DingoLingo Posted September 4, 2013 #76 Share Posted September 4, 2013 (Will this ever get through, do you think, dear reader?) Somehow I do doubt that it will.. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted September 5, 2013 #77 Share Posted September 5, 2013 (edited) RE: I'm a Rogue Scholar Yes and No--some could be several hundred years in advance-- while others could be millions of years in advance of our own. You might read some of Dr. Kaku's essays on this.. Would you suspect that visitors to Earth who had a star map that had 5 "established" star routes and 7 "expeditions" to be hundreds, or millions of years ahead of us? Even if they are traveling at 1% of lightspeed, they very likely could have mapped Betty's Map in just a couple thousand years. If they have FTL then they are very poor explorers/mappers. If humans had FTL, we'd have a map with hundreds of thousands of lines and dotted lines on it, not just 12 lines. When Betty asked him to explain what the lines indicated, he told her that the broken lines were expeditions to other worlds. Edited September 5, 2013 by DieChecker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted September 5, 2013 #78 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Once again this link shows the triangle: Triangle Aim point RA: 12h 26m 32s Dec: +35°14'59" Which triangle does that match to? Isn't the assumption that one of those "Expedition" worlds is Earth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted September 7, 2013 #79 Share Posted September 7, 2013 SO, let's look at what Steve is claiming shall we? Step by step, and showing the actual images that he claims is a 'match'... Here's the image from his link: and here's Betty's star map: Any questions so far? I'd like that to just sink in for while, and then I'll start showing how a REAL investigator would use REAL science and maths to determine whether or not there is any 'match'... Feel free to jump in anytime to correct my statements/logic, Steve, or to show how YOU have done it before I do.... Although one should ask - why has Steve been so shy about doing this properly? The answer shall be revealed in good time.. Hint - the next step in this stage of the process will be to remove the extraneous details in those images and concentrate on the actual geometry. At the same time I'll be pointing out some assumptions and background information.. And I'll also show how one might apply the concepts of CONTROLs, FALSIFIABILITY, the NULL HYPOTHESIS, etc... You know the sort of stuff, Steve, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted September 16, 2013 #80 Share Posted September 16, 2013 Next, we remove the extraneous lines, so just the positions and sizes (do the sizes = magnitude/intensity or size or importance? more about that later..) are showing and we can try to align/match them.. (To do this, I simply erased the connecting lines, and then filled in all the objects - that can be verified by anyone with a basic image editor. One of the things a GENUINE researcher does, is to show the process in a step-by-step fashion and to give full instructions/documentation so anyone can verify/repeat the process. Non-genuine researchers simply tell you there is a match and don't show how they arrived at that conclusion, nor explain what they did to ensure there was no confirmation bias.) The next step, and this could be rather tricky , is to try to interpret Steve's comments about how/where this matches the real starmap he posted. I'm having a bit of trouble following his logic and lining the objects up, but I shall do my best and then post an overlay. After that, perhaps we'll try some control images (some with completely random blobs, some using Betty's image in a different way), and talk about how to do this meaningfully and in a way that is not disputable. Steve is, of course, welcome to return anytime to clarify his stance and correct my methodology... PS, sorry this is so drawn out, but I think it's important to do it properly, and verfiably... and I have lots of other stuff to do right now.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badeskov Posted September 16, 2013 #81 Share Posted September 16, 2013 Next, we remove the extraneous lines, so just the positions and sizes (do the sizes = magnitude/intensity or size or importance? more about that later..) are showing and we can try to align/match them.. (To do this, I simply erased the connecting lines, and then filled in all the objects - that can be verified by anyone with a basic image editor. One of the things a GENUINE researcher does, is to show the process in a step-by-step fashion and to give full instructions/documentation so anyone can verify/repeat the process. Non-genuine researchers simply tell you there is a match and don't show how they arrived at that conclusion, nor explain what they did to ensure there was no confirmation bias.) The next step, and this could be rather tricky , is to try to interpret Steve's comments about how/where this matches the real starmap he posted. I'm having a bit of trouble following his logic and lining the objects up, but I shall do my best and then post an overlay. After that, perhaps we'll try some control images (some with completely random blobs, some using Betty's image in a different way), and talk about how to do this meaningfully and in a way that is not disputable. Steve is, of course, welcome to return anytime to clarify his stance and correct my methodology... PS, sorry this is so drawn out, but I think it's important to do it properly, and verfiably... and I have lots of other stuff to do right now.. Chrlzs, It is great work and I truly enjoy it, but I feel you are preaching to the choir, so to speak, as I doubt we will see anyone believing the veracity of said map to join in. In addition, in my honest opinion to begin matching it to anything without a proper assessment of accuracy and angle is an exercise in futility. Cheers, Badeskov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted September 16, 2013 #82 Share Posted September 16, 2013 Hi, Bade - yes, you are probably right. I'm not sure who I'm talking to.. but maybe, just maybe, Steve (or any other budding new article writers) might think a bit before posting any old stuff here at UM in the future, and be prepared to not only do the required homework beforehand, but also to support and defend one's claims. I think it is good for the soul to admit when wrong or out of your depth... but will that happen here..? I doubt it, but live in hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DingoLingo Posted September 18, 2013 #83 Share Posted September 18, 2013 your talking to me Chrlz mate I think Steve has kinda realised he has lost the argument you know.. tail between the legs kind of deal.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted September 19, 2013 #84 Share Posted September 19, 2013 FTR, I do plan to continue this, but right now.. I'm really busy dealing with a very happy event! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve3951 Posted September 27, 2013 #85 Share Posted September 27, 2013 9/24/13 Charles, Thanks for posting the image of the triangle-but what you forgot to mention is the coordinates and your confirmation that it is directly under the Big Dipper-which is all part of the step by step process that I was trying to show you. The triangle is a nearly perfect isosceles triangle and Betty Hill’s hand drawn image of this integral feature of the star map is very good. You have now observed and helped establish empirical evidence that it is real. Charles the only thing you have established is the fact that you don’t want to listen. This is astronomy and the math of Astronomy is the coordinates on the celestial sphere. This was just the start (you know step by step)—so don’t get ahead of yourself. You can triangulate this asterism as observed from Earth. The triangle was discovered by the investigation of an anecdotal story. Your claim that the triangle is just meaningless dots is refuted. I don’t have the time to tutor you in astronomy-so I suggest that you join an astronomy club in your area. Dear reader: Will this ever get through to Charles that he needs to use astronomical criteria? Charles for the last time you need to understand that the science of astronomy uses the astrological coordinates of the Celestial Sphere, and not the crap you are posting. SO, let's look at what Steve is claiming shall we? Step by step, and showing the actual images that he claims is a 'match'. How about using Carl Sagan’s own words. 1974:As Sagan also said “The argument rests on how well the maps agree and the significance of the comparison.” Posted 07 September 2013: Here's the image from his link: Yes please do: Charles can you identify the top star in this triangle and the direction that it’s pointing? and compare Betty Hill's to the one you have been shown The image is strictly about the three stars of the triangle listed below and the orientation. Please note that Betty Hill drew it pointing directly UP-just like it is. Charles: Where is this triangle? How many times have I said: Charles you need to use the SIMBAD Astronomical Database? http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/ Use: by identifier Hint: Use the HR or HD Number to validate their respective RA and Dec Charles: Your astronomy science is an embarrassment Suggest you read both http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/celestial/celestial.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_sphere This is detailed information on the asterism that forms this triangle as viewed from Earth. Position #13: (Triangle star) Constellation: Coma Berenices Hemisphere: Northern Map Position: Bottom right position of triangle formation HR 4668 HD 106760 HIP 59856 BD: +33 2213 RA: 12h 16m 30.14s Dec: +33° 3' 41.5″ Spectral Type: K0.5IIIb Distance: 94 pc (306.58 light years) ========================================== Position #14: (Triangle Star) Constellation: Canes Venatici Hemisphere: Northern Star name: SAO63070 BD: +34 2332 HIP: 61309 HR 4783 HD 109317 Map Position:(Bottom left of triangle formation) Distance: 82 pc (Soubiran+2008) Vmag: 5.42 (Bobylev+2006) RA: 12h 33m 38.92s (Skiff 2007) Dec: +33° 14' 51.3″ (Charles this is higher) Spectral Type: K0IIICN (Bobylev+ 2006) Visual Companion above left side is HD 109345. See map. RA: 12h 33m 47.42s Dec:+33° 23' 4.8″ ========================================================== Position #15: 6 CVn (Triangle Star) Constellation: Canes Venatici Hemisphere: Northern Map Position: Top of Triangle HR 4728 HD 108225 RA: 12h 25m 50.93s Dec:+39° 01' 07.0″ (Skiff 2007) VMag: 5.01 (Bobylev+2006) Distance: 228.2 light years (70 pc) (Soubiran+2008) Spectral Type: G8III-IV (Bobylev+2006) ====================================================== Dimensions of triangle: Height: 6° Difference in Right Ascension between # 13 and # 14: 11m 10s The star directly to the right of the triangle is 61 Ursa Major http://www.solstation.com/stars/61uma.htm Any questions so far? Here’s one: When are you going to start using the appropriate astronimical criteria? You know that fuzzy math stuff called Right Ascension and Declination. See link’s above professor! I'd like to really have this sink into Charles’ confused brain for while, and then I'll start showing how a REAL investigator would use REAL astronomical science and maths to determine whether or not there is a good match as shown by using images from the Hubble telescope used around the world-which includes Australia. Feel free to jump in anytime to correct my statements/logic, Steve, or to show how YOU have done it before I do.