Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Bot

Where are YOU on this map ?

87 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Steve3951

Re: Comments by Chrizs AKA Psychic Spy Posts June 21 and June 24,2013

Steve Pearse here....

My apologies to one and all for the late entry to your forum. Throughout life we wear many different hats and my plate has been very full lately--so your comments about my failure to respond to your Psychic Spy persona comments is just rubbish. If that was your best shot-you have missed the dart board. So Yes, I'm here in your backyard to defend the article. For more information you can refer to my web site:

www.hillwilsonstarmap.net/

Re: And may I suggest that the 'story' might be a little more accurately reported if, instead of restating claims as if they actually happened, you make it clear they are claims. For example, sentences like this (of which there are many):

"Betty and Barney Hill started having nightmares"

FYI: I have been researching this Extraterrestrial Hypothesis case for over 12 years, and my comments in the article are a reflection of the advanced stage of my personal research into this matter via direct dialog with Betty Hill's niece Kathleen Marden and others for over 6 years. For your information Betty Hill passed a polygraph test adminstered by a well known attorney F. Lee Bailey. Nevertheless I do take note of your nitpicking. For your information, which is in John Fuller's book-there was physical evidence on the back of their car.

Re your comments: Unless, of course, you have an extreme case of confirmation bias or "I-believe-everything-I-hear" disease...

I suspect I know why...

That of course would be dependent on the topic of conversation, and in this case its called academic research. I have yet to see any signs that you have any real depth of knowledge or understanding about the article that I wrote, so in the end your flippant remarks have no value beyond trash talk.

Re: I suspect I know why...

Well please enlighten me Chrisz....

As far as defending my theory--stay tuned for further developments as i address other crazy comments posted here...

See Rogue Scholar entry...June 24th.

On the plus side, if this is all the map these aliens have made, they can't be exceptionally more technically advanced then us. Maybe only a couple hundred years.

P.S. The estimated age of the universe is 13.7 Billion years, half of the stars are over 10 Billion years old, and its been discovered that planets are ubiquitous (numerous) throughout the cosmos. Dan Wirtheimer at SETI believes that the age of first contact with an alien civilization will be at least billion years. Millions of years is more likely...

Steve

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov

Re: Comments by Chrizs AKA Psychic Spy Posts June 21 and June 24,2013

Steve Pearse here....

My apologies to one and all for the late entry to your forum. Throughout life we wear many different hats and my plate has been very full lately--so your comments about my failure to respond to your Psychic Spy persona comments is just rubbish. If that was your best shot-you have missed the dart board. So Yes, I'm here in your backyard to defend the article. For more information you can refer to my web site:

www.hillwilsonstarmap.net/

Re: And may I suggest that the 'story' might be a little more accurately reported if, instead of restating claims as if they actually happened, you make it clear they are claims. For example, sentences like this (of which there are many):

"Betty and Barney Hill started having nightmares"

FYI: I have been researching this Extraterrestrial Hypothesis case for over 12 years, and my comments in the article are a reflection of the advanced stage of my personal research into this matter via direct dialog with Betty Hill's niece Kathleen Marden and others for over 6 years.

And some of us has been at it for longer than 12 years. So what?

For your information Betty Hill passed a polygraph test adminstered by a well known attorney F. Lee Bailey. Nevertheless I do take note of your nitpicking.

Anybody can pass a polygraph if they actually believe what they state. That doesn't mean that it is true, though.

For your information, which is in John Fuller's book-there was physical evidence on the back of their car.

Utter nonsense, but please do elaborate on what physical evidence that might be, with some references to a scientific analysis.

Re your comments: Unless, of course, you have an extreme case of confirmation bias or "I-believe-everything-I-hear" disease...

I suspect I know why...

That of course would be dependent on the topic of conversation, and in this case its called academic research. I have yet to see any signs that you have any real depth of knowledge or understanding about the article that I wrote, so in the end your flippant remarks have no value beyond trash talk.

Re: I suspect I know why...

Well please enlighten me Chrisz....

As far as defending my theory--stay tuned for further developments as i address other crazy comments posted here...

See Rogue Scholar entry...June 24th.

On the plus side, if this is all the map these aliens have made, they can't be exceptionally more technically advanced then us. Maybe only a couple hundred years.

Right, and you truly believe that? 2 dimensional maps to navigate in a 3 dimensional space?

P.S. The estimated age of the universe is 13.7 Billion years, half of the stars are over 10 Billion years old, and its been discovered that planets are ubiquitous (numerous) throughout the cosmos. Dan Wirtheimer at SETI believes that the age of first contact with an alien civilization will be at least billion years. Millions of years is more likely...

Steve

We all know that, but that does not mean that ET has the ability to travel here let alone visit us.

Cheers,

Badeskov

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

Re: Comments by Chrizs AKA Psychic Spy Posts June 21 and June 24,2013

Who is Chrizs? Look carefully - it is ChrLzs (pronounced Charles). And AKA 'Psychic Spy'?? You do realise that the 'Psychic Spy' thing is an automatic level assigned to members here depending on their post count? For that reason, I won't be making a big thing about you being an 'Alien Embryo'...

Steve Pearse here....

My apologies to one and all for the late entry to your forum.

That's ok, although when I disappear for a while, I generally try to pop by and explain my absence. It seems particularly odd to not do that when your own article is published..

Throughout life we wear many different hats and my plate has been very full lately--so your comments about my failure to respond to your Psychic Spy persona comments is just rubbish. If that was your best shot-you have missed the dart board.

As stated above, it's *not* my Psychic Spy persona. I'm just ChrLzs.. Now, as far as my comments being 'rubbish'.. the only one I can see criticising your non-appearance is this:

Tis a pity that it seems the author of that 'article' is not interested in defending it. I suspect I know why...

That comment was posted after waiting 3 full days and nights after the publication of your article. I'll let others judge how 'rubbish' it was after this unfolds. I'll also happily elaborate on my suspicions, which I have to say have not been alleviated by the content of your post.. But let's move on to that, and see how well you play darts (?)....

So Yes, I'm here in your backyard to defend the article. For more information you can refer to my web site:

{spam removed}

No, that won't be happening. This being a discussion forum (not a place to seek hits for your site), you can bring your claims here and defend them.

..may I suggest that the 'story' might be a little more accurately reported if, instead of restating claims as if they actually happened, you make it clear they are claims. For example, sentences like this (of which there are many):

"Betty and Barney Hill started having nightmares"

FYI: I have been researching this Extraterrestrial Hypothesis case for over 12 years, and my comments in the article are a reflection of the advanced stage of my personal research into this matter via direct dialog with Betty Hill's niece Kathleen Marden and others for over 6 years.

1. Please learn to quote properly.

2. Please answer the point made and don't just change the subject.

3. Your alleged 12 years of 'research' is irrelevant. Verifiable experience in real, cited investigations - be they scientific or legal - might be of interest, but it's what you present here that matters.

4. Anecdotes are not evidence and are of very little worth even if they were not from a potentially biased source..

For your information Betty Hill passed a polygraph test adminstered by a well known attorney F. Lee Bailey.

Oh dear.

1. Polygraphs are not admissible as evidence in most jurisdictions. Do you know why? Let us discuss that in detail..

2. Polygraphs, no matter how expertly used, are (obviously) totally and completely useless if the person holds false beliefs. Let us also discuss that..

3. What experience did the well-known attorney have in psychology? In using a polygraph? In the admissibility of polygraph-verified evidence and how that relates to actual reality? Me, I would have thought a polygraph expert would be better than a supposedly well-known attorney.

When was the test given, and under what circumstances, Steve?

And may I ask, is that the same F. Lee Bailey who was disbarred in two US states?

(I already know the answers to those - I'm just wondering why you are leaving out some rather important details... but don't worry, I'm collating a list of all the omissions that I will bring out a bit later)

Nevertheless I do take note of your nitpicking.

Please continue to do so and properly address each point I make, thanks.

For your information, which is in John Fuller's book-there was physical evidence on the back of their car.

Again, do you need me to explain what a discussion forum is? I can't find any mention of this in your article, so bring it here for discussion.

Well please enlighten me Chrisz....

I (and Badeskov) have begun that above. Please address the points we've made ... and we'll see if it is working.

Edited by Chrlzs
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov

Just to add to Chrlzs' excellent post, here are a couple of links where this case has been discussed before for those interested.

http://www.unexplain...ic=120143&st=45

http://www.unexplain...pic=82017&st=45

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited by badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve3951

Sundew post 22 June

Hi Sundew

Post:

I wonder if I showed most of the readers here a map of a few dozen stars, could anyone reproduce it, from memory, after a supposedly traumatic event like an alien abduction, and do so with enough accuracy that it would be recognizable? And where would it be recognizable from? Earth? Or the supposed alien's home world? And at what orientation (i.e. which way is "up" or perhaps north), it could be quite different to you and to "them"? You could draw several dots on a page and a computer might match them up with stars in the night sky, but if your drawing was off by just a fraction it could easily match them with completely different stars. There is also the magnitude, color, etcetera of the stars to consider. To me this map seems rather worthless on the face of it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re:

I wonder if I showed most of the readers here a map of a few dozen stars, could anyone reproduce it, from memory, after a supposedly traumatic event like an alien abduction, and do so with enough accuracy that it would be recognizable?

The star map that Betty Hill drew was drawn in several years later in 1964 as a post hypnotic suggestion from Dr. Simon, and there is information that hypnosis does help to recall information. So your question should be whether or not hypnosis can improve ones memory. This article written by John Ryder says Ph. D. says yes.

Does Hypnosis Improve Memory?

Attention, memory, and focus.

Published on September 28, 2009 by John Ryder, Ph.D. in Hypnosis: The Power of Trance

Over the years many clients have come to me asking for hypnosis to find lost jewelry, valuable papers, or items that were simply misplaced. Most of the time I have been successful in helping these people retrieve their items. The same applies to actual memories that may have been forgotten. The research literature is full of studies that document the power of hypnosis to enhance memory. Most studies are laboratory based experiments that usually show a significant increase in the recall of hypnotized subjects as compared to normal controls. Articles about psychology are full of stories of people who recover lost things or recall memories that presumably were lost.

Have you added more to your original posting?

Is your proposed "few dozen stars" map going to be just a bunch of random make believe stars or real stars that have the potential of harboring a habitable planet within it's goldilocks zone? Fish at least tried in her ZR theory to make sense out of the 26 star map attempts and ended up using some unorthodox means to achieve her goal of naming ZR as base stars. The challenge you are posing is interesting, but incomplete since we don't know whether your hub star is in the southern hemisphere or northern hemisphere. Using the Right ascension and Declination of your hub star could be used to search for other nearby stars that might have habitable planets.

The Key to understanding this is the full conversation between them as the leader being challenged Betty to identify the location of our sun. The two large nickel sized stars were blown up to get her attention--but she never tried to. The star map in my opinion answers to fundamental questions which is where they come form and where we are in relationship to our solar neighborhood. The up is a higher declination on the celestial sphere-with our position at 0,00,000.

Re:

There is also the magnitude, color, etcetera of the stars to consider.

And the spectral type of the star, the age of the star, and the M/H rating, whether or not its variable, the TEFF reading to mention a few other etc-etra items.

As a suggestion you might read up on the metallicity aspects of planetary formation.

Re:

To me this map seems rather worthless on the face of it.

This is a simple graphic of Betty Hill's star map and the proper indentification of the stars involved. See the iink to see the stars is provided on my web site.

You really need to educate yourself---Recommend that you re-read the article

See my web site: www.hillwilsonstarmap.net

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov

Steve,

It is honorable that you come here to try and defend your article, but I wish you would do a little more in that respect. Frankly, and by all means of respect, but you are basing your article on assumptions based on assumptions that can not be defended and has to rely on pure belief. case in point:

I wonder if I showed most of the readers here a map of a few dozen stars, could anyone reproduce it, from memory, after a supposedly traumatic event like an alien abduction, and do so with enough accuracy that it would be recognizable? And where would it be recognizable from? Earth? Or the supposed alien's home world? And at what orientation (i.e. which way is "up" or perhaps north), it could be quite different to you and to "them"? You could draw several dots on a page and a computer might match them up with stars in the night sky, but if your drawing was off by just a fraction it could easily match them with completely different stars. There is also the magnitude, color, etcetera of the stars to consider. To me this map seems rather worthless on the face of it.

Here you are making two huge assumptions, assumptions that cannot be validated in any way, shape or form:

1. That Barney and Betty Hill were actually abducted

2. If they were abducted, that the star map is a correct representation of what Betty saw.

Frankly, I believe in neither and I have not seen any compelling arguments to persuade me that I am wrong.But since Chrlzs has already put out some good arguments, I will focus on the star map. But as you state:

Re:

I wonder if I showed most of the readers here a map of a few dozen stars, could anyone reproduce it, from memory, after a supposedly traumatic event like an alien abduction, and do so with enough accuracy that it would be recognizable?

By all means of respect, but this makes no sense whatsoever. It merely illustrates that you actually don't really know what you are talking about. She drew a number of stars and you immediately jump onto that it was a correct representation. A correct representation of what exactly, I would ask.

1. What are the "error bars" in her representation, i.e. how accurately was her representation?

2. Where was that map seen from? I.e., seen from Earth (as Majorie Fish assumed), seen from somewhere else?

3. What was the rotation of said map and what was missing from it?

Frankly, assuming something like that is authentic is, at best, incredibly naive. But lets look more, here is a look from Earth towards the sky. Please do elaborate on how you cannot fit anything you like and draw any star map you could possibly dream up and make it fit somewhere in the night sky, especially when you have all the freedom you want in scaling and error ranges. One example of the night sky:

potw1121a.jpg

To suggest otherwise is simply ridiculous. Any possible star map you could possibly dream up we would be able to find a match for given the same freedom we have with Betty's map (no distance, error or brightness numbers). To suggest otherwise is simply deceptive.

The star map that Betty Hill drew was drawn in several years later in 1964 as a post hypnotic suggestion from Dr. Simon, and there is information that hypnosis does help to recall information. So your question should be whether or not hypnosis can improve ones memory. This article written by John Ryder says Ph. D. says yes.

Does Hypnosis Improve Memory?

Attention, memory, and focus.

Published on September 28, 2009 by John Ryder, Ph.D. in Hypnosis: The Power of Trance

Over the years many clients have come to me asking for hypnosis to find lost jewelry, valuable papers, or items that were simply misplaced. Most of the time I have been successful in helping these people retrieve their items. The same applies to actual memories that may have been forgotten. The research literature is full of studies that document the power of hypnosis to enhance memory. Most studies are laboratory based experiments that usually show a significant increase in the recall of hypnotized subjects as compared to normal controls. Articles about psychology are full of stories of people who recover lost things or recall memories that presumably were lost.

And the influence of hypnotic suggestion is very well known and one of the reasons why this is not used.

<snip>

This is a simple graphic of Betty Hill's star map and the proper indentification of the stars involved. See the iink to see the stars is provided on my web site.

You really need to educate yourself---Recommend that you re-read the article

See my web site: www.hillwilsonstarmap.net

No chance. If you want to defend your article, you do it here, but frankly, you don't really stand a chance as it is very obvious that you don't really have the background to do so. You creamed yourself in the above post and I can only see it getting worse if you really try, but do go for it if you want.

That said, to echo Chrlzs, please do learn how to quote - it does make it easier to discern what is actually what in your posts.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

I'm speechless at that reply from Steve - pretty much everything was completely ignored. I'm not going to put any more effort into such unsupported drivel - if anyone actually supports any of it and wishes to debate it properly (as Steve clearly won't), feel free to do so.

On that point of the alleged 'match' of the star map - here is that supposed 'match', with the lines removed so you can see how ridiculous it is:

Pattern_Recognition_Figure_2.gif

As Bade said, she had all of the sky she could play with, and *that* is the 'match'. Save me. May I quote:

..if we set out to find a pattern correlation between two nearly random data sets by selecting at will certain elements from each and ignoring others, we will always be successful

Neither you or I or Steve or Betty or the fantasy aliens are ANYWHERE on any of those 'maps'.. because they aren't maps, they are random, meaningless doodles.

Edited by Chrlzs
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov

I'm speechless at that reply from Steve - pretty much everything was completely ignored. I'm not going to put any more effort into such unsupported drivel - if anyone actually supports any of it and wishes to debate it properly (as Steve clearly won't), feel free to do so.

