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