UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2011 > Jan > Jan 13

Re: Detection Of ET Life & Consequences ForScience

From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 12:54:46 -0000
Archived: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 08:43:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Detection Of ET Life & Consequences ForScience

>From: Stanton Terry Friedman <fsphys.nul>
>To: <post.nul>
>Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:30:06 -0400
>Subject: Re: Detection Of ET Life & Consequences For Science & Society

>>From: Gerald O'Connell <goc.nul>
>>To: post.nul
>>Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:26:28 +0000
>>Subject: Re: Detection Of ET Life & Consequences For Science & Society

>>>From: Stanton T. Friedman <fsphys.nul>
>>>To: <post.nul>
>>>Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:45:27 -0400
>>>Subject: Re: Detection Of ET Life & Consequences For Science & Society


>none deal with the evidence most directly connected with extra-
>terrestrial life namely the UFO stuff such as discussed in
>"Flying Saucers and Science" or "Captured" . . .
>Evidence should triumph over theory

Hi Stan

I would like to deal with some evidence in "Captured".

Back in 2008 on this forum I asked you to react to specific
questions about issues raised by you and your critics regarding
Betty Hill and the Fish map. You did not respond. Perhaps other
commitments got in the way, but this is a chance to renew some
queries. How about it?

After a series of posts between myself and others discussing the
significance of the claimed pattern-match between the Fish model
and the Hill drawing, you criticised another poster for
conveniently forgetting

"the three kinds of lines connecting the dots, and the base
stars the size of nickels, and the strong admonition of Dr.
Simon to present the facts and to draw the map later on only if
she could remember it accurately."

On Aug 28 2008 I replied to these and other points with several
questions which remain unanswered. May I put them to you again
(attempting to expand and clarify where I may have been less
than clear previously)?

Re the "strong admonition":

Interrupted Journey pp.218-219:

[Begin Quote]

Betty: ...in here, I could almost draw it. If I could draw, I
could draw the map.

Doctor: You want to try to draw the map?

Betty: I'm not good at drawing. I can't draw perspective

Doctor: Well, if you remember some of this after you leave me,
why don't you draw it, try to draw the map? Don't do it if you
feel concerned or anxious about it. But if you do, bring it in
next time, all right?

Betty: I'll try to.

Doctor: But don't feel as if you're compelled to do it.

[Note by John Fuller endorsed by Dr Simon] Sometimes a post-
hypnotic suggestion can be very distressing. The doctor is
guarding against this by leaving it up to Betty's volition.

[End Quote]

I have to say this extremely gentle invitation to Betty to "try"
to draw the map, if and when she feels like it, deliberately
phrased so as to _avoid_ any compulsion, does not read to me
like a "strong admonition to present the facts and to draw the
map later on only if she could remember it accurately".

Are you referring to some other hypnosis session concerning the

>The test, of course, of meaning is the star identifications by
>Ms. Fish after building a whole host of 3D models and finally
>getting new and more accurate stellar distance data.

Do you have any comment on conclusions by those who have re-
examined Ms Fish's Gliese star selection against the more
accurate and up-to-date HIPPARCOS catalogue - that several of
the 16 stars selected by Ms Fish would today be ruled out
according to her own criteria (newly discovered brown dwarf
companions and the like)? Specifically have you answered the
objections along these lines made by Charles Huffer of MUFON in
his review of Captured?

Perhaps "new and more accurate stellar distance data" refers to
the claim made several times in Captured that Fish was able to
revise and complete her model with revised GLIESE data on three
missing stars published in 1972?  But Huffer points out that
there was _no_ revision of the 1969 GLIESE catalogue in 1972,
and that Fish's method (as described by Fish herself) was
actually based on revisiting her existing short-list of selected
stars from GLIESE 1969. Huffer says that "all sixteen Fish -
Hill Pattern Stars that were finally selected by Marjorie Fish
as representing the stars on Betty's map are in that catalog".
So this does not constitute "new and more accurate data".

Criticising the claim in Captured! that the Fish model
represents a unique, perfect "line for line, angle for angle"
match to the Hill map (he says he has worked on the map issue
for 30 years and has never before encountered this "astounding
claim"), Huffer further wrote:

"In the 1969 catalog, each of the parallaxes of the 16 stars
selected for the Betty Hill map has probable errors given. The
probable errors could cause some changes in angles and line
lengths. Considering the erasures by Betty Hill, the fact that
the map was drawn almost two and one-half years after it was
seen, the comments by Marjorie Fish concerning the erasures, the
quotes from the CATALOGUE OF NEARBY STARS, EDITION 1969 by
Wilhelm Gliese concerning parallax problems and the fact that
much new data has been discovered since 1969, should have made
one cautious about making claims of super accuracy for the map."

