1918 lines
118 KiB
Plaintext
1918 lines
118 KiB
Plaintext
SUBJECT: THE ZETA RETICULI INCIDENT FILE: UFO2794
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
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.
|
||
|
||
A faint pair of stars, 220 trillion miles away, has been tentatively
|
||
identified as the "home base" of intelligent extraterrestrials who
|
||
allegedly visited Earth in 1961. This hypothesis is based on a strange,
|
||
almost bizarre series of events mixing astronomical research with
|
||
hypnosis, amnesia, and alien humanoid creatures.
|
||
|
||
The two stars are known as Zeta 1 and Zeta 2 Reticuli, or together
|
||
as simply Zeta Reticuli. They are each fifth magnitude stars -- barely
|
||
visible to the unaided eye -- located in the obscure souther
|
||
constellation Reticulum. This southerly sky location makes Zeta
|
||
Reticuli invisible to observers north of Mexico City's latitude.
|
||
|
||
The weird circumstances that we have dubbed "The Zeta Reticuli
|
||
Incident" sound like they come straight from the UFO pages in one of
|
||
those tabloids sold in every supermarket. But this is much more than a
|
||
retelling of a famous UFO incident; it's an astronomical detective
|
||
story that at times hovers on that hazy line that separates science
|
||
from fiction. It all started this way:
|
||
|
||
The date is Sept. 19, 1961. A middle aged New Hampshire couple,
|
||
Betty and Barney Hill, are driving home from a short vacation in
|
||
Canada. It's dark, with the moon and stars illuminating the wooded
|
||
landscape along U.S. Route 3 in central New Hampshire. The Hills'
|
||
curiosity is aroused when a bright "star" seems to move in an irregular
|
||
pattern. They stop the car for a better view. The object moves closer,
|
||
and its disklike shape becomes evident.
|
||
|
||
Barney grabs his binoculars from the car seat and steps out. He
|
||
walks into a field to get a closer look, focuses the binoculars, and
|
||
sees the object plainly. It has windows -- and behind the windows,
|
||
looking directly at him are...humanoid creatures! Terrified, Barney
|
||
stumbles back to the car, throws it into first gear and roars off. But
|
||
for some reason he turns down a side road where five of the humanoids
|
||
are standing on the road.
|
||
|
||
Apparently unable to control their actions, Betty and Barney are
|
||
easily taken back to the ship by the humanoids. While inside they are
|
||
physically examined, and one of the humanoids communicates to Betty.
|
||
After the examination she asks him where they are from. In response he
|
||
shows her a three-dimensional map with various sized dots and lines on
|
||
it. "Where are you on the map?" the humanoid asks Betty. She doesn't
|
||
know, so the subject is dropped.
|
||
|
||
Betty and Barney are returned unharmed to their car. They are told
|
||
they will forget the abduction portion of the incident. The ship rises,
|
||
and then hurtles out of sight. The couple continue their journey home
|
||
oblivious of the abduction.
|
||
|
||
But the Hills are troubled by unexplained dreams and anxiety about
|
||
two hours of their trip that they can't account for. Betty, a social
|
||
worker, asks advice from a psychiatrist friend. He suggests that the
|
||
memory of that time will be gradually restored over the next few months
|
||
-- but it never is. Two years after the incident, the couple are still
|
||
bothered by the missing two hours, and Barney's ulcers are acting up. A
|
||
Boston psychiatrist, Benjamin Simon, is recommended, and after several
|
||
months of weekly hypnosis sessions the bizarre events of that night in
|
||
1961 are revealed. A short time later a UFO group leaks a distorted
|
||
version of the story to the press and the whole thing blows up. The
|
||
Hills reluctantly disclose the entire story.
|
||
|
||
Can we take this dramatic scenario seriously? Did this incredible
|
||
contact with aliens actually occur or is it some kind of hallucination
|
||
that affected both Barney and Betty Hill? The complete account of the
|
||
psychiatric examination from which the details of the event emerged is
|
||
related in John G. Fuller's 'The Interrupted Journey' (Dial Press,
|
||
1966), where we read that after the extensive psychiatric examination,
|
||
Simon concluded that the Hills were not fabricating the story. The most
|
||
likely possibilities seem to be: (a) the experience actually happened,
|
||
or (b) some perceptive and illusory misinterpretations occurred in
|
||
relationship to some real event.
|
||
|
||
There are other cases of alleged abductions by extraterrestrial
|
||
humanoids. The unique aspect of the Hills' abduction is that they
|
||
remembered virtually nothing of the incident.
|
||
|
||
Intrigued by the Hills' experience, J. Allen Hynek, chairman of the
|
||
department of astronomy at Northwestern University, decided to
|
||
investigate. Hynek described how the Hills recalled the details of
|
||
their encounter in his book, 'The UFO Experience' (Henry Regnery
|
||
Company, 1972):
|
||
|
||
"Under repeated hypnosis they independently revealed what had
|
||
supposedly happened. The two stories agreed in considerable detail,
|
||
although neither Betty nor Barney was privy to what the other had said
|
||
under hypnosis until much later. Under hypnosis they stated that they
|
||
had been taken separately aboard the craft, treated well by the
|
||
occupants -- rather as humans might treat experimental animals -- and
|
||
then released after having been given the hypnotic suggestion that they
|
||
would remember nothing of that particular experience. The method of
|
||
their release supposedly accounted for the amnesia, which was
|
||
apparently broken only by counterhypnosis."
|
||
|
||
A number of scientists, including Hynek, have discussed this
|
||
incident at length with Barney and Betty Hill and have questioned them
|
||
under hypnosis. They concur with Simon's belief that there seems to be
|
||
no evidence of outright fabrication or lying. One would also wonder
|
||
what Betty, who has a master's degree in social work and is a
|
||
supervisor in the New Hampshire Welfare Department, and Barney, who was
|
||
on the governor of New Hampshire's Civil Rights Commission, would have
|
||
to gain by a hoax? Although the Hills didn't, several people have lost
|
||
their jobs after being associated with similarly unusual publicity.
|
||
|
||
Stanton T. Friedman, a nuclear physicist and the nation's only space
|
||
scientist devoting full time to researching the UFO phenomenon, has
|
||
spent many hours in conversation with the Hills. "By no stretch of the
|
||
imagination could anyone who knows them conclude that they were nuts,"
|
||
he emphasizes.
|
||
|
||
So the experience 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."
|
||
|
||
So much for the background material on the Hill incident. (If you
|
||
want more details on the encounter, see Fuller's book). For the moment
|
||
we will leave Marjorie Fish back in 1969 trying to interpret Betty
|
||
Hill's reproduction of the map. There is a second major area of
|
||
background information that we have to attend to before we can properly
|
||
discuss the map. Unlike the bizarre events just described, the rest is
|
||
pure astronomy.
|
||
|
||
According to the most recent star catalogs, there are about 1,000
|
||
known stars within a radius of 55 light-years of the sun.
|
||
|
||
What are those other stars like? A check of the catalogs shows that
|
||
most of them are faint stars of relatively low temperature -- a class
|
||
of stars astronomers call main sequence stars. The sun is a main
|
||
sequence star along with most of the other stars in this part of the
|
||
Milky Way galaxy, as the following table shows:
|
||
|
||
Main sequence stars 91%
|
||
White dwarfs 8%
|
||
Giants and Supergiants 1%
|
||
|
||
Typical giant stars are Arcturus and Capella. Antares and Betelgeuse
|
||
are members of the ultrarare supergiant class. At the other end of the
|
||
size and brightness scale the white dwarfs are stellar cinders -- the
|
||
remains of once brilliant suns. For reasons that will soon become clear
|
||
we can remove these classes of stars from our discussion and
|
||
concentrate on the main sequence stars whose characteristics are shown
|
||
in the table.
|
||
|
||
CHARACTERISTICS OF MAIN SEQUENCE STARS
|
||
|
||
Class Proportion Temperature Mass Luminosity Lifespan
|
||
of Total (Degrees F) (sun=1) (sun=1) (billions yrs)
|
||
|
||
A0 1% 20,000 2.8 60 0.5 Vega
|
||
A5 15,000 2.2 20 1.0
|
||
F0 3% 13,000 1.7 6 2.0 Procyon
|
||
F5 12,000 1.25 3 4.0
|
||
G0 9% 11,000 1.06 1.3 10 Sun
|
||
G5 10,000 0.92 0.8 15
|
||
K0 14% 9,000 0.80 0.4 20 Epsilon
|
||
Eridani
|
||
K5 8,000 0.69 0.1 30
|
||
M0 73% 7,000 0.48 0.02 75 Proxima
|
||
Centauri
|
||
M5 5,000 0.20 0.001 200
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
The spectral class letters are part of a system of stellar
|
||
"fingerprinting" that identifies the main sequence star's temperature
|
||
and gives clues to its mass and luminosity. The hottest, brightest and
|
||
most massive main sequence stars (with rare exceptions) are the A
|
||
stars. The faintest, coolest and least massive are the M stars.
|
||
|
||
Each class is subdivided into 10 subcategories. For example, an A0
|
||
star is hotter, brighter and more massive than an A1 which is above an
|
||
A2, and so on through A9.
|
||
|
||
This table supplies much additional information and shows how a
|
||
slightly hotter and more massive star turns out to be much more
|
||
luminous than the sun, a G2 star. But the bright stars pay dearly for
|
||
their splendor. It takes a lot of stellar fuel to emit vast quantities
|
||
of light and heat. The penalty is a short lifespan as a main sequence
|
||
star. Conversely, the inconspicuous, cool M stars may be around to see
|
||
the end of the universe --whatever that might be. With all these facts
|
||
at hand we're now ready to tackle the first part of the detective
|
||
story.
|
||
|
||
Let's suppose we wanted to make our own map of a trip to the stars.
|
||
We will limit ourselves to the 55 light-year radius covered by the
|
||
detailed star catalogs. The purpose of the trip will be to search for
|
||
intelligent life on planets that may be in orbit around these stars. We
|
||
would want to include every star that would seem likely to have a life-
|
||
bearing planet orbiting around it. How many of these thousand-odd stars
|
||
would we include for such a voyage and which direction would we go?
|
||
(For the moment, we'll forget about the problem of making a spacecraft
|
||
that will take us to these stars and we'll assume that we've got some
|
||
kind of vehicle that will effortlessly transport us to wherever we want
|
||
to go.) We don't want to waste our time and efforts -- we only want to
|
||
go to stars that we would think would have a high probability of having
|
||
planets harboring advanced life forms. This seems like a tall order.
|
||
How do we even begin to determine which stars might likely have such
|
||
planets?
|
||
|
||
The first rule will be to restrict ourselves to life as we know it,
|
||
the kind of life that we are familiar with here on Earth -- carbon
|
||
based life. Science fiction writers are fond of describing life forms
|
||
based on chemical systems that we have been unable to duplicate here on
|
||
Earth -- such as silicon based life or life based on the ammonium
|
||
hydroxide molecule instead of on carbon. But right now these life forms
|
||
are simply fantasy -- we have no evidence that they are in fact
|
||
possible. Because we don't even know what they might look like -- if
|
||
they're out there -- we necessarily have to limit our search to the
|
||
kind of life that we understand.
