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

REPLY: By Marjorie Fish

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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