On that point of the alleged 'match' of the star map - here is that supposed 'match', with the lines removed so you can see how ridiculous it is:

Pattern_Recognition_Figure_2.gif

As Bade said, she had all of the sky she could play with, and *that* is the 'match'. Save me. May I quote:

Neither you or I or Steve or Betty or the fantasy aliens are ANYWHERE on any of those 'maps'.. because they aren't maps, they are random, meaningless doodles.

Yeah, well, Chrlzs, I think we shove the Barney and Betty Hill tale back where it belongs. I would have expected more from a columnist to be quite honest. But then again, columnists around here aren't exactly always stellar...

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov

Since its been another 3 days and the columnist have ignored every pertinent point raised so far, I think it is safe to assume that he does not have the means to defend in any sensible way the claims made. Not surprising, I daresay.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve3951

Chris:

Your comments said--- it's *not* my Psychic Spy persona. I'm just ChrLzs.. Now, as far as my comments being 'rubbish'.. the only one I can see criticising your non-appearance is this:

That comment was posted after waiting 3 full days and nights after the publication of your article

You’re just an anonymous voice in the wilderness who says: “well I waited 72 hours.” This article has appeared around the world for over a year, and I was never notified that I had any obligation to jump through your hoops. Ok –it’s great that you’re Chris-but who is Chris from downunder? With all the rain down there in Queensland, AU-- your comments are a little soggy. I haven’t really made any determination that your voice carries any weight since it seems that you’re just some impatient kid with a lot of time on his hands.

I'll get back to you on some of your other issues like F. Lee Bailey -who was a Polygraph Expert--If you check he used it on several occasions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve3951

Chris do you or Badeskov know what SIMBAD is?

The information that you keep b****ing about is on my website

The real triangle is below the Big Dipper, and as a courtesy to the readers of the Unexplained Mysteries we are providing the link to see the triangle that I found. When you look at the triangle-you'll understand the magnitude of the shock that I felt when I first gazed upon the real triangle in Betty Hill’s star map. This was the first step and the acid test was to locate a star directly to the right of the triangle as Betty Hill drew, that might have a habitable planet. Please note that in Fish’s ZR interpretation it doesn’t. Equally puzzling is the disappearance of the large mysterious star in the middle of the Betty Hill’s star map. I identify this star as 52 Ursa Major.

The link in the article wasn’t activated-but anyone can use the Epoch 2000 coordinates on a virtual telescope as the well known My Sky virtual telescope that uses Hubble images. The star map was plotted out to Norton’s Star Atlas.

Triangle :Aim point RA: 12h 26m 32s Dec: +35°14'59"

This is the real triangle in Betty Hill’s star map

61 Ursa Major

http://www.astrostudio.org/xhip.php?hip=56997

Now Chris is 61 Ursa Major to the right of the triangle?

52 Psi UMa

http://www.astrostudio.org/xhip.php?hip=54539

And is 52 Psi Uma above and to the right of 61 Uma?

FYI: you can pull out any current star map and validate their position

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve3951

Chris and Badeskov

The last thing you two can call yourselves is the voice of authority--so please show everyone your credentials to prove that your superior to Walt Webb, Stanton Friedman, Kathleen Marden, J. Allen Hynek Huffer, Jeffrey Kretsch, Terence Dickinson or a host of others.

Chapter 3 (page 33) of Fuller’s book the starts off on October 19, 1961, a month after the abduction of Betty and Barney Hill. Walter Webb (Astronomer) and lecturer on the staff of the Hayden Planetarium in Boston opened his mail to read a letter from Richard Hall, who was then the secretary and now Assistant Director of the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomenon in Washington. As a Scientific Advisor to NICAP, Walter Webb occasionally investigated the more serious and puzzling UFO reports in the New England area, drafting detailed document for Washington when the merits of the case warranted it. Hall’s letter included a copy of a letter that Betty Hill had written to Major Keyhoe and suggested to Webb that it might be worthwhile to drive the eighty miles north of Boston to their residence in Portsmouth to investigate the case. Webb, who had joined the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge, Massachusetts, shortly after his graduation from college in 1956, had been interested in Unidentified Flying Objects since 1951, when as a counselor at a boys’ camp in Michigan, he had made a sighting while training campers in the use of a telescope. So now we have an astronomer who has personally seen a UFO.

Page 34: Webb’s first reaction to Richard Hall’s letter was reluctance. It was plain that this case involved a report of the movement of beings on the craft, and Webb was skeptical of this type of sighting. He drove up to Portsmouth on October 21, 1961, with his skeptical attitude unchanged. In his mind were thoughts of the sensational nature of the claim, the possibility that the Hills might be seeking publicity, perpetrating a hoax, or suffering from a mental aberration.

On the other hand he felt that Betty’s letter was extremely literate, an honest and straightforward account of a frightening experience which had happened to two people. He would reserve judgment until after his interview, which, he resolved, would be thorough and painstaking with special attention to finding flaws in the story. As an interviewer with a scientific background, he was certain he could create a slip-up if the Hill’s story was spurious, and he would not hesitate to crack the story if he could. He arrived at the Hill’s house at about noon.

Page 35: The interview began shortly after noon, and continued with little interruption until eight that evening. I was so amazed, impressed by both the Hills and their account,” Walter Webb said, “that we skipped lunch and went through the afternoon and early evening. During that time, I cross-examined them together, separately, together, re-questioned them again and again. I tried to make them slip up somewhere, and I couldn’t; I simply couldn’t. Theirs was an iron-clad story. They seemed to me to be sincere, honest couple driving home from vacation, late at night on a lonely road, when suddenly something unknown and un-definable descended on them. Something entirely foreign or alien to their existence.”

