Unexplained Mysteries uses cookies. By using the site you consent to our use of cookies as per our Cookie Policy.
Close X
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.

# Where are YOU on this map ?

## Recommended Posts

(Will this ever get through, do you think, dear reader?)

Somehow I do doubt that it will..

• 1

##### Share on other sites

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 by DieChecker
• 1

##### Share on other sites

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?

##### Share on other sites

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?

##### Share on other sites

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..

##### Share on other sites

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,

##### Share on other sites

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.

##### Share on other sites

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..

##### Share on other sites

FTR, I do plan to continue this, but right now.. I'm really busy dealing with a very happy event!

##### Share on other sites

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:

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?

Use: by identifier

Hint: Use the HR or HD Number to validate their respective RA and Dec

Charles: Your astronomy science is an embarrassment

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.

Charles one more time This is the coordinates for 61 Ursa Major

Steve

##### Share on other sites

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

##### Share on other sites

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..