|
||
|
||
Our kind of life -- life as we know it -- seems most likely to
|
||
evolve on a planet that has a stable temperature regime. It must be at
|
||
the appropriate distance from its sun so that water is neither frozen
|
||
nor boiled away. The planet has to be the appropriate size so that its
|
||
gravity doesn't hold on to too much atmosphere (like Jupiter) or too
|
||
little (like Mars). But the main ingredient in a life-bearing planet is
|
||
its star. And its star is the only thing we can study since planets of
|
||
other stars are far too faint to detect directly.
|
||
|
||
The conclusion we can draw is this: The star has to be like the sun.
|
||
|
||
Main sequence stars are basically stable for long periods of time.
|
||
As shown in the table, stars in spectral class G have stable lifespans
|
||
of 10 billion years. (Our sun, actually a G2 star, has a somewhat
|
||
longer stable life expectancy of 11 billion years.) We are about five
|
||
billion years into that period so we can look forward to the sun
|
||
remaining much as it is (actually it will brighten slightly) for
|
||
another six billion years. Stars of class F4 or higher have stable
|
||
burning periods of less than 3.5 billion years. They have to be ruled
|
||
out immediately. Such stars cannot have life-bearing planets because,
|
||
at least based on our experience on our world, this is not enough time
|
||
to permit highly developed biological systems to evolve on the land
|
||
areas of a planet. (Intelligent life may very well arise earlier in
|
||
water environments, but let's forget that possibility since we have not
|
||
yet had meaningful communication with the dolphins --highly intelligent
|
||
creatures on this planet!) But we may be wrong in our estimate of life
|
||
development time. There is another more compelling reason for
|
||
eliminating stars of class F4 and brighter.
|
||
|
||
So far, we have assumed all stars have planets, just as our sun
|
||
does. Yet spectroscopic studies of stars of class F4 and brighter
|
||
reveal that most of them are in fact unlike our sun in a vital way --
|
||
they are rapidly rotating stars. The sun rotates once in just under a
|
||
month, but 60 percent of the stars in the F0 to F4 range rotate much
|
||
faster. And almost all A stars are rapid rotators too. It seems, from
|
||
recent studies of stellar evolution that slowly rotating stars like the
|
||
sun rotate slowly because they have planets. Apparently the formation
|
||
of a planetary system robs the star of much of its rotational momentum.
|
||
|
||
For two reasons, then, we eliminate stars of class F4 and above: (1)
|
||
most of them rotate rapidly and thus seem to be planetless, and (2)
|
||
their stable lifespans are too brief for advanced life to develop.
|
||
|
||
Another problem environment for higher forms of life is the multiple
|
||
star system. About half of all stars are born in pairs, or small groups
|
||
of three or more. Our sun could have been part of a double star system.
|
||
If Jupiter was 80 times more massive it would be an M6 red dwarf star.
|
||
If the stars of a double system are far enough apart there is no real
|
||
problem for planets sustaining life (see "Planet of the Double Sun",
|
||
September 1974). But stars in fairly close or highly elliptical orbits
|
||
would alternately fry or freeze their planets. Such planets would also
|
||
likely have unstable orbits. Because this is a potentially troublesome
|
||
area for our objective, we will eliminate all close and moderately
|
||
close pairs of systems of multiple stars.
|
||
|
||
Further elimination is necessary according to the catalogs. Some
|
||
otherwise perfect stars are labeled "variable". This means astronomers
|
||
have observed variations of at least a few percent in the star's light
|
||
output. A one percent fluctuation in the sun would be annoying for us
|
||
here on Earth. Anything greater would cause climatic disaster. Could
|
||
intelligent life evolve under such conditions, given an otherwise
|
||
habitable planet? It seems unlikely. We are forced to "scratch" all
|
||
stars suspected or proven to be variable.
|
||
|
||
This still leaves a few F stars, quite a few G stars, and hoards of
|
||
K and M dwarfs. Unfortunately most of the Ks and all of the Ms are out.
|
||
Let's find out why.
|
||
|
||
These stars quite likely have planets. Indeed, one M star -- known
|
||
as Barnard's star -- is believed to almost certainly have at least one,
|
||
and probably two or three, Jupiter sized planets. Peter Van de Kamp of
|
||
the Sproul Observatory at Swarthmore College (Pa.) has watched
|
||
Barnard's star for over three decades and is convinced that a
|
||
"wobbling" motion of that star is due to perturbations (gravitational
|
||
"pulling and pushing") caused by its unseen planets. (Earth sized
|
||
planets cannot be detected in this manner.)
|
||
|
||
But the planets of M stars and the K stars below K4 have two serious
|
||
handicaps that virtually eliminate them from being abodes for life.
|
||
First, these stars fry their planets with occasional lethal bursts of
|
||
radiation emitted from erupting solar flares. The flares have the same
|
||
intensity as those of our sun, but when you put that type of flare on a
|
||
little star it spells disaster for a planet that is within, say, 30
|
||
million miles. The problem is that planets have to be that close to get
|
||
enough heat from these feeble suns. If they are farther out, they have
|
||
frozen oceans and no life.
|
||
|
||
The close-in orbits of potential Earthlike planets of M and faint K
|
||
stars produce the second dilemma -- rotational lock. An example of
|
||
rotational lock is right next door to us. The moon, because of its
|
||
nearness to Earth, is strongly affected by our planet's tidal forces.
|
||
Long ago our satellite stopped rotating and now has one side
|
||
permanently turned toward Earth. The same principles apply to planets
|
||
of small stars that would otherwise be at the right distance for
|
||
moderate temperatures. If rotational lock has not yet set in, at least
|
||
rotational retardation would make impossibly long days and nights (as
|
||
evidenced by Mercury in our solar system).