Page 36: He (Webb) concluded his lengthy report: “It is the opinion of this investigator, that after questioning these people for over six hours and studying their reactions and personalities during that time, that they were telling the truth occurred exactly as reported except for some minor uncertainties and technicalities that must be tolerated in any such observation where human judgment is involved (that is, exact time and length of visibility, apparent sizes of object and occupants, distance and height of object, etc.) Although their occupations do not especially qualify the witnesses as trained scientific observers, I was impressed by their intelligence, apparent honesty, and obvious desire to get at the facts and to underplay the more sensational aspects of the sighting. Mr. Hill had been a complete UFO skeptic before the sighting.

Walter Webb a credentialed Astronomer and Scientific Advisor to NICAP drove up with a skeptical attitude and returned home that night as a believer. J. Allen Hynek is another example: Hynek's opinions changed in later years, so much that he became, to many, the scientifically respectable voice of Ufology. He would lament that the Robertson Panel had "made the subject of UFOs scientifically unrespectable, and for nearly 20 years not enough attention was paid to the subject to acquire the kind of data needed even to decide the nature of the UFO phenomenon." For good measure Hynek: "Ridicule is not part of the scientific method and people should not be taught that it is."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve3951

The book that I have written is over your head technically so please stop your ridiculous patronization. The information provided in the web site is more than adequate

More about 20 Leo Minor:

20 Leo Minor is a spectral type G3Va

Age: 6.5 Billion

Metallicity: Superior to Sol our Sun

On NASA top 100 Terrestrial Planet Finder

It’s on the Ball list (NASA Contract)

FYI: It's also on Maggie Turnbill's 30 star short list*

*screened from a list of 5000 stars

On a very exclusive research program of Astrophysicist Margaret Turnbill called the Sun Life List

Screened so tight it her study of these select group of stars would satisfy the harshest critic to host a habitable planet. Read comments on 20 leo Minor

#1: 20 Leo Minor

http://www.astrostudio.org/xhip.php?hip=49081

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#3-11 Leo Minor

http://www.astrostudio.org/xhip.php?hip=47080

Recommend that you search for Fischer and Valenti's theory on the correlation of planetary formation-which is in my book

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve3951

Here's More Chris in Defense

Right Ascension and Declination is the equilevent of Latitude and Longitude as seen on the Celestial Sphere with our position at 0,00,000-anythjing below is minus-as Zeta Reticuli at -62 degrees. As observed--both 61 Ursa Major and 11 Leo Minor-fall beteen the upper and lower declination as shown on the star map. 20 Leo is also to the right as observed and all of them are spectral type G stars. All of the 12 stars (6 trade-6 exploration stars in the Hill-Wilson star map are F-G. The triangle formation is a asterism and clearly visible in any reference book you might want to use to dispute. The RA and declination coordinates are exact-if you don't beleieve my-look it up.

FYI: The triangle is directly below the Big Dipper-so its left placement is correct

Please by all means plot out all of the stars of the Hill-Wilson star map-and please feel free to use Vizier or the N Star data base as well.

Horizontal Alignment of key features (Validation Test)

Identity Declination (from high to low)

Top of triangle: 6 CVn Dec: +39° 01' 07.0

Position #3: 11:LMi: Dec: +35° 48' 36.5"

Position #10: 61 UMa: Dec:+34° 12' 5.888

Triangle bottom left: Dec: +33° 14' 51.3

Triangle bottom right: Dec: +33° 3' 41.5

Home world: 20 Leo Minor: Dec: +31° 55' 25

Once again-when I find the time-which will most likely be on the weekend time permitting --I'll be back

Both of you can plot out the above star coordinates to prove that the triangle is real.

The bottom left star of the triangle HR4783 is higher declination wise than the right of HR4668 -just like Betty Hill.

And the triangle was located by usage of Norton's Star Atlas -19th Edition edited by Ian Ridpath. ( Map- 9) and the use of My Sky -which is based upon the Hubble Telescope.

The Angle from 20 Leo Minor to us is correct.

Chris and Badeskov as a suggestion plot out the angle and location of 20 Leo Minor to 36 Ursa Major on your copy of Norton's Star Atlas-known world wide as a premier reference guide for Amateur and professional astronomers worldwide and even in Australia.

The figure #2 star map of Hill and the OSU students is discussed in my book and Fish's theory has the position to Sol/Earth off in the wrong direction.

Bades---> BS.

Yeah, well, Chrlzs, I think we shove the Barney and Betty Hill tale back where it belongs. I would have expected more from a columnist to be quite honest. But then again, columnists around here aren't exactly always stellar...

Since you both know exactly what I'm talking about

The M/H ratio for is the overall metallicity abundance ratio for 20 Leo Minor at +0.10 and TEFF is 5753K (Soubiran +2008)

Is that stellar enough?

Position #11 is 44 i Boo (3 G star trinary) and #12 is 8 Bootis a super rich star

Position #7 and #9 are both on Turnbill's Sun Life List. Position #8 10 Cvn is a G spectral type star. The Eta-Earth Survey discovered a planet around this star 2 years ago. The actual exploration pattern of these three stars match their real coordinates as observed from Earth.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve3951

Bade: Your wish for hard Stellar has been granted: Excerpt

Position #1: 20 LMi A (SETI #4126)

Constellation: Leo Minor

Hemisphere: Northern

Star name: GJ 376A

HIP: 49081

Arity: Binary*

HR 3951

HD 86728

BD: +32 1964

High Proper Motion Star: Yes

Proper motion arcsec/yr: -0.430 (Lepine+ 2005)

RA: 10h 01m 01.0066s (Takeda+ 2007)

Dec: +31° 55' 25.22" (Takeda+ 2007)

Turnbill short List #60

Sun Life List #980

Ball List #195

TPF Top 100 stars: Rank #54

R (Mas):0.354581

Total Proper Motion: 0.684 "/yr 230.5

Trigonometric Parallax: 67.10 (Bobylev+2006)

Radial velocity 55.8 km/s (Bobylev+2006)

Oribital period years: 0.43 (Ball list)

Semi-maj Axis A AU: 0.56 (Ball list)

Angular Separation: 37.34 (Ball list)

Home world: 20 LMi (e) fourth planet in this system.

Old Stellar Population Star: Yes

Age: 6500 million years (6.9 Gyr) (Bryden+2006)

Habitable Zone: 1.17 AU (Center AU 1.465) NSTED

Hzin(mas): 61.32636 (M. Turnbill)

Hzout(mas): 122.2156

Total HZ zone: 61 million

Predicted Habitable Zone:

Center: 1.465 AU Milli arc seconds: 98.353

Inner radius: 0.979 Milli arc seconds: 65.698

Outer radius: 1.951 Milli arc seconds: 131.08

Planets recently discovered: 1

Earth Mass: 1.08 (Howard+2010) confirmed 12/16/2011

Number of observations: 28

Previous Known Planets: 0-Now 4 inner rocky terrestrial (Projected)

Orbital period: 1.17 years (427.05 days per yr.)

Orbital period of Sol: 365 days

Predicted Dynamical effects

Radial velocity wobble m/s: Earth like: 0.037000

Astrometric wobble micro arc/seconds: 0.295400

Higher Orbital period in days: +62

Tilt(d): Tipped more severe than Earth’s axis

Tilt(e): Tipped more severe than Earth’s axis

20 LMi (d): Distance from sun: estimated: 89-91 AU (82.77-84.6 million)

20 LMi (e): Distance from sun: estimated: 1.17 AU (108.8 million)

Orbital period: 427 days

Sidereal rotation period (hrs) (d) 23 hrs 12m 7s (estimated)

Sidereal rotation period (hrs) (e) 24.46 hrs 30s (estimated)

Earth Sidereal rotation period (hrs) 23 hrs 56m 4.1s

Surface Gravity (d): .90-1.05 (estimated)

Surface Gravity (e): .95-1.10 (estimated)

Theoretical Diameter (d): 90-105% of Earth

Theoretical Diameter (e): 11,468-19,113km (.90-1.5e Earths diameter)

Period of Revolution around sun: 330-380 days

Separation of (d) from (e): 28 Million miles

Temperature range: 200-310 K

Metallicity: 141-219% of Sol

Moons (d): unknown: 1-3?

Moons (e): unknown: 1-3?

Celestial X,Y,Z in light yrs: -35.8, 20.5, 25.7

Galactic X,Y,Z in light yrs: -27.9, -7.73, 39.0

Galactic Longitude: 195.0139°

Galactic Latitude: 52.8547°

Spectral type: G3Va

HIP: Field (H76) G1V

Spectral type: G1V** (Soubiran+ 2008)

Fe/H: +0.20 (Soubiran+2008), 0.27 (Takada+2007)

M/H: +0.10 (Overall metal abundance to Sol) (Gray+, 2003)

Atmospheric Oxygen: 28% (Estimated)

VMag: 4.511 (Soubiran+2008)

Teff: 5753K (Soubiran+ 2008)

LogL Stellar luminosity: 0.15 (Takeda+ 2005)

B-V: 0.644 (Soubiran+, 2008) (Same as our Sun Bade)

Comparison to Sol’s B-V: @ 0.65

Mass: 1.13 x sun (Takeda+2005)

Radius: 1.21 (NSTED)

Luminosity: 1.359 NSTED 7/09

Thin disk membership probability: 0.1

Thick disk membership probability: 0.9

Halo disk membership probability: 0.0

Distance: 48.54 ly from Sol (14.89 pc) (Grether+2006)

Distance to 61 UMa: 22.4973 ly

Status: Super civilization in the solar neighborhood

Lines to Position #16 (Sol) shows heavy banded “trade” type traffic lines

Visibility: 1H 28M 51S AZ: 41D 56M 58S

Sets: 18H 33 M 11 S AZ: 318 D 03M 02S

Civilization: Type 1

Known exo-planets: 0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saru

Just a general note here to all concerned - can we tone down the hostilities please, it's unnecessary.

We accept and publish column articles from a wide range of different authors, researchers and enthusiasts - while it's good to hear their comments in response to feedback never do we expect them to have to "defend" their writing on the forums after the piece has been posted up. Members are welcome to post their thoughts and opinions on what's been written but calling out the author simply because they haven't turned up immediately to answer questions is highly unreasonable.

Let's keep the feedback civil and courteous, disagree with what's been written by all means but please do so without the hostilities.

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov

Chris do you or Badeskov know what SIMBAD is?

I can't pretend to speak for Chrlz (you seem to have a hard time catching his nick), but of course I know what SIMBAD is; as well as a number of other resources. However, that is completely irrelevant to the points raised with respect to the Barney and Betty Hill abduction.

It is admirably that you will spend time here on our comments to your column, but instead factually debating them you build up a number of strawmen to mask that you obviously have no means of defending the underlying premise, which is what is really being questioned here.Those points you completely skip.

The information that you keep b****ing about is on my website

No, it absolutely is not, but feel free to post it here.

The real triangle is below the Big Dipper, and as a courtesy to the readers of the Unexplained Mysteries we are providing the link to see the triangle that I found. When you look at the triangle-...

<snipped irrelevancies>

Nobody is questioning your abilities to look at the stars in the sky and find a match to some random doodles on a piece of paper, but that is not the point of contention raised. The point of contention raised is the accuracy of said doodle in the first place and this you have meticulously avoided to discuss in any shape, form or fashion in your column, your website and in the present discussion. But let me try and make it very basic as it is the foundation on which you build your whole argument:

  • What is the accuracy with which Betty drew the star map (how large tolerances do you have in matching something)?
  • What is the scale of the star map?
  • From where should this star map be seen to make the current 2D projection (a little arrogant to assume Earth, I would say)?

Before you can answer the above you cannot even begin to match it to anything in any meaningful way and that is the crux of the matter in this discussion.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov

Bade: Your wish for hard Stellar has been granted: Excerpt

<snipped irrelevancies>

No, I did not ask for such; such simple data I can easily find myself should it be necessary. I was questioning the underlying premise as described above and nowhere did I ask for any hard data on stars as you are simply not in a position where you can even begin to contemplate such.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov

The book that I have written is over your head technically so please stop your ridiculous patronization.

Your attempt at propping yourself up to a level of technical understanding that you do clearly not master is not helping. Researchers with that level of understanding recognizes the necessity of truly understanding the foundation of one's argument before anything is built upon it - something that is sorely missing here.

The information provided in the web site is more than adequate

As stated above, no it isn't.

<snip>

Recommend that you search for Fischer and Valenti's theory on the correlation of planetary formation-which is in my book

Already very familiar with it and your hypothesis is clearly suffering from the same flaws as theirs (i.e., matching what can only be described as random doodles on a piece of paper to a night sky that has innumerable matches if one makes some assumptions that cannot be defended in any way).

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov

Chris and Badeskov

The last thing you two can call yourselves is the voice of authority--so please show everyone your credentials to prove that your superior to Walt Webb, Stanton Friedman, Kathleen Marden, J. Allen Hynek Huffer, Jeffrey Kretsch, Terence Dickinson or a host of others.

<snip>

Yet another irrelevant strawman. Nobody is claiming to be a voice of authority, Chrlzs and I are simply pointing out the fatal flaws in your premise and if you had been on safe ground in that respect, you would immediately have corrected us and shown us why your premise is sound. The fact that you need to build these strawmen to avoid that is very telling, but not very surprising.

And, with the above, you have to be joking right? Friedman, for instance? My level of education is higher than his, I have worked as a scientist in my field of expertise significantly longer than he did. The fellow has a masters degree and calls himself a scientist. Well, first of all, scientists publish in peer reviewed journals, which Mr. Friedman never did. Secondly, the title of scientist is not a life long title just because you worked as one at some point; you are a scientist when you work as one.

And it is utterly irrelevant - all that matters is what I present here and how I can substantiate it. Not my degree or anything else in that respect.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zaphod222

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.Truth could hit you in the face and you still wouldn't believe it.Every case I have studied the similarities are there and really why would somebody lie about being snatched up damn......Since you all have the answer stay off the site making dumb comments....fake know it alls go work for nasa then they need you.

Threatening the disbelievers with hell so that they join your church, are we?

An age-old tactic, but not an argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

Chris:

I already told you what my name was - you even quoted it - it stands for Charles (Charlez, ChrLzs).

You’re just an anonymous voice in the wilderness who says: “well I waited 72 hours.” This article has appeared around the world for over a year

So? Is that to any world-wide acclaim, any peer review? - feel free to post some reviews of it from credible sources.

It's simply about content, verifiability and quality of research.

and I was never notified that I had any obligation to jump through your hoops.

You have no obligation to reply whatsoever. But that article is here at a discussion forum that prides itself on investigating mysteries. And now this 'mystery' is getting a searchlight turned upon it. If you wish to defend it, so be it, but please stick to the topic and answer questions, like all those I shall repeat below..

Ok –it’s great that you’re Chris-but who is Chris from downunder?

Why is that important to you? Do you know what focusing on the person rather than the information is called?

But to humour you - you haven't bothered to Google me? - I'm always ChrLz or ChrLzs and I hang out at many forums, from this one to Apollohoax, from the Bad Astronomy forum (now Cosmoquest) to AboveTopSecret, JREF. You can see my work at many places. I also have a provable background in the sciences, I teach photography and astronomy and computing/IT - all of this can be verified with moderators if necessary. But as I and Badeskov keep repeating, the point *isn't* who has the most experience - it's simply about what you post here and now - it's either right and credible and defendable.. or it isn't.

With all the rain down there in Queensland, AU-- your comments are a little soggy.

Seriously? I shall refrain from responding to that sort of comment..

I haven’t really made any determination that your voice carries any weight since it seems that you’re just some impatient kid with a lot of time on his hands.

It seems, from the content of these walls-of-text posts and your refusal to actually address most of the points made by Badeskov, me and others on this thread, that the reason for your inability to make a determination might come from a different direction..

I'll get back to you on some of your other issues like F. Lee Bailey -who was a Polygraph Expert--If you check he used it on several occasions

A 'Polygraph Expert' with Capitals no less? Wow, and he did it on TV - that certainly means it shouldn't be questioned! Anyway, you do that. In particular, rather than introducing more strawmen and distractions, address these simple facts, one by one.