If on the other hand, Stan, you are referring to revisions based
on the 1997 HIPPARCHOS data, as alluded to (but no more) in
Captured!, can you respond to Huffer's criticism that the
promise of a "scientific investigation" of the map to be
revealed in the book does not bear fruit? He remarks that it is
an interesting book "except for the few pages that deal with the
Star Map" and expresses the hope that the promised scientific
study might appear in a later edition. Does it?

If so, what does it have to say about HIPPARCHOS? Huffer
provides an interesting comparison of the GLIESE and HIPPARCHOS
data, some of which I extract and tabulate below. Notice that
all of the distances have been changed to some degree, in some
cases by _tens_ of light years (e.g. GL 86.1 & GL 97) and that 7
of 15 spectral classes have also been changed.


            GL       HIP         GL   HIP

GL 17   23.297 28.026    G2 V  F9 V

GL 27   34.333 36.228    K0 V  K0 V

GL 59   52.607 63.617    G8 V  K0 V

GL 67   37.490 41.240    G2 V  G2 V

GL 68   24.341 24.357    K1 V  K1 V

GL 71   11.775 11.896    G8 VP  G8 V

GL 86   36.648 35.596    K0 V  K0 V

GL 111  46.595 45.579   F 6 V  F5/F6 V

GL 136  36.648 39.530   G2 V  G2 V

GL 138  36.648 39.396   G1 V  G1 V

GL 139  20.259 19.765   G5 V  G8 V

GL 231  28.362 33.100   G5 V  G5 V

GL 86.1 42.359 183.651  K2 V  K1 III

GL 95    44.680 41.349    G5 V  G8 V

GL 97    42.359 71.527    G1 V  G2 V

Huffer concludes:

"Since the Hipparcos data were praised in CAPTURED as 'wonderful
recent measurements of star distances' on page 241, I assume,
but do not know for a fact, that these data were used to
calculate distances. And yet the claim of an almost perfect
'fit' for the work of Marjorie Fish, which was based on the
parallax values in the CATALOGUE OF NEARBY STARS, EDITION 1969,
seems to preclude any better parallax measurements being
discovered that may vary largely from the 1969 values. But just
that has happened. Some of the latest parallax values present
problems for some of the stars that were selected by Marjorie

>The head of the Ohio State University Astronomy department, Dr.
>George Mitchell, is on camera in UFOs ARE Real testifying to
>her accuracy.
>Check the literature.


Is "Dr.George Mitchell" the Dr Walter Mitchell who originally
endorsed the accuracy of Marjorie Fish's model back in the
1970s? I assume so. But surely her accuracy in transferring her
selected Gliese catalogue stars to a 3D model has never really
been the heart of the matter? It seems to me that critics of the
Fish interpretation have by and large not doubted the accuracy
of her _model_ but rather the statistical soundness of its
claimed similarity to the Hill "map".

Granted it _would_ have been an issue, historically, if it had
ever been the case that this model was the "one - and only one -
three-dimensional pattern that fit, angle for angle, line length
for line length" to Betty's map. This is the claim of exactness
in Captured! which Huffer finds "astonishing" and completely
novel. Huffer points out that Ms Fish herself, in 'Journey Into
the Hill Star Map' under the subhead DISCREPANCIES, attributes
the mis-match to the facts that Betty "did not draw [different
parts of the map] to the same scale" - which alone would make
any perfect match impossible - and that "there are slight
differences in line length and angles as in any freehand

And surely this is conceded implicitly in the proponents' oft-
repeated defence against criticisms that the two patterns of
dots have no resemblance without the "trade routes" etc (which
is unarguable)? The defence is that it is not valid to strip
away the varying sizes and connections that give an internal
logical order to the pattern and then to consider crudely only
the placement of dots. AFAIK the defence has never been made
(until Captured! at least) that these critics are just blind,
and that the two patterns really are an exact match, line for
line, angle for angle, dot for dot.

And now that the Gliese catalogue used by Ms Fish has been
superseded by HIPPARCOS with significantly revised parallaxes
for several of the 16 selected stars (and changes of spectral
type in about half the cases) one assumes that the similarity
between the patterns may be still more approximate (this is
strongly argued by Charles Huffer for example). So Ms Fish's
fidelity, some 40 years ago, to an outdated and inaccurate star
catalogue is surely not the heart of the problem - which has
always been how to assess the _significance_ of whatever
(evolving) degree of dissimiliarity exists between Betty's map
and Ms Fish's view of 16 selected stars.

I'm sure we would all appreciate having these issues finally
thrashed out.

Martin Shough

Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast



These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com