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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE FISH-HILL PATTERN STARS

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


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

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

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