1. Is there such a thing as a false memory? (hint - look up regression hypnosis) :)

2. Is there such a thing as a delusion?

3. Is there such a thing as an incorrect, but genuinely-believed interpretation of an event?

Given any or all of those:

4. In what way would a lie detector be useful in a case like this?

5. Would a person who believed their own story, pass such a test?

6. Given that, what do the results of a lie detector test have to do with reality?

7. Are polygraphs accepted as evidence in most US jurisdictions? Why not? (see above..)

8. Is F. Lee Bailey disbarred in any US states?

9. What was the actual published result of Mr Bailey's polygraph test on Betty? In FULL please, including all assumptions. provisos, technical considerations.

Also, you were politely asked about:

10. You claim there was 'physical evidence' on their car that was unexplainable/alien. Please show that evidence.

11. Does the American Psychological Association recommend regression hypnosis?

Finally, why are you now focusing on trying to support the 'map', when earlier, YOU said this:

I wonder if I showed most of the readers here a map of a few dozen stars, could anyone reproduce it, from memory, after a supposedly traumatic event like an alien abduction, and do so with enough accuracy that it would be recognizable?

Umm.. so .. which side are you on? Why, then, would you be so impressed by a vague (and highly disputable) 'match'?

If you would really like to focus on that map, I'm happy to go into your 'analysis' in some detail, but given you have already dismissed the content of the map anyway, it seems a moot point and a wast of time, even if you did it properly. Doing it properly would, instead of involving posting huge walls of text containing mostly irrelevant data, show:

- the methodology being used

- actual geometric correlation data

- error ranges and statistical analysis

- controls and null hypothesis information, inc. showing this same technique used on random data..

And besides, if you don't answer all the first set of questions, why should we move on?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov

Chrlzs,

Good post! I am looking forward to seeing the replies to your questions.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

Re: And may I suggest that the 'story' might be a little more accurately reported if, instead of restating claims as if they actually happened, you make it clear they are claims.

I'm 100% with you on this much, at least.

As far as defending my theory--stay tuned for further developments as i address other crazy comments posted here...

Steve,

Since you state your above plans for multiple responses, try this. When you read a post you want to respond to, as you did several times in your post I'm quoting above, look at the lower right corner of the post you're reading and find the "quote" tab.

That makes your posts far easier to follow.

Use "multiquote" to respond to more than one post at a time, or just use "quote" on all of them. If you do the latter, I'd suggest right-clicking the quote button and opening each post response in a different tab. That way you can copy each post - with your response - onto the first response, accomplishing the "multiquote" without having to figure out the "multiquote" button.

Then hit "Post" when you're done, just like usual.

Re-reading the above, I'm confident that it is crystal clear! LOL

Just a suggestion.

P.S. The estimated age of the universe is 13.7 Billion years, half of the stars are over 10 Billion years old, and its been discovered that planets are ubiquitous (numerous) throughout the cosmos.

All of which indicates the statistical improbability of us being discovered by any alien race at all.

Just in our own galaxy, there are too many places to look.

A single alien ship, capable of instantaneous travel between stars would reach only half of the stars in the galaxy in something like 1400 years (I forget the actual number - I calculated it a couple of times in the past though.) That's without allowing even a second to look around at each star before proceding to the next.

Obviously, the time is cut in half for two exploratory ships, quartered for four ships, etc.

Encountering a sentient race in that way would stop each explorer though, can't we assume? And if there are a great many sentient species in our galaxy, when does the exploring species stop exploring and start studying the finds?

The odds are vastly in favor of our never even being found in those circumstances.

Dan Wirtheimer at SETI believes that the age of first contact with an alien civilization will be at least billion years. Millions of years is more likely...

From this I can only assume that you mean either that we will encounter a civilization that is a billion years old (ridiculous on the face of it,) or that an alien "first contact" race might be a billion years old. I wonder what that means? No species or genus can exist unchanged for a billion years and be anything but stuck in an eternal ecological niche (like the crocodilians.) Humans have been around, in some form, for over 2 million years. It's not a billion, but no culture has lasted even a fraction of the time that the genus Homo has existed.

Considering the age of the stars we can see, it would be an unbelievable coincidence if we were to even find that our civilization existed in the same time period as other "advanced" civilizations. That is, given all the time that has passed, it is far more likely that any species that could accomplish regular interstellar travel would have existed in the past - before the Earth was even formed.

By the way, what someone "thinks" about Xenopology, when most of their thinking concerns EM frequencies and their lives hinge on empty hopes, is not really all that convincing, tell the truth. Appeals to authority, especially assumed but unestablished authority, are pretty transparently fallacious. Admittedly, however, there are no authorities on Xenopology. :w00t:

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

Chris and Badeskov

The last thing you two can call yourselves is the voice of authority--so please show everyone your credentials to prove that your superior to Walt Webb, Stanton Friedman, Kathleen Marden, J. Allen Hynek Huffer, Jeffrey Kretsch, Terence Dickinson or a host of others.

I'm new to this UFO stuff, at least in modernity. However, IIRC, Hynek merely stated that both Hills recounted under hypnosis the same story. IOW, reported on the investigation.

Do you have a link to his report about it? I understand he published his thoughts in one of his UFO books for the masses.

I think, again, you must be empty handed if an appeal to authority is the best you can do.

What about the way Betty changed her description of the abductors? Originally, they reminded her of Jimmy Durante, you know.

220px-Jimmy_durante_1964.JPG

Re. the repetitive appeals to authority, I seem to recall several esteemed members of academia being convinced by Uri Geller of his paranormal abilities.

Of course, they realized they been duped once The Amazing Randi duplicated every one of Geller's illusions for them at a later date.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.