******************************************

INTELLIGENCE, MEDIA CONNECTIONS IN UFO CASES
UFOsearch / Val Germann / Columbia, Mo. / 1990

#2 The Hill Abduction Case, 1961, source: Interrupted Journey

SEPT. 18-19 [Sept. 19-20] Barney and Betty Hill abducted in the White
Mountains of New Hampshire. They remember part of the experience but
have over 2 hours of "missing time," of which they are totally unaware
at first. Barney remembers seeing huge object with "fins with red
lights on the ends" and "crew members behind glass" panels at very
short range. This object was more than 100 feet across and hovered 50
feet above the ground only 300 feet away for several minutes Barney
watched through binoculars. SEPT. 20 Betty Hill calls her sister and
tells her part of the story. Sister then calls a local physicist who
suggested they check for radiation. Sister also calls local police
chief who suggests they call Pease AFB, Portsmouth, N.H. Betty calls
the Air Force Base, worried about radiation. The officer who answers
was at first "cynical and unresponsive" but finally did ask to talk to
Barney. After Barney mentioned the "fins with lights" the officer
perked up and said the call was being "monitored". Barney felt that the
officer was definitely interested. Barney did not mention the figures
he had seen behind the glass through binoculars. SEPT. 21 Major Paul
Anderson, Intelligence Officer for the 100th Bomb Group, Pease AFB,
calls back, says he has stayed up all night working on a report of this
incident. Asked Barney for the size of the object. Barney says it
appeared as big as a dinner plate held at arms length. Major Anderson
filed a report with Blue Book, #100-1-61. SEPT. 23 Betty [Barney] Hill
Goes to the local Library and finds one of Major Donald Keyhoe's books
on UFOs. Takes down his address. SEPT. 26 Betty Hill writes to Keyhoe
in Washington, D.C., describing the incident as she remembers it.
Fuller reports that NICAP (Keyhoe's organization) was getting 40,000
letters a year. SEPT. 30 Ten days after the sighting Betty Hill begins
to have a series of vivid and awesome dreams, which Fuller does not
tell us about. They continue for five days and then stop. OCT. 4 Keyhoe
is asked to lunch by Robert Hohman and someone named C.D. Jackson,
"senior engineer" for a "notable electronics company", name withheld.
They are supposedly working on a paper about extra-terrestrial contacts
that Nikola Tesla, David Todd and Marconi were alleged to have
experienced in the early part of the century. Keyhoe tells them about
the Hills. OCT. 21 Walter Webb, investigtaor for Keyhoe's NICAP and an
astronomer [lec-turer] with the Hayden Planetarium, New York, N.Y.,
comes to interview the Hills. He is there several hours. Betty does not
tell him about her dreams. Barney tells of the "captain" and others he
saw through the glass. OCT. 25? Betty begins to have a series of dreams
following an experience in the car. She had panicked as she and Barney
had come upon a stalled auto in the road with some people standing
around it. That night she dreamed of being taken into a UFO and given
some sort of examination. OCT. 26 Webb's report goes to NICAP in
Washington. He had not been contacted by Keyhoe directly but through
the mail by Richard Hall, NICAP's secretary. He had been skeptical. He
was very much impressed by the Hills, however. NOV. 3 Hohman and
Jackson write the Hills asking for an interview. They tell the Hills
that they are serious minded men whose interest is in "verifying the
origin of these vehicles according to existing scientific theory
maintained by Hermann Oberth." Oberth was of V-2 rocket fame. They did
not reveal their place of employment but permission was granted. NOV.
25 Hohman and Jackson come to the house to interview the Hills. "Also
visiting that day" is Major James McDonald, a long-time friend of the
Hills and an Air Force intelligence officer. It appears he asks no
questions about who Homan and Jackson are. The Hills had "discussed the
case many times with Maj. McDonald." The three of them spend 12 hours
talking to the Hills about their experience, including the "men" behind
the glass. Major McDonald suggests hypnosis but does not know any
therapists. The matter rests here for some time. Both Hills begin to be
concerned about the incident and the chance they may have been
hallucinating. MAR., 1962 Betty Hill writes to a doctor recommended by
a colleague. The Hills see him and tell their stories. The doctor
recommends they wait and see if the problem subsides on its own. No
therapy is attempted. SUMMER, 1962 Barney begins to see a psychiatrist
about his anxiety but only briefly mentions the UFO incident. SEPT.,
1962 The Hills are invited to a "UFO Study Group" to informally talk
about their experience. That meeting is taped, by whom Fuller does not
say, unknown to the Hills. Betty talked of her dreams, the dream of the
physical examination. SEPT., 1963 The Hills tell their church
discussion group about the UFO inci-dent. That same day Captain Ben
Swett, from Pease AFB, was to talk about hyp-nosis, which he had made a
personal hobby of his. The Hills are encouraged by Major McDonald to
talk to their church friends about their experience and en-couraged by
Capt. Swett to undergo hypnosis. Barney is experiencing extreme
psychological disturbances as a result of the UFO sighting and
abduction. He would die in the late 1960's at the age of 46. Television
movie THE UFO INCIDENT with James Earl Jones and Estelle Parsons. Dr.
Simon had been technical advisor on a WWII movie made by John Huston
called LET THERE BE LIGHT. JUNE, 1964 Sessions with Dr. Simon end. FALL
[Oct.], 1965 Sensational articles run in Boston newspaper about the
Hills experience. Information taken from tape made at the Sept., 1962
"UFO Study Group" meeting, provenance unknown. NOV., 1965 Unitarian
Church in Dover, N.H., invites the Hills to talk. Hills meet with
Admiral Knowles, NICAP, before they speak. Also on program is a Public
Information Officer from Pease, AFB, who is a member of the Church [not
a church member] and has helped set up the event. He does not attack
the Hills. At this time a huge UFO flap was underway in the area and
hundreds of people were turned away from the church on a cold and raw
evening. The usual attendance for the weekly Unitarian sessions: 40
people.

AS YOU CAN SEE from the simple chronology above (assembled from John
Fuller's book with difficulty) there is more going on in the Hill case
than meets the eye. WHO WERE "HOMANN and C.D. Jackson?" Who were they
really working for? Why was a "major electronics firm" paying them to
investigate 60-year-old fairy tales about Nikola Tesla? What
"scientific theories" held by Hermann Oberth could be of interest to an
"electronics firm." What we actually have here is a "cover" for
intelligence activity. IN ALIENS FROM SPACE, 1973, Keyhoe says that
these two "engineers" were "aiding NICAP." That is not the impression
that is given in Fuller's book. In INTERRUPTED JOURNEY the strong
impression is that these two gentlemen simply had an independent
interest due to a strange research assignment from their company. This
could be accepted in 1966. In 1990 we know better. YOU SEE, by the fall
of 1963 a gentleman named C.D. Jackson was working for Time/Life
Corporation in an executive position. In fact, he was helping to
arrange a $25,000 payment to the widow of Lee Harvey Oswald. IN CASE
YOU HAVE forgotten, Time/Life bought the Zapruder Film for $150,000 and
then made sure it was not shown as a film for many years. Then, when it
was shown, it had been obviously altered. David Lifton in BEST EVIDENCE
says that the film was at the CIA's photo interpretation lab the day
Time/Life bought it. DOES THE FACT THAT Donald Keyhoe had lunch with
C.D. Jackson just after getting Betty Hill's letter "resonate" with
you? It does with this author. Donald Keyhoe was, in UFOsearch's
opinion, running a two-track operation. In the public and with his
organization he was not interested in "contactee" stories. But on deep
background he was involved with another investigation, one connected
with the intelligence community. Were they running him? CONSIDER THIS.
In ALIENS FROM SPACE Keyhoe says that "A well-known journalist, John
Fuller, had learned of the case in a confidential talk at NICAP. It was
arranged that he should prepare the record using Dr. Simon's taped
questions and the Hill's answers." Then Keyhoe says: INTERRUPTED
JOURNEY received a surprising amount of serious attention compared to
the usual treatment of "contactee stories." How interesting. YES--AND
THE "abduction story" has become a staple of the UFO investigator.
Indeed, the sanitized Hill story became the ONLY abduction movie ever
made --- before COMMUNION, 1989. And the Hill saga appeared only on the
small screen, it never ran in theaters. The same could almost be said
for COMMUNION which was not widely distributed and died a very quick
death. It will be in video stores by mid-1990 which, I think, is the
idea. OTHER QUESTIONS: How did it happen that one of the Hill's best
friends was an Air Force Intelligence Officer who just happened to be
visiting the day that Hohman and Jackson showed up? Isn't it
interesting that they were the ones who first made the Hills aware of
their "missing time?" Isn't it interesting that they were the ones who
suggested hypnosis? ISN'T IT INTERESTING that the man finally called in
to do the regressions on the Hills was the Executive officer of the
Army's main psychiatric hospital during World War II, who did his
undergraduate work at Johns Hopkins University whose wartime president
was a member of MAJESTIC-12 and who was the technical advisor on the
major WWII propaganda film made by the famous director John Huston? The
Hills went through two other therapists before going to Simon. Did they
have the money to pay this gentlemen, who must have been very, very
expensive? This is something Fuller does not talk about. Did NICAP pay
their way? UNPLEASANT POSSIBILITY The Hills were "set up" by the people
dealing with the so-called "Greys" out in New Mexico. The Hill case was
either a deep-cover check on what the "Greys" were doing under the
"agreement" or it was an even deeper-cover attempt at "disinformation"
to get "abductions" in play--safely.

Jerry
telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23
http://ricksbbs.synchro.net:8080
---
þ Synchronet þ Rick's BBS telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23

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

Mark Steggert of the Space Research Coordination Center at the
University of Pittsburgh developed a computer program that he calls PAR
(for Perspective Alteration Routine) that can duplicate the appearance
of star fields from various viewpoints in space.

"I was intrigued by the proposal put forth by Marjorie Fish that she
had interpreted a real star pattern for the alleged map of Betty Hill.
I was incredulous that models could be used to do an astronometric
problem," Steggert says. "To my surprise I found that the pattern that
I derived from my program had a close correspondence to the data from
Marjorie Fish."

After several run-throughs, he confirmed the positions determined by
Marjorie Fish. "I was able to locate potential areas of error, but no
real errors," Steggert concludes.

Steggert zeroed in on possibly the only real bone of contention that
anyone has had with Marjorie Fish's interpretation: The data on some of
the stars may not be accurate enough for us to make definitive
conclusions. For example, he says the data from the Smithsonian
Astrophysical Observatory Catalog, the Royal Astronomical Society
Observatory Catalog, and the Yale Catalog of Bright Stars "have
differences of up to two magnitudes and differences in distance
amounting to 40 percent for the star Gliese 59". Other stars have less
variations in the data from one catalog to another, but Steggert's
point is valid. The data on some of the stars in the map is just not
good enough to make a definitive statement. (The fact that measurements
of most of the stars in question can only be made at the relatively
poor equipped southern hemisphere observatories accounts for the less
reliable data.)

Using information on the same 15 stars from the Royal Observatory
catalog (Annals #5), Steggert reports that the pattern does come out
differently because of the different data, and Gliese 59 shows the
largest variation. The Gliese catalog uses photometric, trigonometric
and spectroscopic parallaxes and derives a mean from all three after
giving various mathematical weights to each value. "The substantial
variation in catalog material is something that must be overcome," says
Steggert. "This must be the next step in attempting to evaluate the
map."

This point of view is shared by Jeffrey L. Kretsch, an undergraduate
student who is working under the advisement of J. Allen Hynek at
Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill. Like Steggert, he too checked
Marjorie Fish's pattern and found no error in the work. But Kretsch
reports that when he reconstructed the pattern using trigonometric
distance measurements instead of the composite measures in the Gliese
catalog, he found enough variations to move Gliese 95 above the line
between Gliese 86 and Tau 1 Eridani.

"The data for some of the stars seems to be very reliable, but a few
of the pattern stars are not well observed and data on them is somewhat
conflicting," says Kretsch. The fact that the pattern is less of a
"good fit" using data from other sources leads Kretsch and others to
wonder what new observations would do. Would they give a closer fit? Or
would the pattern become distorted? Marjorie Fish was aware of the
catalog variations, but has assumed the Gliese catalog is the most
reliable source material to utilize.

Is the Gliese catalog the best available data source. According to
several astronomers who specialize in stellar positions, it probably
is. Peter Van de Kamp says, "It's first rate. There is none better." He
says the catalog was compiled with extensive research and care over
many years.

A lot of the published trigonometric parallaxes on the stars beyond
30 light-years are not as accurate as they could be, according to Kyle
Cudworth of Yerkes Observatory. "Gliese added other criteria to
compensate and lessen the possible errors," he says.

The scientific director of the U.S. Naval Observatory, K.A. Strand,
is among the world's foremost authorities on stellar distances for
nearby stars. He believes the Gliese catalog "is the most complete and
comprehensive source available."

Frank B. Salisbury of the University of Utah has also examined the
Hill and Fish maps. "The pattern of stars discovered by Marjorie Fish
fits the map drawn by Betty Hill remarkably well. It's a striking
coincidence and forces one to take the Hill story more seriously," he
says. Salisbury is one of the few scientists who has spent some time on
the UFO problem and has written a book and several articles on the
subject. A professor of plant physiology, his biology expertise has
been turned to astronomy on several occasions while studying the
possibility of biological organisms existing on Mars.

Salisbury insists that while psychological factors do play an
important role in UFO phenomena, the Hill story does represent one of
the most credible reports of incredible events. The fact that the story
and the map came to light under hypnosis is good evidence that it
actually took place. "But it is not unequivocal evidence," he cautions.

Elaborating on this aspect of the incident, Mark Steggert offers
this: "I am inclined to question the ability of Betty, under
posthypnotic suggestion, to duplicate the pattern two years after she
saw it. She noted no grid lines on the pattern for reference. Someone
should (or perhaps has already) conduct a test to see how well a
similar patter could be recalled after a substantial period of time.
The stress she was under at the time is another unknown factor."

"The derivation of the base data by hypnotic techniques is perhaps
not as 'far out' as it may seem," says Stanton Friedman. "Several
police departments around the country use hypnosis on rape victims in
order to get descriptions of the assailants -- descriptions that would
otherwise remain repressed. The trauma of such circumstances must be
comparable in some ways to the Hill incident."

Is it at all possible we are faced with a hoax?

"Highly unlikely," says Salisbury -- and the other investigators
agree. One significant fact against a charade is that the data from the
Gliese catalog was not published until 1969, five years after the star
map was drawn by Betty Hill. Prior to 1969, the data could only have
been obtained from the observatories conducting research on the
specific stars in question. It is not uncommon for astronomers not to
divulge their research data -- even to their colleagues -- before it
appears in print. In general, the entire sequence of events just does
not smell of falsification. Coincidence, possibly; hoax, improbable.

Where does all this leave us? Are there creatures inhabiting a planet
of Zeta 2 Reticuli? Did they visit Earth in 1961? The map indicates
that the sun has been "visited occasionally". What does that mean? Will
further study and measurement of the stars in the map change their
relative positions and thus distort the configuration beyond the limits
of coincidence?

The fact that the entire incident hinges on a map drawn under less
than normal circumstances certainly keeps us from drawing a firm
conclusion. Exobiologists are united in their opinion that the chance
of us having neighbors so similar to us, apparently located so close,
is vanishingly small. But then, we don't even know for certain if there
is anybody at all out there -- anywhere -- despite the Hill map and
pronouncements of the most respected scientists.

