Hidden Truth/Hidden Truth.iso/data/ftp-stuff/newstuff4/zeta-reticuli

Internet Message Format | 1996-08-24 | 109.7 KB

From: [e-mail] (Michael Corbin)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Zeta Reticuli Incident - Part 1
Date: 12 Feb 94 15:09:07 GMT


****************************************************************
ParaNet File Number:  00269


DATE OF UPLOAD:  March 3, 1990
ORIGIN OF UPLOAD:  ParaNet Headquarters
CONTRIBUTED BY: Terence Dickinson
========================================================

                   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 comment s 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,  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.
=================================================================


                 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.
=================================================================

ZETARETI.UFO

--
Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]
======================================================================
Inquiries regarding ParaNet, or mail directed to Michael Corbin, should
be sent to: [e-mail].  Or you can phone voice at 303-429-2654/
Michael Corbin
Director
ParaNet Information Services