphics. An example of a small bit of my research in another area (the Grey World of advanced propulsion physics and how it interfaces with UFO research) which I posted as part of a Q&A with George Knapp here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Let me know if you're interested.

blackcube
The first thing that come to my mind about such "star map"... Really? There are billions of stars in the sky... If you draw a bunch of random dots in a paper, the chance you get a similar star position is almost 100%. Don't matter where you put your dots, you can find one if you look in a astronomical map.

That was Carl Sagan's argument in the 1970s and restated in his Demon Haunted World book in the 1990s.

It sounds simple enough but is incorrect. It made sense in the 1970s when we knew of no exoplanets and even in 1997 when we only knew of only a handful (all "Hot Jupiters and not habitable) but not in a post-Kepler 2013.

The stars on Marjorie Fish's interpretation of the Hill map share some very interesting non-random qualities in common which have a direct bearing on why Betty's abductors might have wanted to visit them vs other nearby stars not on the map.

I can go more into this if you want.

I tend to think that if it was a real map, then it was kind of like the GPS maps we have these days, where they constantly change to show you where you are. They didn't have that kind of technology in Betty Hill's day. Maps you got at the gas station didn't shift perpective. But now it's common. So my guess is that the biggest dot is Earth. The second biggest dot is the Moon. From there various other lines of travel might go to other planets, asteroids, stargates, wormholes, or wherever. Trying to come up with a configuration of stars that match won't really get you anywhere.

Jocko Flocko
This is one of the better cases in Ufology and will take a much better pseudo-debunking attempt than you just made.

There's nothing to debunk here. It's just a story. It's more fantastical than most "I saw a light in the night sky" stories, but I don't know if that makes it any "better." There have been attempts to come up with some physical evidence to verify it, but none have succeeded.

What I find most interesting is how it and the Marjorie Fish interpretation of the map spawned an entire minor industry of "Zeta" alien fanaticism, which has come to include stereotypical grey-type aliens, which the Hills clearly never described.

reply to post by Unity_99

I've been told a few times that earth is in a pretty compromised or bad locale. Its in different routes, in lower frequency space.

Just curious, but who told you that??

reply to post by JadeStar

The stars on Marjorie Fish's interpretation of the Hill map share some very interesting non-random qualities in common which have a direct bearing on why Betty's abductors might have wanted to visit them vs other nearby stars not on the map.

I can go more into this if you want.

Please do.

I would really like to see your research & analysis of the map as it sounds like you've come up with some very interesting info.

Look forward to seeing the results of your work.

reply to post by Riffrafter


Thanks. I wanted to make sure there was enough interest to see if it was worth putting the time into writing some Celestia scripts to record a short video which illustrates the data.

I find it easier for people to understand when they can visualize the data rather than just look at numbers on a screen (though I will provide those as well).

I hope to post all of this by this weekend. In the meantime there is some precursor knowledge that puts my research into context which I will post between now and this weekend.

Yes, JadeStar, I'd like to see the results of your research, too. I see that the single known planet of 54 Piscium is a 'hot Jupiter'. Gliese 86's one known planet is also a near-in Jovian type of planet.
It's interesting to speculate about terrestrial planets in such systems. It's been thought that 'hot Jupiters' migrate inward from the colder parts of their stellar systems, and would tend to engulf terrestrial planets in the process, disrupt their orbits, or eject them from the system entirely.
I also see that Zeta 1 and Zeta 2 Reticuli were both known long before the Hill star map was drawn, though this fact very probably wasn't known to Betty Hill. This system has a distant debris disk, which suggests the possibility of planets, though none are presently known.
The age of the Zeta Reticuli system is an interesting problem. There are contradictory signs that point to ages both substantially less, and greater than our Sun's. Its motion through space seems to identify it with a group of aged stars, yet observations of the magnetic activity of its chromosphere seems to suggest an age of only about 2 billion years.
I've wondered if this just might be a case of an old, inhabited star system, in which a star nearing the end of its life has been rejuvenated by technological mixing of the layers of the star so as to make the remaining hydrogen fuel accessible.

I too have been working with the Hill map recently. The "view" that Betty had wasn't from Earth, and perhaps not even near by.

The view and map are as unique as the stars it represents. I have built a 3D model of the "Reticuli Stars" and am in the process of validating it. From what I've produced so far; the Hill map is 100% real, and a fair representation of the stars around Zeta Reticuli.

Ross 54
Yes, JadeStar, I'd like to see the results of your research, too. I see that the single known planet of 54 Piscium is a 'hot Jupiter'.

Gliese 86's one known planet is also a near-in Jovian type of planet.
It's interesting to speculate about terrestrial planets in such systems. It's been thought that 'hot Jupiters' migrate inward from the colder parts of their stellar systems, and would tend to engulf terrestrial planets in the process, disrupt their orbits, or eject them from the system entirely.

Regarding 54 Piscium: It's more like a 'hot Saturn" (it's mass is about 20% that of Jupiter's). Your point is still valid though I'd caution that there is no one accepted planetary migration theory but several, some which make it less likely that terrestrial planets would be ejected entirely. In almost all models some terrestrial planets remain. Even in the model of our Solar System's formation there were terrestrial sized planets ejected. We're still here.