|
||
|
||
What stars are left after all this pruning? All of the G stars
|
||
remain along with F5 through F9 and K0 through K4. Stephen Dole of the
|
||
Rand Corporation has made a detailed study of stars in this range and
|
||
suggests we should also eliminate F5, F6 and F7 stars because they
|
||
balloon to red giants before they reach an age of five billion years.
|
||
Dole feels this is cutting it too fine for intelligent species to fully
|
||
evolve. Admittedly this is based on our one example of intelligent life
|
||
-- us. But limited though this parameter is, it is the only one we
|
||
have. Dole believes the K2, K3 and K4 stars are also poor prospects
|
||
because of their feeble energy output and consequently limited zone for
|
||
suitable Earthlike planets.
|
||
|
||
Accepting Dole's further trimming we are left with single,
|
||
nonvariable stars from F8 through all the Gs to K1. What does that
|
||
leave us with? Forty-six stars.
|
||
|
||
Now we are ready to plan the trip. It's pretty obvious that Tau Ceti
|
||
is our first target. After that, the choice is more difficult. We can't
|
||
take each star in order or we would be darting all over the sky. It's
|
||
something like planning a vacation trip. Let's say we start from St.
|
||
Louis and want to hit all the major cities within a 1,000 mile radius.
|
||
If we go west, all we can visit is Kansas City and Denver. But
|
||
northeast is a bonanza: Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh,
|
||
Philadelphia, New York and more. The same principle applies to the
|
||
planning of our interstellar exploration. The plot of all 46 candidate
|
||
stars reveals a clumping in the direction of the constellations Cetus
|
||
and Eridanus. Although this section amounts to only 13 percent of the
|
||
entire sky, it contains 15 of the 46 stars, or 33 percent of the total.
|
||
Luckily Tau Ceti is in this group, so that's the direction we should go
|
||
(comparable to heading northeast from St. Louis). If we plan to visit
|
||
some of these solar type stars and then return to Earth, we should try
|
||
to have the shortest distance between stops. It would be a waste of
|
||
exploration time if we zipped randomly from one star to another.
|
||
|
||
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 46 NEAREST STARS SIMILAR TO THE SUN
|
||
NAME DISTANCE MAGNITUDE LUMINOSITY SPECTRUM
|
||
(light-years) (visual) (sun=1)
|
||
|
||
Tau Ceti 11.8 3.5 0.4 G8
|
||
82 Eridani 20.2 4.3 0.7 G5
|
||
Zeta Tucanae 23.3 4.2 0.9 G2
|
||
107 Piscium 24.3 5.2 0.4 K1
|
||
Beta Comae
|
||
Berenices 27.2 4.3 1.2 G0
|
||
61 Virginis 27.4 4.7 0.8 G6
|
||
Alpha Mensae 28.3 5.1 0.6 G5
|
||
Gliese 75 28.6 5.6 0.4 K0
|
||
Beta Canum
|
||
Venaticorum 29.9 4.3 1.4 G0
|
||
Chi Orionis 32 4.4 1.5 G0
|
||
54 Piscium 34 5.9 0.4 K0
|
||
Zeta 1 Reticuli 37 5.5 0.7 G2
|
||
Zeta 2 Reticuli 37 5.2 0.9 G2
|
||
Gliese 86 37 6.1 0.4 K0
|
||
Mu Arae 37 5.1 0.9 G5
|
||
Gliese 67 38 5.0 1.2 G2
|
||
Gliese 668.1 40 6.3 0.4 G9
|
||
Gliese 302 41 6.0 0.6 G8
|
||
Gliese 309 41 6.4 0.4 K0
|
||
Kappa Fornacis 42 5.2 1.3 G1
|
||
58 Eridani 42 5.5 0.9 G1
|
||
Zeta Doradus 44 4.7 2.0 F8
|
||
55 Cancri 44 6.0 0.7 G8
|
||
47 Ursa Majoris 44 5.1 1.5 G0
|
||
Gliese 364 45 4.9 1.8 G0
|
||
Gliese 599A 45 6.0 0.6 G6
|
||
Nu Phoenicis 45 5.0 1.8 F8
|
||
Gliese 95 45 6.3 0.5 G5
|
||
Gliese 796 47 5.6 0.5 G8
|
||
20 Leo Minoris 47 5.4 1.2 G4
|
||
39 Tauri 47 5.9 0.8 G1
|
||
Gliese 290 47 6.6 0.4 G8
|
||
Gliese 59.2 48 5.7 1.0 G2
|
||
Psi Aurigae 49 5.2 1.5 G0
|
||
Gliese 722 49 5.9 0.9 G4
|
||
Gliese 788 49 5.9 0.8 G5
|
||
Nu 2 Lupi 50 5.6 1.1 G2
|
||
14 Herculis 50 6.6 0.5 K1
|
||
Pi Ursa Majoris 51 5.6 1.2 G0
|
||
Phi 2 Ceti 51 5.2 1.8 F8
|
||
Gliese 641 52 6.6 0.5 G8
|
||
Gliese 97.2 52 6.9 0.4 K0
|
||
Gliese 541.1 53 6.5 0.6 G8
|
||
109 Piscium 53 6.3 0.8 G4
|
||
Gliese 651 53 6.8 0.4 G8
|
||
Gliese 59 53 6.7 0.4 G8
|
||
|
||
This table lists all known stars within a radius of 54 light-years that
|
||
are single or part of a wide multiple star system. They have no known
|
||
irregularities or variabilities and are between 0.4 and 2.0 times the
|
||
luminosity of the sun. Thus, a planet basically identical to Earth
|
||
could be orbiting around any one of them. (Data from the Catalog of
|
||
Nearby Stars, 1969 edition, by 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.
|
||
|
||
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 VIEW FROM ZETA RETICULI
|
||
|
||
The two stars that comprise the Zeta Reticuli system are almost
|
||
identical to the sun. Thy are the only known examples of two solar type
|
||
stars apparently linked into a binary star system of wide separation.
|
||
|
||
Zeta 1 is separated from Zeta 2 by at least 350 billion miles --
|
||
about 100 times the sun-Pluto distance. They may be even farther apart,
|
||
but the available observations suggest they are moving through space
|
||
together and are therefore physically associated. They probably require
|
||
at least 100,000 years to orbit around their common center of gravity.
|
||
|
||
Both Zeta 1 and Zeta 2 are prime candidates for the search for life
|
||
beyond Earth. According to our current theories of planetary formation,
|
||
they both should have a retinue of planets something like our solar
|
||
system. As yet there is no way of determining if any of the probable
|
||
planets of either star is similar to Earth.
|
||
|
||
To help visualize the Zeta Reticuli system, let's take the sun's
|
||
nine planets and put them in identical orbits around Zeta 2. From a
|
||
celestial mechanics standpoint there is no reason why this situation
|
||
could not exist. Would anything be different? Because of Zeta 2's
|
||
slightly smaller mass as compared with the sun, the planets would orbit
|
||
a little more slowly. Our years might have 390 days, for example. Zeta
|
||
2 would make a fine sun - - slightly dimmer than "old Sol", but
|
||
certainly capable of sustaining life. The big difference would not be
|
||
our new sun but the superstar of the night sky. Shining like a polished
|
||
gem, Zeta 1 would be the dazzling highlight of the night sky -- unlike
|
||
anything we experience here on Earth. At magnitude -9 it would appear
|
||
as a starlike point 100 times brighter than Venus. It would be like
|
||
compressing all the light from the first quarter moon into a point
|
||
source.
|
||
|
||
Zeta 1 would have long ago been the focus of religions, mythology
|
||
and astrology if it were in earthly skies. The fact that it would be
|
||
easily visible in full daylight would give Zeta 1 supreme importance to
|
||
both early civilizations and modern man. Shortly after the invention of
|
||
the telescope astronomers would be able to detect Jupiter and Saturn
|
||
sized planets orbiting around Zeta 1. Jupiter would be magnitude +12,
|
||
visible up to 4.5 minutes of arc from Zeta 1 (almost as far as Ganymede
|
||
swings from Jupiter). It would not make a difficult target for an eight
|
||
inch telescope. Think of the incentive that discovery would have on
|
||
interstellar space travel! For hundreds of years we would be aware of
|
||
another solar system just a few "light-weeks" away. The evolution of
|
||
interstellar spaceflight would be rapid, dynamic and inevitable.
|
||
|
||
By contrast, our nearest solar type neighbor is Tau Ceti at 12
|
||
light-years. Even today we only suspect it is accompanied by a family
|
||
of planets, but we don't know for sure.
|
||
|
||
From this comparison of our planetary system with those of Zeta
|
||
Reticuli, it is clear that any emerging technologically advanced
|
||
intelligent life would probably have great incentive to achieve star
|
||
flight. The knowledge of a nearby system of planets of a solar type
|
||
star would be compelling -- at least it would certainly seem to be.
|
||
|
||
What is so strange -- and this question prompted us to prepare this
|
||
article -- is: Why, of all stars, does Zeta Reticuli seem to fit as the
|
||
hub of a map that appeared inside a spacecraft that allegedly landed on
|
||
Earth in 1961? Some of the circumstances surrounding the whole incident
|
||
are certainly bizarre, but not everything can be written off as
|
||
coincidence or hallucination. It may be optimistic, on one extreme, to
|
||
hope that our neighbors are as near as 37 light-years away. For the
|
||
moment we will be satisfied with considering it an exciting
|
||
possibility.
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
THE AGE OF NEARBY STARS
|
||
|
||
By Jeffrey L. Kretsch
|
||
|
||
The age of our own sun is known with some accuracy largely because
|
||
we live on one of its planets. Examination of Earth rocks -- and, more
|
||
recently, rocks and soil from the moon -- has conclusively shown that
|
||
these two worlds went through their initial formation 4.6 billion years
|
||
ago. The formation of the sun and planets is believed to have been
|
||
virtually simultaneous, with the sun's birth producing the planetary
|
||
offspring.
|
||
|
||
But we have yet to travel to any other planet -- and certainly a
|
||
flight to the surface of a planet of a nearby star is an event no one
|
||
reading this will live to witness. So direct measurement of the ages of
|
||
nearby stars -- as a by-product of extrasolar planetary exploration --
|
||
is a distant future enterprise. We are left with information obtained
|
||
from our vantage point here near Earth. There is lots of it -- so let's
|
||
find out what it is and what it can tell us.
|
||
|
||
When we scan the myriad stars of the night sky, are we looking at
|
||
suns that have just ignited their nuclear fires -- or have they been
|
||
flooding the galaxy with light for billions of years? The ages of the
|
||
stars are among the most elusive stellar characteristics. Now, new
|
||
interpretation of data collected over the past half century is shedding
|
||
some light on this question.
|
||
|
||
Computer models of stellar evolution reveal that stars have definite
|
||
lifespans; thus, a certain type of star cannot be older than its
|
||
maximum predicted lifespan. Solar type stars of spectral class F5 or
|
||
higher (hotter) cannot be older than our sun is today. These stars'
|
||
nuclear fires burn too rapidly to sustain them for a longer period, and
|
||
they meet an early death.
|
||
|
||
All main sequence stars cooler than F5 can be as old or older than
|
||
the sun. Additionally, these stars are also much more likely to have
|
||
planets than the hotter suns.
