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 ><snip> >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 map? >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. DISTANCE IN LY SPECTRAL/LUM CLASS 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 Fish." >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. <snip> 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 drawing." 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 At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ 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 - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp