164 lines
8.9 KiB
Plaintext
164 lines
8.9 KiB
Plaintext
SUBJECT: THE HILL ABDUCTION CASE FILE: UFO2711
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PART 10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**********************************************
|
|
* THE U.F.O. BBS - http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo *
|
|
********************************************** |