There is also much debate as to how quickly migration happens. Some computer models show that it is a fairly quick process (which would mean that the terrestrial planets left behind in such a system would spend the majority of their time untouched). In short a line from the excellent Exoplanets book by Sara Seager (perhaps the top exoplanet researcher at the moment):

"Improvements to computer capabilities and codes should allow simulations to be carried out with higher resolution over longer timescales. Progress will also be made by including more physical effects. For example most simulations have made only the simplest assumptions about the thermal properties of the (accretion) disk."

In other words there's a lot of work to be done in this area before a widely accepted model that produces hot massive planets is accepted to be the most valid.

Even with "warm Jupiters" or "Warm Saturns" there exists the very real possibility of habitable moons (ie Avatar or Endor from the world of sci-fi).


Regarding Gliese 86 this following is interesting.... "further analysis suggests the Hipparcos measurements are not precise enough to reliably determine astrometric orbits of substellar companions, thus the orbital inclination and true mass of the candidate planet remain unknown." So we're not sure that the mass of it's planet is as big as initially thought. But more will become known when the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) launches (assuming it does) or when bigger ground based telescopes come online. One interesting thing about Gliese 86 is that it's companion "was discovered in 2001 and initially suspected to be a brown dwarf, but high contrast observations in 2005 suggested that the object is probably a white dwarf, as its spectrum does not exhibit molecular absorption features which are typical of brown dwarfs." However the object does not seem to have the mass of a white dwarf so its a bit of a mystery object. What has the mass of a brown dwarf but the spectral characteristics of a white dwarf? Nevertheless it's 18 AU from Gliese 86 so roughly out as far as Uranus is from our Sun. If a system of terrestrial planets exists closer in then there would be very little bearing on them, unless of course it turns out to be a white dwarf after all. It's a very interesting system regardless of what it turns out to be.

I also see that Zeta 1 and Zeta 2 Reticuli were both known long before the Hill star map was drawn, though this fact very probably wasn't known to Betty Hill. This system has a distant debris disk, which suggests the possibility of planets, though none are presently known.

Correct. The only thing that has been ruled out in the case of Zeta Ret. are "Hot Jupiters" and "Hot Saturns". The reason is because the star system is a southern hemisphere star and has been studied far less by exoplanet hunters because most of the large telescopes are in the Northern Hemisphere. Again, TESS and other instruments should soon solve this (assuming its on the observation lists).

The age of the Zeta Reticuli system is an interesting problem. There are contradictory signs that point to ages both substantially less, and greater than our Sun's. Its motion through space seems to identify it with a group of aged stars, yet observations of the magnetic activity of its chromosphere seems to suggest an age of only about 2 billion years.

It's pretty well accepted at this point that that the stars are between 6 and 8 billion years old compared to our sun's 4.5 billion years. The magnetic activity is interesting and could point to some interesting lines of speculation such as....

"I've wondered if this just might be a case of an old, inhabited star system, in which a star nearing the end of its life has been rejuvenated by technological mixing of the layers of the star so as to make the remaining hydrogen fuel accessible.

A very interesting possibility. I've wondered too if it might not be the result of some astro engineering project either to prolong the life of the stars or to harness further energy from them. There's probably a more prosaic explanation for the anomaly since we still don't know a lot about our own sun much less these stars but I think they should be closely examined spectroscopically, which they will eventually.

One of the things that has me excited is this project by Avi Loeb (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics) and Princeton’s Edwin Turner which would aim to look for the lights of alien cities:

www.centauri-dreams.org...

If you’re looking for a new tactic for SETI, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, Avi Loeb (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics) and Princeton’s Edwin Turner may be able to supply it. The duo are studying how we might find other civilizations by spotting the lights of their cities.

That is a different project from another interesting one which would look for energy usage by ETs around nearby stars using a very big ground based telescope called Colossus which would be entirely privately funded.

Here are a couple of videos about it:





I'm hoping to finish this Celestia scripting code in the next day or so to present a pretty good case not only for the non-randomness of the Hill-Fish map but also for several things which may have both motivated the beings who allegedly abducted the Hills to come here in the first place as well as the observation that what lies just beyond the end of some of those lines on the map are equally interesting.

When laid out in 3D the map takes on a definite "Direction of Migration/Exploration" patterns similar to that of ants when they go to form a new anthill.

There are also some very valid environmental/astrobiological reasons for the description of their appearance based on the statistical survey Kepler has done of habitable planets.

It seems that the two Zeta Reticuli stars are notably, and unaccountably low in beryllium for main sequence stars. I wonder if this could be evidence in support of some sort of astro-engineering project to prolong the life of the stars. I read that convective and overshoot mixing in stars can reduce beryllium abundance. Perhaps some technological mixing process aimed at making hydrogen more accessible for fusion could deplete beryllium as a side effect.

Blue Shift
So my guess is that the biggest dot is Earth. The second biggest dot is the Moon.

The biggest "dots" are the Zeta Reticuli stars. Our sun is in the upper right corner: