Where are YOU on this map, Betty? (Part 2)

Note from the Editor: this is part two of an article contributed by Steve Pearse. Part 1 can be found here: The Betty Hill Star Map (Part 1).

Another major problem for Fish's Triangle is Kappa Fornacis (Gl97) one of the closest 46 stars list was thought to be 42.359 light years distance in 1969, and today HIPPARCOS has put this stars true distance at 71.49 LY. This also puts its true location outside of the boundary of Fish’s model "Psyche" too, and closeness to the front of Fish's 3D model. The last star Gl 95’s distance from Earth is 12.68pc (41.3368ly). It is the only star left, and it cannot form anything by itself. This effectively destroys the placement of Fish's Triangle as being part of the star map. Ironically Gliese-97 has a better chance of hosting a habitable planet than most of Fish’s primary selections. Today the reality is the fact that her ZR theory no longer has a triangle, which simply compounds the problem. The triangle is a key feature of the star map. The importance of the triangle is the fact that it’s an integral part of the star map and a critical element. It takes on even more importance because Betty Hill is quoted saying: “These triangle stars appeared quite prominent. It’s true that the triangle is not a primary star, and not one of the 6 trade or 6 expedition destinations, but its positional relationship and position within the star map is of great importance. If you look at Betty Hills star map one can clearly see that Positions #10 and # 3 fall between the upper portion of the triangle and the two lower bottom stars. Fish’s triangle was based upon current information from 1969 that has been proven to be unreliable and simply wrong. The bottom line is the fact that Fish’s Zeta Reticuli theory doesn’t have a valid triangle which has always been a key feature of the star map. So the question is can we really continue to believe that they came from Zeta Reticuli? If they really did, one might think that the enigma of UFO phenomenon would have made some progress, unfortunately this is not the case; after nearly 40 years it’s clear that the UFO community has to part company and move on.

There is a process of arriving at some degree of probability, and logic dictates that we equate the statement that the triangle stars appear to be quite prominent to their actual naked eye magnitudes as seen on Earth’s celestial sphere. Saying that the triangle stars appeared to be quite prominent is a clear inference to the logical conclusion that naked-eye magnitudes of the triangle stars is an important consideration when we look at the star map. The bottom line is that it should be visible according to our standard stellar magnitudes.

The real triangle is below the Big Dipper, and as a courtesy to the readers of Exopolitics South Africa I’m providing the link to see the triangle that I found. When you look at the triangle-you'll understand the magnitude of the shock that I felt when I first gazed upon the real triangle in Betty Hill’s star map. This was the first step and the acid test was to locate a star directly to the right of the triangle as Betty Hill drew, that might have a habitable planet. Please note that in Fish’s controversial ZR interpretation it doesn’t. Equally puzzling is the disappearance of the large mysterious star in the middle of the Betty Hill’s star map. I identify this star as 52 Ursa Major.

This is the real triangle in Betty Hill’s star map

Triangle :Aim point RA: 12h 26m 32s Dec: +35°14'59"

Within hours I was able to locate a spectral type G star directly to the right of the triangle, and this star is 61 Ursa Major. In this interactive virtual telescope they have a revolving red circle around this star. Fish’s triangle in her ZR Interpretation must be voided, as does her placement for her position #10: Gliese 86-that goes off in the wrong direction.

Link: http://www.astrostudio.org/xhip.php?hip=56997

Even though I was confident that I was right, I still had to thoroughly examine Fish’s Zeta Reticuli theory to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was wrong, and once I started to take a hard look at her work I was really shocked to see how she went about the task of identifying and using the two large nickel sized stars as base-stars and the start point in her Zeta Reticuli Interpretation. Betty Hill drew the map in 1964 under posthypnotic suggestion given to her by Dr. Benjamin Simon. 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.

A verbatim quote from Betty Hill while under hypnosis:

"I walked across the room and I leaned against the table, and looked at it. And it was a map--it was an oblong map. It wasn’t square. It was a lot wider than it was long. And there were all these dots on it. And they were scattered all over it."

She said it was a lot wider than it was long, which means it was elongated and oblong in the shape of a rectangle whose length is greater than its width. The dimensions of Fish’s working display model “Psyche” was 3’ X 2’ X 3’, so it kind of appears that it’s true size was modified size wise to conform to Fish’s Interpretation. The dimensions of three by two feet now seem to be inaccurate. Oblong is just another word for rectangle. I’m certain that they do not use our measurements, so any estimate of size is approximate at best. As far as the true size, a proper revaluation is that the estimated true size of the star map that was shown to Betty could of been up to 2.5’ X 4’. Betty said “it was almost like looking out a window.” The statement that it was a lot wider than it was long is a clear indication that dimensions of 3’ feet by 2’ feet is probably understated. But, I’ll still use this figure to explain the next situation.

The two large nickel sized stars are the central feature of the star map, they stand out and you can immediately sense that they were trying to tell Betty something important, and he wanted her to understand. The dimensions of the star map was said to be three feet by two (36’x 24’) and using these given dimensions, gives us the estimated spatial distance between the two nickel sized stars as drawn of at least six to eight inches. Marjorie Fish made the same mistake as Betty Hill did by calling them base stars, but Fish took this one step further by altering the spatial distance between them in order to claim that this was start point in her Zeta Reticuli [Interpretation]. The vantage point to view her ZR Interpretation was said to be from a “slice of space” that has never been identified.

In researching the formulation of her ZR Interpretation I uncovered more disturbing information. At the MUFON UFO Symposium held in Akron, Ohio in 1974, Fish stated that all of the stars in her Zeta Reticuli theory were, and I quote: “all single, non-variable, sun-like stars”. This is quite remarkable because the name itself identifies them as double stars, in astronomy double stars are designated as one and two, and it should be no surprise that Zeta Reticuli 1 and 2 are binary stars. It's very clear that she was trying to follow Dr. Kuiper's work that theorized in 1956 that multiple stars do not have planets. This posed a significant problem for her because binary stars were out of favor according to Kuipers theory, and now she had to tell a little white lie by calling them single stars to allow their inclusion. It is also quite obvious that the 1969 Gliese catalog of stars listed them as binary, and NOT single stars. This is the start her controversial Zeta Reticuli theory. The problem arises when blind faith accepts the assumptions and judgment of a novices unsound and not well founded ploy of [legitimizing] the alteration of the star map. Giving her theory credence was blinded by the euphoria of the alleged discovery of the home world of the alien being’s who had abducted Betty and Barney Hill. Well meaning people got swept up into this project, as she resorted to calling single stars. Fish’s rules for inclusion made the statement saying: “Single stars are much more likely to have planets with life, and possibly ONLY single stars have planets. The pattern, like Betty’s, is made up only of single stars.”

Note:

Position number 10 is supposed to be directly to the right of the triangle, and appearing in the middle of it. Fish positions this below her triangle. The truth is that once you remove the lines from her star map, it shows little resemblance to what Betty Hill drew. There no accounting for the disparity of the proper location of our Sun to what Fish’s ZR model uses for as position #4.

Stanton Friedman calls her an experimentalist. Experiments are the step in the scientific method that arbitrates between competing models or hypotheses. Experimentation is also used to test existing theories or new hypotheses in order to support them or disprove them. It is important that one knows all factors in an experiment. It is also important that the results are as accurate as possible. If an experiment is carefully conducted, the results usually either support or disprove the hypothesis. The two nickel sized stars are the backbone of the star map, and Fish has essentially reduced the spatial distance between them, then her bold transgression merged them into a single unit going off in the wrong direction to Sol. She should have stopped immediately when the angle to Sol was so far off. On Betty Hill’s star map, the Hub star is directly to the right of the triangle, in Fish’s ZR theory she has relocated them to the bottom on the far right. They are not base stars. The base star concept is based upon her manipulation and alteration of spatial distance between the two nickel sized stars. Nevertheless, it's an interesting move on paper! As a lay scientist Fish had employed some very risky moves, and this is certainly the most questionable. Her teammate Terence Dickinson once said that "Stars cannot be moved around to optimize the desired resemblance." Unfortunately that advice seems to have been ignored. Now it’s time to move on….her experiment has failed.

The star map has two very large nickel sized stars. Star (A) for Alien, and (B) for Betty. Betty has asked the alien, Hey where do you come from? And as a quick retort, he then asks Betty to identify where Sol was at. To make a long story short, she didn't know. She had a 50/50 chance of guessing correctly, but she didn’t offer any answer to the challenge. The answer is that Sol our sun is the lower and obviously B. Their star (A) the upper nickel sized star with traffic trade lines going off to multiple worlds is obviously their home star. When you look at the heavy banding between them, it’s very clear that this is a major trade route; and Sol is the primary destination. The layout of the star map is very precise, and every position identified interlocks with one another; proving that the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis is for real. The center of the star map is in the constellation Ursa Major. We are in orbit around the lower of the two large nickel sized stars, and we “Earthlings” here on Earth see the rest of the star map positions in the Northern Hemisphere. They can’t be seen from the Southern Hemisphere. The Hill-Wilson star map is plotted out to their respective Right Ascension and Declination coordinates. The star map that Betty Hill was shown were three dimensional and the heavy banding between the two large nickel sized stars represents the dimension of depth.

In the star map there are six trade and six exploration positions, and it’s quite plausible to consider the notion that several of the known alien species, such as the Praying Mantis and Reptilian beings that have been seen and participated in the numerous night time abduction cases with the Greys, might actually come from some of the trade destination stars shown in the star map. This is definitely unexplored territory and a topic of great interest to talk about down the road. The burning questions on everyone’s mind on this subject will have to wait.

Hill-Wilson Star Map

On Friday May 30th, 2010 legendary planet hunter Geoff Marcy, a leading Astronomer at Berkeley University, and SETI scientist Dan Werthimer program director at Berkeley, conducted a public debate about the existence of technological life in the universe. In this alleged great debate Werthimer postulated that when we finally make contact with an alien civilization, that they will be at least a million years in advance of our own civilization.

Their star is estimated to be 6.5 Billion years old, two billion years older than we are, and the likelihood that they could be much older is a definite possibility. Just how old might be discovered, if we listen to what they are telling us in another anecdotal story:

London, England 1976: A man reported that two short gray skinned beings had appeared in his bedroom one night and they had somehow transported him through the roof and into a hovering object. He was put on a table where a large gray eye like probe apparently examined him. He was also shown a number of images and was told by the aliens: “A thousand of your years are but one day to us.”

We know that they’re an ancient civilization, so based this revelation I extrapolated an estimate. Doing the math to calculate just how old their civilization might actually be is as follows: (1000 yrs x 365) (one year) = 365,000 yrs x 100 years- human life span) = 36,500,000. So the age of their civilization could theoretically range up to 36 Million years, long enough to figure out how to warp space time and travel faster than light.

Now, let’s get to the exciting part by identifying the real location of where the “Greys” home world is at. Based upon the information that the being had given to Erik Wilson I’m now identifying their home world as 20 Leo Minor a 6.5 Billion year old spectral type G3 star 48.6 light years away from us. The Harvard Revised identifier number for this star is HR3951.

Of particular interest are the last two digits of their HR number: 51-and it’s my supposition that Donald Menzel was part of the Majestic 12 oversight committee, and he chaired the astronomy division for this highly classified group. So Area-51 is a veiled reference to their star. Blacker than black…it’s all about the visitors.

Their star is a metal rich star, and it has all of the scientific requirements to host a habitable planet according to Maggie Turnbill, one of the world‘s leading Astrophysicists. In a study that she did in 2003 called the Sun Life List, she selected a group of stars that had all the criteria of host a habitable planet. She screened them so tight that she said that they would “satisfy the harshest critic in their ability to host a habitable planet.” Per Erik Wilson’s conversation they come from the fourth planet this system. The orbit of their planet would put them at approximately 115 Million miles from their sun. There is a distinct possibility that the third planet might be habitable. It’s a fluid situation as new information has came in indicating that the Eta-Earth Survey (October/2011) has found a planet around this star (1.08 mass of Earth), and I’m anxiously waiting to hear the technical information about the orbit of this planet. Finding a second Earth is the Holy Grail in the scientific community, and saying we told you so is on the tip of my tongue…

My book ‘Set Your Phaser to Stun’ was released on September 19th, 2011 to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the Betty and Barney Hill case. It is currently available on the Amazon Kindle reader and published in book form by Xlibris. The UFO books written today tend to tell anecdotal stories; interesting tales that lack critical scientific information that could help establish better support to the UFO community. I have never seen a UFO and was very much aware of the fact that very few writers have provided any solid scientific or technical content in the books that they have written, so for me this was a unique opportunity to build a bridge to the scientific community by writing a very sound rebuttal to the continued insistance that the study of UFO phenomenon has nothing to contribute to society. Their mindset has been stridently negative and we have been in the dark ages for far too long, and its time to open the door to this brave new world. I did what the scientific community has refused to do, and that was to simply listen to their point of view, and be willing to devote my time and energy to intensely researching this new evidence. This anecdotal information, which is so often discredited, was sufficient enough to warrant further investigation. The information provided in this book is very powerful and scientifically straight forward. This book in my opinion is going to rock the naysayer’s because it cannot be ignored or brushed aside by the scientific community. Further information about this shocking revelation is now available. The information in this article is only a fraction of the content of the book. This is a major breakthrough that hopefully will be the catalyst to force disclosure. Welcome to a brave new world.