(WOW-Done)... Although one should ask - why has Charles been so lame about doing this properly? Charles’figjam answer has now been revealed. Obviously because I'm talking to other people that understand astronomy far better than you Charles. OMG: Charles do you not understand that they are light years apart? And that they are real stars precisely mapped out to the celestial Sphere that all astronomers use? Do yourself a favor-go buy Norton’s star map atlas http://www.skymaps.com/store/cat01.html#nortons Do you not look at your own links? YOU are claiming a match. SHOW THE MATCH. (Done) CharlesàDo you need glasses? Charles: Why are you so afraid to use the two state of the art interactive telescopes provided? Charles: I'm having a bit of trouble following his logic (da?) 1. Charles please look at the link that you posted again on September 7, 2013 2- Oh Charles---can you see any other stars to the right of the triangle???? 3. Look at the three medium sized stars (ignore the small ones)-the three that slant down to the right on the image you posted. Charles the math (RA and DEC.) is proof enough) 4. The third star to the right is 61 Ursa Major-- you know like-- 1-2-then 61 Ursa Major (Note: the RA is lower to the right) Charles’s nonsense: It does NOT I repeat NOT show the match with the Betty map. Your rants are incredible! Do you not look at your own links? YOU are claiming a match. SHOW THE MATCH. Settle down Buddy-this is a step by step process trying to make you understand that 61 Ursa Major appears directly to the right of the triangle-How many times do I need to tell you? Charles we have confirmed visually that a Spectral type G8V star is to the right of the triangle 31 light years away. The triangle is real and it blows your contention that it’s just random meaningless dots that don’t represent real stars. 5. Please Post the image from the article with the stars that I have identified-so you can understand that this is a step by step process to validate the existence of real stars that could harbor a habitable planet -like 61 Ursa Major. Once again: Charles you really need to join an astronomy club in your area because I don’t have the time to tutor you in astronomy, but I’m happy to hear that you have had a child. Steve Charles: The triangle is on the left, and the telescope is interactive-meaning that you can zoom in and out to have 61 Ursa Major appear dead center-so yes this segment does match Betty Hill's star map. Aim point RA: 11h 41m 3s Dec: +34°12'5" Charles one more time This is the coordinates for 61 Ursa Major Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve3951 Posted September 28, 2013 #86 Share Posted September 28, 2013 Hi DieChecker Re: Once again this link shows the triangle: Triangle Aim point RA: 12h 26m 32s Dec: +35°14'59" Which triangle does that match to? Isn't the assumption that one of those "Expedition" worlds is Earth? (No) I believe that this is the actual triangle that was shown to Betty Hill on the 3-D star map that she drew in 1964 Were you able read the article that I wrote? See article This triangle was accidently discovered after checking out an anecdotal story of a experiencer couple who also by the way lived in Portland, Oregon in 1993. Our Sun is the lower of the two large nickel sized stars-you just have to add 8 planets in orbit around our sun that was blown up to get her attention. The heavy black lines between them represent the dimension of depth as they warp space time to our world. The vantage point to see everything else is from our perspective-such as the triangle that Charles down in Australia has just posted. There are 24 time zones and the Hill-Wilson star map ranges from 9 hours to 16 hours Right Ascension. The images are from the Hubble telescope and they are used around the world by all astronomers-amatuer and professional. 0 Right Ascension starts at Greenwich, England-and goes like clock time. Right Ascension goes by hour-minutes and seconds. The triangle is just one of the pieces--and Ursa Major plays a significant role because its the center of the star map. Aim point RA: 11h 41m 3s Dec: +34°12'5" Finding a star that could by current scientific theory host a habitable planet was the acid test that eventually lead to the discovery that the star map was genuine as more of the pieces fell into place. Please note that the Right Ascension goes higher to the left and lower to the right-which is why there home world is at the 10 hour mark. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted October 1, 2013 #87 Share Posted October 1, 2013 Steve, seriously??? Would you mind cutting the ridiculously lengthy waffle and actually pointing out the alleged MATCH? If it's all too hard, at least just number a few stars or somethin'... Here - let me help... Here's an animated GIF (stare at it for a few seconds and note what happens, folks..): Now, can everyone see how it shows NO MATCH? Well, now Steve will fix it up and show the alleged match. I mean, the source images are up there for him - he *must* know how to do this sort of stuff... So, Get to it, Steve - you show the match and then I'll move on to the mathematics and geometry and we'll see how it compares to, say, a random image or three. You must know how to do that, otherwise you are basing your claims on absolutely nothing (which might explain the waffling..) Take your time, and please do it properly, because learned eyes are watching.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted February 17, 2021 #88 Share Posted February 17, 2021 And Steve was never heard from again... Such a shame... prolly abducted by aliens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Hammerclaw Posted February 18, 2021 #89 Share Posted February 18, 2021 Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted March 1, 2021 #90 Share Posted March 1, 2021 On 6/24/2013 at 7:54 AM, slaughtr said: All you skeptic folks I hope someday an alien ship comes and zaps your ass up and let's see if defending an article matters you say some of the most dumbest bull I've ever heard. I'm not a skeptic, per se, I just don't understand why more proof isn't available after all these years. Back in the early 70s I was living in Mobile, Alabama and there were several sightings that made the news. The one in Pascagoula, MS was the most famous. https://www.roadsideamerica.com/tip/72120 The only personal experience I've had was when a cousin of mine and her son - about 6-years-old at the time - spotted what I guess you'd call a grey. She was a new mom and her son told her he'd seen the thing and took her back to where it happened. She saw it as well but didn't approach it. Somewhere, there is old video from local news interviewing her. No reason not to believe her. She was a serious, quiet kind of person and there's no way she'd have made something like that up for attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted March 2, 2021 #91 Share Posted March 2, 2021 (edited) On 3/1/2021 at 5:58 PM, and then said: I'm not a skeptic, per se, I just don't understand why more proof isn't available after all these years. Hmmm. Did you think about all the possible explanations? Hint, no you haven't. Honestly, you don't get it? Do you need think music, maybe? Ok, I'm here to help. First up, you are surely aware that we, as a global population are becoming smarter (perhaps only slightly in the US...), more scientifically literate, more aware of the limitations of perception, more understanding of psychology (and psychotropic drugs, alcohol..), and.. more willing to do pretty much anything for 15 minutes of virality / fame...? Yes or no? I'll be back after that sinks in, and move onto the next important aspect that, it seems, you haven't thought of.. Edited March 2, 2021 by ChrLzs 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted March 7, 2021 #92 Share Posted March 7, 2021 (edited) On 3/2/2021 at 6:51 PM, ChrLzs said: Hmmm. Did you think about all the possible explanations? Hint, no you haven't. Honestly, you don't get it? Do you need think music, maybe? Ok, I'm here to help. First up, you are surely aware that we, as a global population are becoming smarter (perhaps only slightly in the US...), more scientifically literate, more aware of the limitations of perception, more understanding of psychology (and psychotropic drugs, alcohol..), and.. more willing to do pretty much anything for 15 minutes of virality / fame...? Yes or no? I'll be back after that sinks in, and move onto the next important aspect that, it seems, you haven't thought of.. That's strange - where did 'and then' go? Gee, I hope he's ok. Fighting with reality like he does constantly can put a lot of strain on the brain. Anyway, the other aspect is the astonishing increases in sky surveillance that we have seen over the last decade in particular... And I don't just mean that almost every mobile phone being sold now has a pretty capable camera*... the cost of good quality cameras (like the Sony DSLR I have with me at almost all times) has also come down significantly. Very affordable astronomy and sky survey camera systems are also so cheap that almost every amateur has a decent setup. In most suburban areas within 15 km you'll porbably have a dozen or so really excellent backyard setups.. Not to mention the dramatic improvements in both the quality and quantity of commerical and military aviation monitoring and tracking systems. Not to mention the ... (ditto) .... of security cameras, street/traffic cameras, and of course dashcams. Not to mention that every day sees the quality of these systems improve. And of course nowadays we also have a plethora of things in the sky that haven't been there in great numbers before, eg private, commercial and military drones. So .. everyone seems to agree that the number of interesting reports is, if anything, dropping - certainly all the genuine ones are resolved or resolvable, and of course those nearer to the UFO can probably easily see what it is. I know it's a long shot , but that just could, perhaps, be why we never see closeups... Anyways, I'm sure 'and then' knew all this - he was just testing if *you*, dear reader, also knew... * that camera quality is of course lost if you don't take the few minutes required to learn how to use it properly.... Edited March 7, 2021 by ChrLzs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now