|
||
|
||
There are several exciting reasons why the age of a star should be
|
||
tracked down. Suppose we have a star similar to the sun (below class
|
||
F5). If we determine how old the star is, we can assume its planets are
|
||
the same age -- a fascinating piece of information that suggests a host
|
||
of questions: Would older Earthlike planets harbor life more advanced
|
||
than us? Is there anything about older or younger stars and planets
|
||
that would make them fundamentally different from the sun and Earth?
|
||
|
||
Of course we don't know the answer to the first question, but it is
|
||
provocative. The answer to the second question seems to be yes
|
||
(according to the evidence that follows).
|
||
|
||
To best illustrate the methods of star age determination and their
|
||
implications, let's select a specific problem. "The Zeta Reticuli
|
||
Incident" sparked more interest among our readers than any other single
|
||
article in ASTRONOMY's history. Essentially, that article drew
|
||
attention to a star map allegedly seen inside an extraterrestrial
|
||
spacecraft. The map was later deciphered by Marjorie Fish, now a
|
||
research assistant at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee.
|
||
|
||
In her analysis, Ms. Fish linked all 16 prominent stars in the
|
||
original map (which we'll call the Hill map since it was drawn by Betty
|
||
Hill in 1966) to 15 real stars in the southern sky. The congruence was
|
||
remarkable. The 15 stars -- for convenience we will call them the Fish-
|
||
Hill pattern stars -- are listed on the accompanying table.
|
||
|
||
Since these stars have been a focus of attention due to Ms. Fish's
|
||
work and the article mentioned above, we will examine them specifically
|
||
to see if enough information is available to pin down their ages and
|
||
(possibly) other characteristics. This will be our case study star
|
||
group.
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
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 undetermined undetermined
|
||
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).
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
Consider, for example, the velocities of these stars in space. It is
|
||
now known that the composition and the age of a star shows a reasonably
|
||
close correlation with that star's galactic orbit. The understanding of
|
||
this correlation demands a little knowledge of galactic structure.
|
||
|
||
Our galaxy, as far as we are concerned, consists essentially of two
|
||
parts -- the halo, and the disk. Apparently when the galaxy first took
|
||
shape about 10 billion years ago, it was a colossal sphere in which the
|
||
first generation of stars emerged. These stars -- those that remain
|
||
today, anyway -- define a spherical or halolike cloud around the disk
|
||
shaped Milky Way galaxy. Early in the galaxy's history, it is believed
|
||
that the interstellar medium had a very low metal content because most
|
||
of the heavy elements (astronomers call any element heavier than helium
|
||
"heavy" or a "metal") are created in the cores of massive stars which
|
||
then get released into the interstellar medium by stellar winds, novae
|
||
and supernovae explosions. Few such massive stars had "died" to release
|
||
their newly made heavy elements. Thus, the stars which formed early
|
||
(called Population II stars) tend to have a spherical distribution
|
||
about the center of the galaxy and are generally metal-poor.
|
||
|
||
A further gravitational collapse occurred as the galaxy flattened
|
||
out into a disk, and a new burst of star formation took place. Since
|
||
this occurred later and generations of stars had been born and died to
|
||
enrich the interstellar medium with heavy elements, these disk stars
|
||
have a metal-rich composition compared to the halo stars. Being in the
|
||
disk, these Population I stars (the sun, for example) tended to have
|
||
motions around the galactic core in a limited plane -- something like
|
||
the planets of the solar system.
|
||
|
||
Population II stars -- with their halo distribution -- usually have
|
||
more random orbits which cut through the Population I hoards in the
|
||
galactic plane. A star's space velocity perpendicular to the galactic
|
||
plane is called its W-velocity. Knowing the significance of the W-
|
||
velocity, one can apply this information to find out about the
|
||
population classification and hence the ages and compositions of stars
|
||
in the solar neighborhood -- the Fish-Hill stars in particular.
|
||
|
||
High W-velocity suggests a Population II star, and we find that six
|
||
of the 16 stars are so classified while the remaining majority are of
|
||
Population I. A further subdivision can be made using the W-velocity
|
||
data (the results are shown in the table below.
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
POPULATION CLASSIFICATION OF THE FISH-HILL STARS
|
||
|
||
OLD POPULATION I (1 TO 4 BILLION YEARS OLD)
|
||
Gliese 59
|
||
Gliese 67
|
||
107 Piscium
|
||
|
||
OLDER POPULATION I (4 TO 6 BILLION YEARS OLD)
|
||
Tau 1 Eridani
|
||
Tau Ceti
|
||
Alpha Mensae
|
||
Gliese 95
|
||
Kappa Fornax
|
||
54 Piscium
|
||
Sun
|
||
|
||
DISK POPULATION II (6 TO 8 BILLION YEARS OLD)
|
||
Zeta 1 Reticuli
|
||
Zeta 2 Reticuli
|
||
|
||
INTERMEDIATE POPULATION II (ABOUT 10 BILLION YEARS OLD)
|
||
Zeta Tucanae
|
||
Gliese 86
|
||
Gliese 86.1
|
||
82 Eridani
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
According to this classification system (based on one by A. Blaauw),
|
||
most of the 16 stars are in the same class as the sun --implying that
|
||
they are roughly of the same composition and age as the sun. The sun
|
||
would seem to be a natural unit for use in comparing the chemical
|
||
compositions and ages of the stars of the Fish-Hill pattern because it
|
||
is, after all, the standard upon which we base our selection of stars
|
||
capable of supporting life.
