Hill-Wilson Star Map Fails too.

I spent a half hour compiling a list of the "important" stars as listed on Steve Pearse's web site which he claimed is a "better fit" to the Betty Hill sketch.. I then I spent another hour running queries with SINBAD for each of the 11 stars which are on the "lines" Betty Hill sketched. Pearse seems to think that quantity is more important than quality and filled in a whole host of other stars. I only looked at the stars that are on the Hill sketch as follows:

Name	Star Spec	HD	HIP	Note1	Note2	Note3
20 Leo Mi	G3VaHdel	86728	49081	Multi-star	Hi Motion	Variable?
11 Leo Mi	G8V	82885	47080
36 UMaj	F8V	90839	51459		Hi Motion
G146-60	G9V	92786	52470
GJ3627	G5V	93811	53008			Variable
HR4767	F9V	108954	61053		Hi Motion
10 CVn	F9V_Fe-0.3	110897	62207		Hi Motion
GJ511.1	G6V	117043	65530		Hi Motion
61 UMaj	G8V	101501	56997			Variable
8 Boo	G0IV	121370	67927	Spec. Binary
44(i) Boo	G0Vn	133640	73695	Eclip. Binary

Five out of eleven stars "fail" the same criteria that Marjorie Fish set for herself in her selection of stars. In addition another four are noted as being "high proper motion" which is to say they are moving rapidly and might only appear to fit Betty Hill's sketch for only a brief period of time.

While Pearse deserves some credit for seeing the weakness in Fish's presentation, he unfortunately failed to have done his homework and has stars that are not likely to be stops on a trade route nor be places that life might evolve. The rest of the stars that he fills the sketch with are irrelevant if the main stars do not meet the criteria of actually being stars that could host habitable planets. It was a nice try but as science it is a failure.

I won't bother trying to map these stars as it would be an obvious waste of time.

Conclusion:

As science the Hill-Wilson Map fails.