The only answer is to continue the search. Someday, perhaps soon, we
will know.

=======================================================================

THE FISH-HILL PATTERN STARS

GLIESE ALTERNATE SPECTRAL W - TOTAL GALACTIC GALACTIC
CAT NO NAME TYPE VELOCITY SPACE ORBIT ORBIT
VELOCITY ECCENTRICITY INCL.
------ --------- -------- -------- -------- ------------ --------
17 Zeta Tucanae G2 -38 70 0.1575 .0529
27 54 Piscium K0 10 45 0.1475 .0260
59 HD 9540 G8 1 26 0.0436 .0133
67 HD 10307 G2 0 45 0.1057 .0092
68 107 Piscium K1 3 43 0.1437 .0134
71 Tau Ceti G8 12 36 0.2152 .0287
86 HD 13445 K0 -25 129 0.3492 .0269
86.1 HD 13435 K2 -37 41 ?????? ????
95 HD 14412 G5 -10 33 0.1545 .0025
97 Kappa Fornax G1 -13 35 0.0186 .0078
111 Tau 1 Eridani F6 14 81 0.0544 .0078
136 Zeta 1 Reticuli G2 15 79 0.2077 .0321
138 Zeta 2 Reticuli G1 -27 127 0.2075 .0340
139 82 Eridani G5 -12 37 0.3602 .0310
231 Alpha Mensae G5 -13 22 0.1156 .0065
Sun Sol G5 0 0 0.0559 .0091


All the stars listed here are main sequence or spectral group V
stars. Tau Ceti has a slight peculiarity in its spectrum as

explained in the text. W-velocity is the star's motion in km/sec in
a direction above or below (-) in the galactic plane. Total space
velocity relative to the sun is also in km/sec. Data is from the
Gliese Catalog of Nearby Stars (1969 edition).

Jerry
telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23
http://ricksbbs.synchro.net:8080
---
þ Synchronet þ Rick's BBS telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23

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

PATTERN RECOGNITION & ZETA RETICULI

By Carl Sagan & Steven Soter

"The Zeta Reticuli Incident" is very provocative. It claims that a
map, allegedly shown on board a landed extraterrestrial spacecraft to
Betty Hill in 1961, later drawn by her from memory and published in
1966, corresponds well to similar maps of the closest stars resembling
the sun based on stellar positions in the 1969 Gliese Catalog of Nearby
Stars. The comparison maps were made by Marjorie Fish using a three
dimensional physical model and later by a group of Ohio State
University students using a presumably more accurate (i.e., less
subjective) computer generated projection. The argument rests on how
well the maps agree and on the statistical significance of the
comparison.

Figure 1 [not available here] show the Hill map and the Ohio State
computer map with connecting lines as given in the ASTRONOMY article.
The inclusion of these lines (said to represent trade or navigation
routes) to establish a resemblance between the maps is what a lawyer
would call "leading the witness". We could just as well have drawn
lines as in the bottom of Figure 1 to lead the other way. A less biased
comparison of the two data sets, without connecting lines as in Figure
2, shows little similarity. Any residual resemblance is enhanced by
there being the same number of points in each map, and can be accounted
for by the manner in which these points were selected.

The computer star map includes the sun and 14 stars selected from a
list of the 46 nearest stars similar to the sun, derived from the
Gliese catalog. It is not clear what criteria were used to select
precisely these 14 stars from the list, other than the desire to find a
resemblance to the Hill map. However, we can always pick and choose
from a large random data set some subset that resembles a preconceived
pattern. If we are free also to select the vantage point (from all
possible directions for viewing the projection of a three dimensional
pattern), it is a simple matter to optimize the desired resemblance. Of
course such a resemblance in the case of selection from a random set is
a contrivance -- an example of the statistical fallacy known as "the
enumeration of favorable circumstances".

The presence of such a fallacy in this case appears even more likely
when we examine the original Hill drawing, published in The Interrupted
Journey by John Fuller. In addition to the prominent points that Betty
Hill connected by lines, her map also includes a number of apparently
random dots scattered about -- evidently to represent the presence of
background stars but not meant to suggest actual positions. However,
three of these dots appear in the version of the Hill map used in the
comparison, while the others are absent. Thus some selection was made
even from the original Hill map, although not to the same extent as
from the Gliese catalog. This allow even greater freedom to contrive a
resemblance.

Finally, we lear from The Interrupted Journey that Betty Hill first
thought she saw a remarkable similarity between her UFO star map and a
map of the constellation Pegasus published in the New York Times in
1965 to show the position of the quasar CTA-102. How many star maps,
derived from the Gliese catalog or elsewhere, have been compared with
Betty Hill's before a supposed agreement was found? If we suppress
information on such comparisons we also overestimate the significance
of the result.

The argument on "The Zeta Reticuli Incident" demonstrates only that
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. The argument cannot serve even to
suggest a verification of the Hill story -- which in any case is well
known to be riddled with internal and external contradictions, and
which is amenable to interpretations which do not invoke
extraterrestrial intelligence. Those of us concerned with the
possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence must take care to demand
adequately rigorous standards of evidence. It is all too easy, as the
old Chinese proverb says, for the imprisoned maiden to mistake the
beating of her own heart for the hoof beats of her rescuer's horse.

Steven Soter is a research associate working under the advisement of
Carl Sagan, director of Cornell University's laboratory for Planetary
Studies.

Jerry
telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23
http://ricksbbs.synchro.net:8080
---
þ Synchronet þ Rick's BBS telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23

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

REPLY: By Terence Dickinson

The question raised by Steven Soter and Carl Sagan concerning the
pattern resemblance of the Hill map and the computer generated
projection of the Fish pattern stars is certainly a key question worthy
of discussion. Next month two authors will make specific comments on
this point.

Briefly, there is more to discounting the Fish interpretation than
pattern resemblance. We would have discounted the Fish interpretation
immediately on pattern resemblance alone. The fact that all the
connecting lines join stars in a logical distance progression, and that
all the stars are solar type stars, is significant. Ms. Fish tried to
fit hundreds of other viewpoints and this one was the only one that
even marginally fit and made sense in three dimensions and contained
solar type stars. in this context, you could not "have just as well
drawn the lines...to lead the other way".

Naturally there was a desire to find a resemblance between a group of
nearby stars and the Hill pattern! That's why Marjorie Fish built six
models of the solar neighborhood containing the relative positions of
up to 256 nearby stars. The fact that she came up with a pattern that
fits as well as it does is a tribute to her perseverance and the
accuracy of the models. Stars cannot be moved around "to optimize the
desired resemblance". Indeed Marjorie Fish first tried models using
nearby stars of other than strictly solar type as defined in the
article. She found no resemblances.

The three triangle dots selected from the background dots in the Hill
map were selected because Mrs. Hill said they were more prominent than
the other background stars. Such testimony was the basis of the
original map so we either accept Mrs. Hill's observations and attempt
to analyze them or reject the whole incident. We feel there is
sufficient evidence compelling us not to reject the whole incident at
this time.

We too are demanding rigorous standards of evidence to establish the
reality of extraterrestrial intelligence. If there is even the
slightest possibility that the Hills' encounter can provide information
about such life, we feel it is worth pursuing. The map is worthy of
examination by as many critical minds as possible.

Jerry
telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23
http://ricksbbs.synchro.net:8080
---
þ Synchronet þ Rick's BBS telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23

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

REPLY: By David R. Saunders

Last month, Steven Soter and Carl Sagan offered two counterarguments
relating to Terence Dickinson's article, "The Zeta Reticuli Incident"
(ASTRONOMY, December 1974).

Their first argument was to observe that the inclusion of connecting
lines in certain maps "is what a lawyer would call 'leading the
witness'." This was used as the minor premise in a syllogism for which
the major premise was never stated. Whether we should consider "leading
the witness" a sin or not will depend on how we conceive the purpose of
the original article. The implied analogy between ASTRONOMY magazine
and a court of law is tenuous at best; an expository article written
for a nonprofessional audience is entitled, in my opinion, to do all it
can to facilitate communication -- assuming that the underlying message
is honest. Much of what we call formal education is really little more
than "leading the witness", and no one who accepts the educational
goals objects very strongly to this process. In this context, we may
also observe that Soter's and Sagan's first argument provides another
illustrative example of "leading the witness"; the argument attacks
procedure, not substance -- and serves only to blunt the reader's
possible criticism of the forthcoming second argument. This paragraph
may also be construed as an effort to lead the witness. Once we have
been sensitized to the possibilities, none of us needs to be further
misled!

The second argument offered by Soter and Sagan does attack a
substance. Indeed, the editorial decision to publish the original
article was a responsible decision only if the issues raised by this
second line of possible argument were fully considered. Whenever a
statistical inference is made from selected data, it is crucial to
determine the strenuousness of that selection and then to appropriately
discount the apparent clarity of the inference. By raising the issue of
the possible effects of selection, Soter and Sagan are right on target.
However, by failing to treat the matter with quantitative objectivity (
by failing to weigh the evidence in each direction numerically, for
example), they might easily perform a net disservice.

In some situations, the weight of the appropriate discount will
suffice to cancel the clarity of a proposed inference -- and we will
properly dismiss the proposal as a mere capitalization on chance, or a
lucky outcome. (It is abundantly clear that Soter and Sagan regard the
star map results as just such a fortuitous outcome.) In some other
situations, the weight of the appropriate discount may be fully applied
without accounting for the clarity of the inference as a potentially
valid discovery. For example, if I proposed to infer from four
consecutive coin tosses observed as heads that the coin would always
yield heads, you would properly dismiss this proposal as unwarranted by
the data. However, if I proposed exactly the same inference based on 40
similar consecutive observations of heads, you would almost certainly
accept the inference and begin looking with me for a more systematic
explanation of the data. The crucial difference here is the purely
quantitative distinction between 4 and 40; the two situations are
otherwise identical and cannot be distinguished by any purely
qualitative argument.

When Soter and Sagan use phrases such as "some subset that
resembles", "free also to select the vantage point", "simple matter to
optimize", and "freedom to contrive a resemblance", they are speaking
qualitatively about matters that should (and can) be treated
quantitatively. Being based only on this level of argument, Soter's and
Sagan's conclusions can only be regarded as inconclusive.

A complete quantitative examination of this problem will require the
numerical estimation of at least three factors, and their expression in
a uniform metric so that wee can see which way the weight of the
evidence is leaning. The most convenient common metric will be that of
"bits of information", which is equivalent to counting consecutive
heads in the previous example.

One key factor is the degree of resemblance between the Hill map and
the optimally similar computer-drawn map. Precisely how many
consecutive heads is this resemblance equivalent to? A second key
factor is the precise size of the population of stars from which the
computer was allowed to make its selection. And a third key factor is
the precise dimensionality of the space in which the computer was free
to choose the best vantage point. If the first factor exceeds the sum
of the other two by a sufficient margin, we are justified in insisting
on a systematic explanation for the data.

The third factor is the easiest to deal with. The dimensionality of
the vantage-point space is not more than three. A property of the
metric system for weighing evidence is that each independent dimension
of freedom leads us to expect the equivalent of one more consecutive
head in the observed data. Three dimensions of freedom are worth
exactly 3.0 bits. In the end, even three bits will be seen as
relatively minor.

The second factor might be much larger than this, and deserve
relatively more discussion. The appropriate discount for this selection
will be log2C, where C is the number of distinct combinations of stars
"available" to the computer. If we were to agree that C must represent
the possible combinations of 46 stars taken 14 at a time, then log2C
would be 37.8 bits; this would be far more than enough to kill the
proposed inference. However, not all these combinations are equally
plausible. We really should consider only combinations that are
adjacent to one another and to the sun, but it is awkward to try to
specify exactly which combinations these are.

The really exciting moment in working with these data came with the
realization that in the real universe, our sun belongs to a closed
cluster together with just six of the other admissible stars -- Tau
Ceti, 82 Eridani, Zeta Tucanae, Alpha Mensae, and Zeta 1 and Zeta 2
Reticuli. The real configuration of interstellar distances is such that
an explorer starting from any of the seven should visit all of them
before venturing outside. If the Hill map is assumed to include the
sun, then it should include the other members of this cluster within an
unbroken network of connections, and the other connected stars should
be relatively adjacent in the real universe.

Zeta Reticuli occupies a central position in all of the relatively
few combinations that now remain plausible. However, in my opinion, the
adjacency criteria do leave some remnant ambiguity concerning the
combination of real stars to be matched against the Hill map -- but
only with respect to the region farthest from the sun. The stars in the
closed cluster and those in the chain leading to Gliese 67 must be
included, as well as Gliese 86 and two others from a set of five
candidates. Log2C for this remnant selection is 3.9 bits. we must also
notice that the constraint that Zeta Tucanae be occulted by Zeta
Reticuli reduces the dimensionality of the vantage-point space from 3.0
to 1.0. Thus, the sum of factors two and three is now estimated as only
4.9 bits.

The first factor is also awkward to evaluate -- simply because there
is no standard statistical technique for comparing points on two maps.
Using an approximation based on rank-order correlation, I've guessed
that the number we seek here is between 11 and 16. (This is the result
cited by Dickinson on page 15 of the original article.) Deducting the
second and third factors, this rough analysis leaves us with an
empirical result whose net meaning is equivalent to observing at least
6 to 11 consecutive heads. (I say "at least", because there are other
factors contributing to the total picture -- not discussed either by
Dickinson or by Soter and Sagan -- that could be adduced to enhance
this figure. For example, the computed vantage point is in good
agreement with Betty Hill's reported position when observing the map,
and the coordinate system implicit in the boundaries of the map is in
good agreement with a natural galactic coordinate system. Neither have
we discussed any quantitative use of the connections drawn on the Hill
map, which were put there in advance of any of these analyses.)

In the final interpretation, it will always be possible to argue that
5 or 10 or even 15 bits of remarkable information simply isn't enough.
However, this is a matter for each of us to decide independently. In
deciding this matter, it is more important that we be consistent with
ourselves (as we review a large number of uncertain interpretations of
data that we have made) than that we be in agreement with some external
authority. I do believe, though, that relatively few individuals will
continue a coin-tossing match in which their total experience is
equivalent to even six consecutive losses. In scientific matters, my
own standard is that I'm interested in any result that has five or more
bits of information supporting it -- though I prefer not to stick my
neck out publicly on the basis of less than 10. Adhering to this
standard, I continue to find the star map results exceedingly
interesting.

Dr. David R. Saunders is a Research Associate at the University of
Chicago's Industrial Relations Center.

Jerry
telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23
http://ricksbbs.synchro.net:8080
---
þ Synchronet þ Rick's BBS telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23

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

REPLY: By Michael Peck

Carl Sagan and Steven Soter, in challenging the possibilities
discussed in "The Zeta Reticuli Incident", suggest that without the
connecting lines drawn into the Hill map and the Fish interpretation
there is little resemblance between the two. This statement can be
tested using only X and Y coordinates of the points in the Hill map and
a projection of the stars in the Fish pattern. The method used for the
comparison can be visualized this way:

Suppose points of the Hill map and the Fish map are plotted on
separate glass plates. These plates are held parallel (one behind the
other), and are moved back and forth and rotated until the patterns
appear as nearly as possible to match. A systematic way of comparing
the patterns would be to adjust the plates until corresponding pairs of
points match exactly. Then the other points in the patterns can be
compared. Repeating this process for all the possible pairs of points
(there are 105 in this case), the best fit can be found.
Mathematically, this involves a change of scale and a simple coordinate
transformation. A computer program was written which, using X and Y
coordinates measured from a copy of the Hill map and a projection of
the Fish stars, and using the Hill map as the standard, computed new X
and Y coordinates for the Fish stars using the process described. From
these two sets of coordinates, six quantities were calculated: the
average difference in X and Y; the standard deviation of the
differences in X and Y, a measure of the amount of variation of the
differences; and correlation coefficients in X and Y. The coefficient
of correlation is a quantity used by statisticians to test a suspected
relation between two sets of data. In this case, for instance, we
suspect that the X and Y coordinates computed from the Fish map should
equal the X and Y coordinates of the Hill map. If they matched exactly,
the correlation coefficients would be one. If there were no correlation
at all, the value would be near zero. We found that, for the best
fitting orientation of the Fish stars, there was a correlation
coefficient in X of 0.95 and in Y of 0.91. In addition, the average
difference and the standard deviation of the differences were both
small -- about 1/10 the total range in X and Y. As a comparison, the
same program was run for a set of random points, with resulting
correlation coefficients of 1/10 or less (as was expected). We can
conclude, therefore, that the degree of resemblance between the two
maps is fairly high.

From another point of view, it is possible to compute the probability
that a random set of points will coincide with the Hill map to the
degree of accuracy observed here. The probability that 15 points chosen
at random will fall on the points of the Hill map within an error range
which would make them as close as the Fish map is about one chance in
10 to the fifteenth power (one million billion). It is 1,000 times more
probable that a person could predict a bridge hand dealt from a fair
deck.

Michael Peck is an astronomy student at Northwestern University in
Illinois.

Jerry
telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23
http://ricksbbs.synchro.net:8080
---
þ Synchronet þ Rick's BBS telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23

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

REBUTTAL: To David Saunders and Michael Peck
By Carl Sagan and Steven Soter

Dr. David Saunders last month claimed to have demonstrated the
statistical significance of the Hill map, which was allegedly found on
board a landed UFO and supposedly depicted the sun and 14 nearby
sunlike stars. The Hill map was said to resemble the Fish map -- the
latter being an optimal two-dimensional projection of a three-
dimensional model prepared by selecting 14 stars from a positional list
of the 46 nearest known sunlike stars. Saunders' argument can be
expressed by the equation SS = Dr -(SF + VP), in which all quantities
are in information bits. SS is the statistical significance of the
correlation between the two maps, DR is the degree of resemblance
between them, SF is a selection factor depending on the number of stars
chosen and the size of the list, and VP is the information content
provided by a free choice in three dimensions of the vantage point for
projecting the map. Saunders finds SS = 6 to 11 bits, meaning that the
correlation is equivalent to between 6 and 11 consecutive heads in a
coin toss and therefore probably not accidental. The procedure is
acceptable in principle, but the result depends entirely on how the
quantities on the right-hand side of the equation were chosen.

For the degree of resemblance between the two maps, Saunders claims
that DR = 11 to 16 bits, which he admits is only a guess -- but we will
let it stand. For the selection factor, he at first takes SF = log2C =
37.8 bits, where C represents the combinations of 46 things taken 14 at
a time. Realizing that the size of this factor alone will cause SS to
be negative and wipe out his argument, he makes a number of ad hoc
adjustments based essentially on his interpretation of the internal
logic of the Hill map, and SF somehow gets reduced to only 3.9 bits.
For the present, we will let even that stand in order to avoid becoming
embroiled in a discussion of how an explorer from the star Zeta
Reticuli would choose to arrange his/her/its travel itinerary --a
matter about which we can claim no particular knowledge. However, we
must bear in mind that a truly unprejudiced examination of the data
with no a priori interpretations would give SF = 37.8 bits.

It is Saunders' choice of the vantage point factor VP with which we
must take strongest issue, for this is a matter of geometry and simple
pattern recognition. Saunders assumes that free choice of the vantage
point for viewing a three-dimensional model of 15 stars is worth only
VP = 3 bits. He then reduces the information content of directionality
to one bit by introducing the "constraint" that the star Zeta Tucanae
be occulted by Zeta Reticuli (with no special notation on the Hill map
to mark this peculiarity). This ad hoc device is invoked to explain the
absence of Zeta Tucanae from the Hill map, but it reveals the circular
reasoning involved. After all, why bother to calculate the statistical
significance of the supposed map correlation if one has already decided
which points represent which stars?

Certainly the selection of vantage point is worth more than three
bits (not to mention one bit). Probably the easiest circumstance to
recognize and remember about random projections of the model in
question are the cases in which two stars appear to be immediately
adjacent. By viewing the model from all possible directions, there are
14 distinct ways in which any given star can be seen in projection as
adjacent to some other star. This can be done for each of the 15 stars,
giving 210 projected configurations -- each of which would be
recognized as substantially different from the others in information
content. And of course there are many additional distinct recognizable
projections of the 15 stars not involving any two being immediately
adjacent. (For example, three stars nearly equidistant in a straight
line are easily recognized, as in Orion's belt.) Thus for a very
conservative lower bound, the information content determined by choice
of vantage point (that is, by being allowed to rotate the model about
three axes) can be taken as at least equal to VP = log2(210) = 7.7
bits. Using the rest of Saunders' analysis, this would at best yield SS
= zero to 4.4 bits -- not a very impressive correlation.

There is another way to understand the large number of bits involved
in the choice of the vantage point. The stars in question are separated
by distances of order 10 parsecs. If the vantage point is situated
above or not too far from the 15 stars, it need only be shifted by
about 0.17 parsecs to cause a change of one degree in the angle
subtended by some pair of stars. Now one degree is a very modest
resolution, corresponding to twice the full moon and is easily detected
by anyone. For three degrees of freedom, the number of vantage points
corresponding to this resolution is of order (10/0.17) cubed ~ (60)
cubed ~ 2 X 10 to the fifth power, corresponding to VP = 17.6 bits.
This factor alone is sufficient to make SS negative, and to wipe out
any validity to the supposed correlation.

Even if we were to accept Saunders' claim that SS = 6 to 11 bits
(which we obviously do not, particularly in view of the proper value
for SF), it is not at all clear that this would be statistically
significant because we are not told how many other possible
correlations were tried and failed before the Fish map was devised. For
comparison, there is the well-known correlation between the incidence
of Andean earthquakes and oppositions of the planet Uranus. It is
unlikely in the extreme that there is a physical causal mechanism
operating here -- among other reasons, because there is no correlation
with oppositions of Jupiter, Saturn or Neptune. But to have found such
a correlation the investigator must have sought a wide variety of
correlations of seismic events in many parts of the world with
oppositions and conjunctions of many astronomical objects. If enough
correlations are sought, statistics requires that eventually one will
be found, valid to any level of significance that we wish. Before we
can determine whether a claimed correlation implies a causal
connection, we must convince ourselves that the number of correlations
sought has not been so large as to make the claimed correlation
meaningless.

This point can be further illustrated by Saunders' example of
flipping coins. Suppose we flip a coin once per second for several
hours. Now let us consider three cases: two heads in a row, 10 heads in
a row, and 40 heads in a row. We would, of course, think there is
nothing extraordinary about the first case. Only four attempts at
flipping two coins are required to have a reasonable expectation value
of two heads in a row. Ten heads in a row, however, will occur only
once in every 2 to the tenth power = 1,024 trials, and 40 heads in a
row will occur only once every 2 to the fortieth ~ 10 to the twelfth
power trials. At a flip rate of one coin per second, a toss of 10 coins
requires 10 seconds; 1,024 trials of 10 coins each requires just under
three hours. But 40 heads in a row at the same rate requires 4 X 10 to
the thirteenth power seconds or a little over a million years. A run of
40 consecutive heads in a few hours of coin tossing would certainly be
strong prima facie evidence of the ability to control the fall of the
coin. Ten heads in a row under the circumstances we have described
would provide no convincing evidence at all. It is expected by the law
of probability. The Hill map correlation is at best claimed by Saunders
to be in the category of 10 heads in a row, but with no clear statement
as to the number of unsuccessful trials previously attempted.

Michael Peck finds a high degree of correlation between the Hill map
and the Fish map, and thereby also misses the central point of our
original criticism: that the stars in the Fish map were already
preselected in order to maximize that very correlation. Peck finds one
chance in 10 to the fifteenth power that 15 random points will
correlate with the Fish map as well as the Hill map does. However, had
he selected 15 out of a random sample of, say, 46 points in space, and
had he simultaneously selected the optimal vantage point in three
dimensions in order to maximize the resemblance, he could have achieved
an apparent correlation comparable to that which he claims between the
Hill and Fish maps. Indeed, the statistical fallacy involved in "the
enumeration of favorable circumstances" leads necessarily to large, but
spurious correlations.

We again conclude that the Zeta Reticuli argument and the entire Hill
story do not survive critical scrutiny.


Dr. Steven Soter is a research associate in astronomy and Dr. Carl
Sagan is director of the Laboratory for Planetary Studies, both at
Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y.

Jerry
telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23
http://ricksbbs.synchro.net:8080
---
þ Synchronet þ Rick's BBS telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23

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

IS THE FISH INTERPRETATION UNIQUE?

By Robert Sheaffer

The story of Marjorie Fish's attempts at identifying the star
patterns sketched by Betty Hill was told in "The Zeta Reticuli
Incident" by Terence Dickinson in the December 1974 issue. This pattern
of solar type stars unquestionably bears a striking resemblance to the
map that Betty Hill says she saw while she was being examined aboard a
flying saucer. But how significant is this resemblance? Is there only
one pattern of stars which will match the sketch convincingly?

Betty Hill herself discovered an impressive resemblance in a star map
published in the New York Times. In 1965 a map of the stars of the
constellation Pegasus appeared in that newspaper, accompanying the
announcement by a Russian radio astronomer (Comrade Sholomitsky) the
radio source CTA-102, depicted in the map, may be sending out
intelligent radio signals. Intrigued by this remarkable claim, Betty
Hill studied the map, and added the corresponding star names to her
sketch. As you can see, the Pegasus map -- while not exactly like the
sketch -- is impressively similar. If CTA-102 -- appearing near the
"globes" in her sketch -- was in reality an artificial radio source,
that would give the Pegasus map much additional credibility.

However, the case for the artificial origin of quasar CTA-102 soon
fell flat. Other scientists were unable to observe these reported
strange variations which had caused Sholomitsky to suggest that CTA-102
might be pulsing intelligently.

In 1966, when Marjorie Fish was just beginning her work, Charles W.
Atterberg (employed by an aeronautical communications firm in Illinois)
also set out to attempt to identify this star pattern.

"I began my search by perusing a star atlas I had on hand," Atterberg
explained. "I soon realized that this was a pointless and futile
project." Any star pattern useful for interstellar navigation, he
reasoned, would not be Earth-centered as are the familiar constellation
figures. Thus Atterberg began to look in three dimensions for a pattern
of stars that would approximate the Hill sketch.

Working from a list of the nearest stars, Atterberg "began plotting
these stars as they would be seen from various directions. I did this
by drawing the celestial position of a star, I would draw a straight
line penetrating the sphere at a known position, and measure out to the
distance of the star...It at first took me hours to plot this out from
any one particular direction."

When plotting the stars as seen from a position indefinitely far away
on the celestial equator at 17 hours right ascension, Atterberg found a
pattern of stars conspicuously similar to the Hill sketch. After much
work he refined this position to 17 hours 30 minutes right ascension, -
10 degrees declination. The resulting map resembles the Hill sketch
even more strongly than does the Fish map, and it contains a greater
number of stars. Furthermore, all of the stars depicted in the
Atterberg map lie within 18.2 light-years of the sun. The Fish map
reaches out 53 light-years, where our knowledge of stellar distances is
much less certain.

Carl Sagan states in Intelligent Life in the Universe that, excluding
multiple star systems, "the three nearest stars of potential biological
interest are Epsilon Eridani, Epsilon Indi and Tau Ceti." These three
stars from the heart of the Atterberg map, defining the two spheres in
the very center of the heavy lines that supposedly represent the major
"trade routes" of the "UFOnauts". Epsilon Eridani and Tau Ceti were the
two stars listened to by Project Ozma, the pioneering radio search for
intelligent civilization in space.

Other heavy lines connect the spheres with the sun, which we know has
at least one habitable planet. Thinner lines, supposedly representing
places visited less frequently, connect with Groombridge 1618,
Groombridge 34, 61 Cygni and Sigma Draconis, which are designated as
stars "that could have habitable planets" in Stephen H. Dole's Rand
Corporation study, Habitable Planets for Man. Of the 11 stars (not
counting the sun) that have allegedly been visited by the aliens, seven
of them appear on Dole's list. Three of the four stars which are not
included are stopping points on the trip to Sigma Draconis, which Dole
considered to have even better prospects than Epsilon Eridani or
Epsilon Indi for harboring a habitable planet.

Another remarkable aspect of the Atterberg map is the fact that its
orientation, unlike the Fish map, is not purely arbitrary. Gould's belt
-- a concentration of the sky's brightest stars -- is exactly
perpendicular to the plane of the Atterberg map. Furthermore, it is
vertical in orientation; it does not cut obliquely across the map, but
runs exactly up and down. A third curious coincidence: The southpole of
the Atterberg map points toward the brightest part of Gould's belt, in
the constellation Carina. The bright stars comprising Gould's belt
might well serve as a useful reference frame for interstellar
travelers, and it is quite plausible that they might base a
navigational coordinate system upon it.

No other map interpreting the Hill sketch offers any rationale for
its choice of perspectives. The problem with trying to interpret Betty
Hill's sketch is that it simply fits too many star patterns. Three such
patterns have been documented to date. How many more exist
undiscovered?

Robert Sheaffer is a computer systems programmer currently working at
NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD.

Jerry
telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23
http://ricksbbs.synchro.net:8080
---
þ Synchronet þ Rick's BBS telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23

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

REPLY: By Marjorie Fish

Basically, Robert Sheaffer's contention is that at least three
patterns can be found that are similar to Betty Hill's map, and
therefore, more such interpretations are likely. If one stipulates that
any stars from any vantage point can be used, then I agree that many
patterns can be found similar to the map. However, if one uses
restrictions on the type of stars, according to their probability of
having planets and also on the logic of the apparent travel paths, then
it is much more difficult. The three maps were: (1) Betty Hill's
interpretation of the constellation Pegasus as being similar to her
map, (2) Charles Atterberg's work, and (3) my work.

When I started the search, I made a number of restrictions including:

1) The sun had to be part of the pattern with a line connected to it,
since the leader of the aliens indicated this to Betty.

2) Since they came to our solar system, they should also be
interested in solar type stars (single main sequence G, probably also
late single main sequence F and early single main sequence K). These
stars should not be bypassed if they are in the same general volume of
space.

3) Since there are a number of the above stars relatively near the
sun and the pattern shows only 12 stars, the pattern would have to be
relatively close to us (or else they would be bypassing sunlike stars,
which is illogical).

4) The travel pattern itself should be logical. That is, they would
not zip out 300 light-years, back to 10 light-years, then out 1,000,
etc. The moves should make a logical progression.

5) Large young main sequence stars (O, B, A, early F) which are
unlikely to have planets and/or life would not be likely to be visited.

6) Stars off the main sequence with the possible exception of those
just starting off the main sequence would probably be avoided as they
are unsuitable for life and, due to their variability, could be
dangerous.

7) If they go to one star of a given type, it shows interest in that
type star -- so they should go to other stars of that type if they are
in the same volume of space. An exception to this might be the closest
stars to the base star, which they might investigate out of curiosity
in the early stages of stellar travel. For example, they would not be
likely to bypass five red dwarfs to stop at the sixth, if all six were
approximately equal in size, spectra, singleness or multiplicity, etc.
Or, if they go to one close G double, they would probably go to other
close G doubles.

8) The base star or stars is one or both of the large circles with
the lines radiating from it.

9) One or both of the base stars should be suitable for life -- F8 to
K5 using the lowest limits given by exobiologists, or more likely, K1
given by Dole.

10) Because the base stars are represented as such large circles, they
are either intrinsically bigger or brighter than the rest or they are
closer to the map's surface (the viewer) than the rest -- probably the
latter. This was later confirmed by Betty Hill.

Mrs. Hill's interpretation of Pegasus disregards all of these
criteria.

Atterberg's work is well done. His positioning of the stars is
accurate. He complies with criteria 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8; fairly well
with 4; less well with 9, and breaks down on 7 and 10. I will discuss
the last three of Atterberg's differences with my basic criteria in the
following paragraphs:

Relative to point 9, his base stars are Epsilon Indi and Epsilon
Eridani, both of which are near the lower limit for life bearing
planets -- according to most exobiologists -- and not nearly as
suitable as Zeta 1 and 2 Reticuli.

Concerning point 7, I had ruled out the red dwarfs fairly early
because there were so many of them and there were only 12 lined points
on the Hill map. If one used red dwarfs in logical consecutive order,
all the lines were used up before the sun was reached. Atterberg used
red dwarfs for some of his points to make the map resemble Betty Hill's
but he bypassed equally good similar red dwarfs to reach them. If they
were interested in red dwarfs, there should have been lines going to
Gliese 65 (Luyten 76208) which lies near Tau Ceti and about the same
distance from Epsilon Eridani as Tau Ceti, and Gliese 866 (Luyten 789-
6) which is closer to Tau Ceti than the sun. Gliese 1 (CD-37 15492) and
Gliese 887 (CD-36 15693) are relatively close to Epsilon Indi. These
should have been explored first before red dwarfs farther away.

Red dwarfs Gliese 406 (Wolf 359) and Gliese 411 (BD + 36 2147) were
by passed to reach Groombridge 1618 and Ross 128 from the sun.
Barnard's star would be the most logical first stop out from the sun,
if one were to stop at red dwarfs, as it is the closest single M and is
known to have planets.

Since Atterberg's pattern stars include a number of relatively close
doubles (61 Cygni, Struve 2398, Groombridge 34 and Kruger 60), there
should also be a line to Alpha Centauri --but there is not.

Relating to point 10, Atterberg's base stars are not the largest or
brightest of his pattern stars. The sun, Tau Ceti, and Sigma Draconis
are brighter. Nor are they closer to the viewer. The sun and 61 Cygni
are much closer to the viewer than Epsilon Eridani. The whole
orientation feels wrong because the base stars are away from the viewer
and movement is along the lines toward the viewer. (Betty Hill told me
that she tried to show the size and depth of the stars by the relative
size of the circles she drew. This and the fact that the map was
alleged to be 3-D did not come out in Interrupted Journey, so Atterberg
would not have known that.)

Sheaffer notes that seven of Atterberg's pattern stars appear on
Dole's list as stars that could have habitable planets. These stars are
Groombridge 1618 (Gliese 380, BD + 50 1725), Groombridge 34 (Gliese
15,BD +43 44), 61 Cygni, Sigma Draconis, Tau Ceti, Epsilon Eridani and
Epsilon Indi. Of these seven, only Epsilon Eridani, Tau Ceti and Sigma
Draconis are above Doles' absolute magnitude minimum. The others are
listed in a table in his book Habitable Planets for Man, but with the
designation: "Probability of habitable planet very small; less than
0.001." Epsilon Eridani was discussed earlier. Sigma Draconis appears
good but is listed as a probable variable in Dorrit Hoffleit's
Catalogue of Bright Stars. Variability great enough to be noticed from
Earth at Sigma Draconis' distance would cause problems for life on its
planets. This leaves Tau Ceti which is one of my pattern stars also.

Another point Sheaffer made was that orientation of my map was
arbitrary compared to Atterberg's map's orientation with Gould's belt.
One of my first questions to Betty Hill was, "Did any bright band or
concentration of stars show?" This would establish the galactic plane
and the map's orientation, as well as indicate it was not just a local
map. But there was none indicating that if the map was valid it was
probably just a local one.

The plane of the face of my model map is not random, as Sheaffer
indicated. It has intrinsic value for the viewer since many of the
pattern stars form a plane at this viewing angle. The value to the
viewer is that these stars have their widest viewing separation at that
angle, and their relative distances are much more easily comprehended.

My final interpretation of the map was the only one I could find
where all the restrictions outlined above were met. The fact that only
stars most suitable for Earthlike planets remained and filled the
pattern seems significant.

Marjorie Fish is a research assistant at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory in Tennessee.

Jerry
telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23
http://ricksbbs.synchro.net:8080
---
þ Synchronet þ Rick's BBS telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23

Date: 06-24-91 13:22
From: Bryce Eckstein
Subj: Re: CBC Documentary

Hello Rick!

In a msg of <20 Jun 91>, Rick Graham writes to Bryce Eckstein:

> What was the result of the documentary on Betty and Barney Hill? What
> conclusion was reached?

The documentary contains commentary and opinion from two reputable
astronomers and three equally reputable researchers.

1. Astronomer Terry Dickenson, who's article about the Hill abduction
in Astronomy Magazine in 1974, first brought the incident to the
attention of the scientific community.

2. Amateur Astronomer Marjorie Fisch, found a real three-dimensional
distribution of stars that perfectly matched Betty Hill's map, first
published in John Fuller's book, "Interrupted Journey".

3. Dr. David Jacobs, Assistant Professor of History at Temple
University in Philadelphia, the only Prof teaching a course in UFO's at
any major university in the U.S. or Canada, has spent his research time
for the past five years, exclusively on alien abductions. He's
interviewed 51 subjects from whom he has collected over 300 abduction
stories.

4. Dr. David Gottlieb, a Psychotherapist in Toronto.

5. Dr. Michael Persinger, a Psychologist and Neuro-Scientist at
Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario. With the exception of Dr.
Persinger, who examined the Hill incident and compared it to similar
cases from a neurological viewpoint, all guests on the program
objectively ruled out hoax and supported the Hill's experience as being
valid.

Bottom lines:

Dr. Gottlieb .. "Beats me!"

Dr, Jacobs .. (And I paraphrase here) "The whole incident disturbs me
greatly. I wish the scientific community had not heard of the Hill case
and other's that I have researched. But now that we have, we must come
to grips with the fact that ET activity is a reality and make an effort
to remove the blinders as to what is really going on". Dr. Persinger ..
goes into how the experiences are likely manifestations of neurological
activity. Sorry, that's as far as I can take his theories - far too
deep for my understanding {grin}.

Marjorie Fisch .. is convinced the Hill star map is valid.

Terry Dickenson... feels his role in the investigation is that of an
astronomical referee. Here is a quote from Dickenson, taken from the
tape:

"We've got something that can be studied completely from an
astronomical point of view. It seems to hold up from that angle".
"Also, Betty Hill drew the map before the star atlases were available
to interpret it, so there is no possibility of any kind of confusion or
faking in that regard". "But I back off completely when we start
talking about the bizarre circumstances that led to the original
drawing of the map, the abduction scenario, the hypnosis and all the
rest of it". "I feel totally unqualified to talk about it. I don't know
where it all stands right now. All I can say is that the map works.
Nobody else come up with any other interpretation that works, and I
have to leave it at that". I'm personally convinced Betty and Barney
Hill had a bona fide CEIII... and I too, will leave it at that.

Cheers Bryce

Cori,
telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23
http://ricksbbs.synchro.net:8080
---
þ Synchronet þ Rick's BBS telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23

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

THE ZETA RETICULI INCIDENT

By Terence Dickinson with related commentary by: Jeffrey L.
Kretsch, Carl Sagan, Steven Soter, Robert Schaeffer, Marjorie Fish,
David Saunders, and Michael Peck.

(C) 1976 by AstroMedia, Corp., publisher of Astronomy Magazine.

[...]

the experience [Hill abduction] remains a fascinating story despite the
absence of proof that it actually happened. Anyway -- that's where
things were in 1966 when Marjorie Fish, an Ohio schoolteacher, amateur
astronomer and member of Mensa, became involved. She wondered if the
objects shown on the map that Betty Hill allegedly observed inside the
vehicle might represent some actual pattern of celestial objects. To
get more information about the map she decided to visit Betty Hill in
the summer of 1969. (Barney Hill died in early 1969.) Here is Ms.
Fish's account of that meeting:

"On Aug.4, 1969, Betty Hill discussed the star map with me. Betty
explained that she drew the map in 1964 under posthypnotic suggestion.
It was to be drawn only if she could remember it accurately, and she
was not to pay attention to what she was drawing -- which puts it in
the realm of automatic drawing. This is a way of getting at repressed
or forgotten material and can result in unusual accuracy. She made two
erasures showing her conscious mind took control part of the time.

"Betty described the map as three-dimensional, like looking through a
window. The stars were tinted and glowed. The map material was flat and
thin (not a model), and there were no noticeable lenticular lines like
one of our three-dimensional processes. (It sounds very much like a
reflective hologram.) Betty did not shift her position while viewing
it, so we cannot tell if it would give the same three-dimensional view
from all positions or if it would be completely three-dimensional.
Betty estimated the map was approximately three feet wide and two feet
high with the pattern covering most of the map. She was standing about
three feet away from it. She said there were many other stars on the
map but she only (apparently) was able to specifically recall the
prominent ones connected by lines and a small distinctive triangle off
to the left. There was no concentration of stars to indicate the Milky
Way (galactic plane) suggesting that if it represented reality, it
probably only contained local stars. There were no grid lines."

[...]

Now we are ready to return to the map drawn by Betty Hill. Marjorie
Fish reasoned that if the stars in the Hill map corresponded to a
patter of real stars -- perhaps something like we just developed, only
from an alien's viewpoint -- it might be possible to pinpoint the
origin of the alleged space travelers. Assuming the two stars in the
foreground of the Hill map were the "base" stars (the sun, a single
star, was ruled out here), she decided to try to locate the entire
pattern. She theorized that the Hill map contained only local stars
since no concentration would be present if a more distant viewpoint was
assumed and if both "us" and the alien visitors' home base were to be
represented.

Let's assume, just as an astronomical exercise, that the map does
show the sun and the star that is "the sun" to the humanoids. We'll
take the Hill encounter at face value, and see where it leads.

Since the aliens were described as "humanoid" and seemed reasonably
comfortable on this planet, their home planet should be basically like
ours. Their atmosphere must be similar because the Hills breathed
without trouble while inside the ship, and the aliens did not appear to
wear any protective apparatus. And since we assume their biology is
similar to ours, their planet should have the same temperature regime
as Earth (Betty and Barney did say it was uncomfortably cold in the
ship). In essence, then, we assume their home planet must be very
Earthlike. Based on what we discussed earlier it follows that their sun
would be on our list if it were within 55 light-years of us.

The lines on the map, according to Betty Hill, were described by the
alien as "trade routes" or "places visited occasionally" with the
dotted lines as "expeditions". Any interpretation of the Betty Hill map
must retain the logic of these routes (i.e. the lines would link stars
that would be worth visiting).

Keeping all this in mind, Marjorie Fish constructed several three-
dimensional models of the solar neighborhood in hopes of detecting the
pattern in the Hill map. Using beads dangling on threads, she
painstakingly recreated our stellar environment. Between Aug. 1968 and
Feb. 1973, she strung beads, checked data, searched and checked again.
A suspicious alignment, detected in late 1968, turned out to be almost
a perfect match once new data from the detailed 1969 edition of the
Catalog of Nearby Stars became available. (This catalog is often called
the "Gliese catalog" -- pronounced "glee-see" -- after its principal
author, Wilhelm Gliese.)


The 16 stars in the stellar configuration discovered by Marjorie Fish
are compared with the map drawn by Betty Hill in the diagram on page 6.
If some of the star names on the Fish map sound familiar, they should.
Ten of the 16 stars are from the compact group that we selected earlier
based on the most logical direction to pursue to conduct interstellar
exploration from Earth.

Continuing to take the Hill map at face value, the radiating pattern
of "trade routes" implies that Zeta 1 and Zeta 2 Reticuli are the "hub"
of exploration or, in the context of the incident, the aliens' home
base. The sun is at the end of one of the supposedly regular trade
routes.

The pair of stars that make up Zeta Reticuli is practically in the
midst of the cluster of solar type stars that attracted us while we
were mapping out a logical interstellar voyage. Checking further we
find that all but two of the stars in the Fish pattern are on the table
of nearby solar type stars. These two stars are Tau 1 Eridani (an F6
star) and Gliese 86.1 (K2), and are, respectively, just above and below
the parameters we arrived at earlier. One star that should be there
(Zeta Tucanae) is missing probably because it is behind Zeta 1 Reticuli
at the required viewing angle.

To summarize, then: (1) the pattern discovered by Marjorie Fish has
an uncanny resemblance to the map drawn by Betty Hill; (2) the stars
are mostly the ones that we would visit if we were exploring from Zeta
Reticuli, and (3) the travel patterns generally make sense.

Walter Mitchell, professor of astronomy at Ohio State University in
Columbus, has looked at Marjorie Fish's interpretation of the Betty
Hill map in detail and tells us, "The more I examine it, the more I am
impressed by the astronomy involved in Marjorie Fish's work."

During their examination of the map, Mitchell and some of his
students inserted the positions of hundreds of nearby stars into a
computer and had various space vistas brought up on a cathode ray tube
readout. They requested the computer to put them in a position out
beyond Zeta Reticuli looking toward the sun. From this viewpoint the
map pattern obtained by Marjorie Fish was duplicated with virtually no
variations. Mitchell noted an important and previously unknown fact
first pointed out by Ms. Fish: The stars in the map are almost in a
plane; that is, they fill a wheel shaped volume of space that makes
star hopping from one to another easy and the logical way to go -- and
that is what is implied by the map that Betty Hill allegedly saw.

"I can find no major point of quibble with Marjorie Fish's
interpretation of the Betty Hill map," says David R. Saunders, a
statistics expert at the Industrial Relations Center of the University
of Chicago. By various lines of statistical reasoning he concludes that
the chances of finding a match among 16 stars of a specific spectral
type among the thousand-odd stars nearest the sun is "at least 1,000 to
1 against".

"The odds are about 10,000 to 1 against a random configuration
matching perfectly with Betty Hill's map," Saunders reports. "But the
star group identified by Marjorie Fish isn't quite a perfect match, and
the odds consequently reduce to about 1,000 to 1. That is, there is one
chance in 1,000 that the observed degree of congruence would occur in
the volume of space we are discussing.

"In most fields of investigation where similar statistical methods
are used, that degree of congruence is rather persuasive," concludes
Saunders.

Saunders, who has developed a monumental computerized catalog of more
than 60,000 UFO sightings, tells us that the Hill case is not unique in
its general characteristics -- there are other known cases of alleged
communication with extraterrestrials. But in no other case on record
have maps ever been mentioned.

Cori,
telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23
http://ricksbbs.synchro.net:8080
---
þ Synchronet þ Rick's BBS telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23