|
||
|
||
Three stars (Gliese 59, 67 and 68) are known as Old Population I and
|
||
are almost certainly younger than the sun. They also probably have a
|
||
higher metal content than the sun, although specific data is not
|
||
available. The Disk Population II stars are perhaps two to four billion
|
||
years older than the sun, while the Intermediate Population II are
|
||
believed to be a billion or two years older still.
|
||
|
||
For main sequence stars like the sun, as all these stars are, it is
|
||
generally believed that after the star is formed and settled on the
|
||
main sequence no mixing between the outer layers and the thermo-nuclear
|
||
core occurs. Thus the composition of the outer layers of a star, (from
|
||
which we receive the star's light) must have essentially the same
|
||
composition as the interstellar medium out of which the star and its
|
||
planets were formed.
|
||
|
||
Terrestrial planets are composed primarily of heavy elements. The
|
||
problem is: If there is a shortage of heavy elements in the primeval
|
||
nebula, would terrestrial planets be able to form? At present, theories
|
||
of planetary formation are unable to state for certain what the
|
||
composition of the cloud must be in order for terrestrial planets to
|
||
materialize, although it is agreed to be unlikely that Population II
|
||
stars should have terrestrial planets. But for objects somewhere
|
||
between Population I and II -- especially Disk Population II -- no one
|
||
really knows.
|
||
|
||
Although we can't be certain of determining whether a star of
|
||
intermediate metal deficiencies can have planets or not, we can make
|
||
certain of the existence of metal deficiencies in those stars. The
|
||
eccentricities and inclinations of the galactic orbits of the Fish-Hill
|
||
stars provide the next step in the information sequence.
|
||
|
||
The table above also shows that the stars Gliese 136, 138, 139, 86
|
||
and 71 have the highest eccentricities and inclinations in their
|
||
galactic orbits. This further supports the Population II nature of
|
||
these four stars. According to B.E.J. Pagel of the Royal Greenwich
|
||
Observatory in England, the correlation between eccentricity and the
|
||
metal/hydrogen ratio is better than that between the W-velocity and the
|
||
metal/hydrogen ratio. It is interesting to see how closely the values
|
||
of eccentricity seem to correspond with Population type as derived from
|
||
W-velocity -- Old Population I objects having the lowest values. Since
|
||
the two methods give similar results, we can lend added weight to our
|
||
classification.
|
||
|
||
So far all the evidence for metal deficiencies has been suggestive;
|
||
no direct evidence has been given. However, specific data can be
|
||
obtained from spectroscopic analysis. The system for which the best set
|
||
of data exists also happens to be one of the most important stars of
|
||
the pattern, Zeta 1 Reticuli. In 1966, J.D. Danziger of Harvard
|
||
University published results of work he had done on Zeta 1 Reticuli
|
||
using wide-scan spectroscopy. He did indeed find metal deficiencies in
|
||
the star: carbon, 0.2, compared to our sun; magnesium, 0.4; calcium,
|
||
0.5; titanium, 0.4; chromium, 0.3; manganese, 0.4; iron, 0.4; cobalt,
|
||
0.4; nickel, 0.2, and so on.
|
||
|
||
In spite of the possible error range of about 25 percent, there is a
|
||
consistent trend of metal deficiencies -- with Zeta 1 Reticuli having
|
||
less than half the heavy elements per unit mass that the sun does.
|
||
Because Zeta 1 Reticuli has common proper motion and parallax with Zeta
|
||
2 Reticuli, it probably also has the same composition. Work done by
|
||
M.E. Dixon of the University of Edinburgh showing the two stars to have
|
||
virtually identical characteristics tends to support this.
|
||
|
||
The evidence that the Zeta Reticuli system is metal deficient is
|
||
definite. From this knowledge of metal deficiency and the velocities
|
||
and eccentricities, we can safely conclude that the Zeta Reticuli
|
||
system is older than the sun. The question of terrestrial planets being
|
||
able to form remains open.
|
||
|
||
The other two stars which have high velocities and eccentricities
|
||
are 82 Eridani (Gliese 139) and Gliese 86. Because the velocities of
|
||
these stars are higher than those of Zeta Reticuli, larger metal
|
||
deficiencies might be expected. For the case of Gliese 86, no
|
||
additional information is presently available. However, some
|
||
theoretical work has been done on 82 Eridani concerning metal
|
||
abundances by J. Hearnshaw of France's Meudon Observatory.
|
||
|
||
Although 82 Eridani is a high velocity star, its orbit lies largely
|
||
within the galactic plane, and also within the solar orbit. Its orbit
|
||
is characteristic of the Old Disk Population, and an ultraviolet excess
|
||
indicates only a mild metal deficiency compared to the sun. Hearnshaw's
|
||
conclusions indicate that the metal deficiency does not appear to be
|
||
any worse than that of the Zeta Reticuli pair.
|
||
|
||
Because Gliese 86 has a velocity, eccentricity and inclination
|
||
similar to 82 Eridani, it seems likely that its chemical composition
|
||
may also not have severe metal deficiencies, but be similar to those of
|
||
82 Eridani.
|
||
|
||
Tau Ceti appears to be very much like the sun except for slight
|
||
deficiencies of most metals in rarely seen abnormal abundances of
|
||
magnesium, titanium, silicon and calcium. Stars in this class are known
|
||
as alpha-rich stars, but such properties do not appear to make Tau Ceti
|
||
unlikely to have planets similar to the sun's.
|
||
|
||
Tau 1 Eridani, an F6V star, has a life expectancy of 4.5 billion
|
||
years -- so it cannot be older than the sun. The low eccentricities and
|
||
low moderate velocity support an age and composition near that of the
|
||
sun.
|
||
|
||
Gliese 67 is a young star of at least solar metal abundances,
|
||
considering its low velocity and eccentricity.
|
||
|
||
Having covered most of the stars either directly or simply by
|
||
classifying them among the different Population classes, it is apparent
|
||
that there is a wide age range among different stars of this group as
|
||
well as a range of compositions. It is curious that the stars connected
|
||
by the alleged "trade routes" (solid lines) are the older and
|
||
occasionally metal deficient ones --while the stars connected by dotted
|
||
lines seem to be younger Population I objects.
|
||
|
||
A final point concerning the metal deficiencies is rather
|
||
disturbing. Even though terrestrial planets might form about either
|
||
star in the Zeta Reticuli system, there is a specific deficiency in
|
||
carbon to well within the error range. This is disturbing because
|
||
carbon is the building block of organic molecule chains. There is no
|
||
way of knowing whether life on Earth would have emerged and evolved as
|
||
far as it has if carbon were not as common here.
|
||
|
||
Another problem: If planets formed but lacked large quantities of
|
||
useful industrial elements, could a technical civilization arise? If
|
||
the essential elements were scarce or locked up in chemical compounds,
|
||
then an advanced technology would be required to extract them. But the
|
||
very shortage of these elements in the first place might prevent this
|
||
technology from being realized. The dolphins are an example of an
|
||
intelligent but nontechnical race. They do not have the means to
|
||
develop technology. Perhaps some land creatures on another planet are
|
||
in a comparable position by not having the essential elements for
|
||
technological development. (This theme is explored in detail in "What
|
||
Chariots of Which Gods?", August 1974.)
|
||
|
||
This whole speculation certainly is not strong enough to rule out
|
||
the Fish interpretation of the Hill map given our present state of
|
||
knowledge. Actually in some respects, the metal deficiencies support
|
||
the Fish hypothesis because they support an advanced age for several of
|
||
the stars -- suggesting that if cultures exist in these star systems,
|
||
they might well be advanced over our own.
|
||
|
||
The fact that none of the stars in the pattern is seriously metal
|
||
deficient (especially the vital branch high velocity stars 82 Eridani
|
||
and Gliese 86) is an encouragement to the Fish interpretation -- if
|
||
terrestrial planets can form in the first place and give rise to
|
||
technical civilizations. Once again we are confronted with evidence
|
||
which seems to raise as many questions as it answers. But the search
|
||
for answers to such questions certainly can only advance knowledge of
|
||
our cosmic environment.
|
||
|
||
Jeffrey L. Kretsch is an astronomy student at Northwestern University
|
||
working under the advisement of Dr. J. Allen Hynek. For more than a
|
||
year Kretsch has been actively pursuing follow-up studies to the
|
||
astronomical aspects of the Fish-Hill map. More of his studies and
|
||
comments appear in In Focus.
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
COMMENTARY
|
||
|
||
Editor's Preface
|
||
|
||
|
||
The lead article in the December 1974 issue of ASTRONOMY, entitled
|
||
"The Zeta Reticuli Incident", centered on interpretation of a map
|
||
allegedly seen inside an extraterrestrial spacecraft. The intent of the
|
||
article was to expose to our readers a rare instance where astronomical
|
||
techniques have been used to analyze a key element in a so-called
|
||
"close encounter" UFO incident. While not claiming that the analysis of
|
||
the map was proof of a visit by extraterrestrials, we feel the
|
||
astronomical aspects of the case are sufficiently intriguing to warrant
|
||
wide dissemination and further study.
|
||
|
||
The following notes contain detailed follow-up commentary and
|
||
information directly related to that article.
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
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.
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
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.
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
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.
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
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.
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
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.
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
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.
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
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, probablyalso 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.
|
||
|
||
l---L---l1----+-T--2----T----3--l-+----4T---+---T5----+-T--6----T----7--T-J-r-r
|
||
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.
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
ZETA RETICULI -- A RARE SYSTEM
|
||
|
||
By Jeffrey L. Kretsch
|
||
|
||
Zeta Reticuli is a unique system in the solar neighborhood -- a wide
|
||
physically associated pair of stars almost exactly like the sun. After
|
||
searching through a list of stars selected from the Gliese catalog on
|
||
the basis of life criteria, only one other pair within a separation of
|
||
even 0.3 light-years could be found. (This pair -- Gliese 201 and
|
||
Gliese 202, a K5e and F8Ve pair separated by 0.15 light-years -- is
|
||
currently being investigated.) Zeta Reticuli is indeed a rare case.
|
||
|
||
Based on the Fish interpretation of the Hill map, the Zeta Reticuli
|
||
pair forms the base of the pattern. If the other stars in the patter
|
||
fit, it is a remarkable association with a rare star system.
|
||
|
||
In order to deal with this problem, I decided to computer the three-
|
||
dimensional positions of the stars and construct a three-dimensional
|
||
model showing these stars positions.
|
||
|
||
Speaking quantitatively, I discovered the two patterns are certainly
|
||
not an exact match. However, if one considers the question of match
|
||
from the standpoint of how the Hill pattern was made as opposed to the
|
||
derived pattern's means of reproduction, the quantitative data may not
|
||
be a complete means of determining whether the two patterns "match" or
|
||
not. For example, the Hill pattern was drawn freehand -- so one would
|
||
have to determine how much allowance one must give for differences in
|
||
quantitative data. In such areas, I am not qualified to give an
|
||
opinion. However, because the map was drawn freehand from memory, the
|
||
fact that the resemblance between the Fish map and the Hill map is a
|
||
striking one should be considered.
|
||
|
||
In my work I was able to verify the findings of Marjorie Fish in
|
||
terms of the astronomy used.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Jeffrey L. Kretsch is an astronomy student at Northwestern
|
||
University.
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
|
||
**********************************************
|
||
* THE U.F.O. BBS - http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo *
|
||
********************************************** |