Marjorie Fish's Map Fails

For the last several days I've spent a few hours doing a cursory look at the Marjorie Fish map created from the sketch by Betty Hill. I( decided to take Fish's table of stars at the end of her 1974 presentation as posted on the NICAP.org web site and update it and verify it using the latest most accurate star catalog information.

This required I take the Gliese Numbers as listed in her table then look of their HD entries in the HD Catalog then finally use the HD catalog numbers to get the current data from the Hipparcos catalog. I used Gliese (Gl) numbers, Henry Draper (HD) numbers, the Boss General Catalog (GC) and in one case the Yale Bright Star Catalog  (BSC) to verify I had found the proper entry in the Hipparcos catalog created by the ESA's Hipparcos satellite..

As I was doing this I discovered a major discrepancy. One of the stars listed in the old catalog data was not the same type of star.as Ms. Fish had thought. Her boundary parameters for stellar types were what is generally believed to be "habitable stars"-- stars which can possibly host planets where life can exist: F8V, F9V, G0V through G9V, and K0V through K2V. Then I found other flaws.

Here is my revised list with the catalog numbers based on Marjorie Fish's table:

Name	HIP	HD	Gleise	SpType	Notes
Zeta Tucanae	1599	1581	17	F9V
54 Piscium	3093	3651	27	K0V
GC 1883	7235	9540	59A	K0V	“A” indicates double star
BSC 2050	7918	10307	67	G2V
107 Piscium	7981	10476	68	K1V
Tau Ceti	8201	10700	71	K0
GC 2610	10138	13445	86	K0V
HD13435	10164	13435	86.1	K1III	Red Giant star-- Not Habitable
GC2794	10798	14412	95	G8V
Kappa Fornacis	11072	14802	97	G2V
Tau 1 Eridani	12843	17206	111	F5/F6V	Too Hot - Not Habitable
Zeta1 Reticuli	15330	20766	136	G2V
Zeta2 Reticuli	15371	20807	138	G1V
82 Eridani	15510	20794	139	G8V
Alpha Mensae	29271	43834	231	G5V

Note: the Sun is excluded from the table as it is not listed in most star catalogs.

Unfortunately as you can see there are at least three glaring errors in her selections. 

First, GC1883 is Gl59A. That "A" means it is a double star. Without knowing the orbital elements for the second star it is unlikely to host planets. 

Second, HD13435 which is listed is listed in Fish's star table as Gl86.1 is no longer listed in the Gliese catalog. I had to do a search using the SINBAD and VizieR web portals to query the star catalogs hosted by the University of Strasbourg. Previously Gl86.1 had been identified as a K2V but the SINBAD search shows that it is a red giant. Red giants are stars are not likely to host habitable planets as they are stars which are on their "last legs" and have probably burned away any habitable planet they may have once hosted..

Finally Gl136 is listed as an F6V which is out of the bounds set by Fish. It is probably too young and too hot to host life bearing planets or if they do it is more likely to be microbial.

Given that then author's own selections fail her own stated criteria I would say the Fish map "fails" as scientific evidence of it being an actual "star map" of what Betty Hill said she saw and what she sketched..

I do acknowledge that some of the above has been found previously. Steve Pearse, another UFO author, published a book (several years ago) which mentions these flaws (which I did not discover until after I had completed my table and found the flaws). 

He has proposed another map that allegedly fits Betty Hill's sketch. Unfortunately, there are several problems with what he proposes. First, he wants to second guess a dead witness [in effect, saying the witness was "stupid" and here's what she really saw] and second, the provenance of that map is even more questionable than the original since it is based on what appears to be "My ETs are better than your ETs". From what I can tell the book appears to be written not to provide scientific proof of the what is claimed, but to sell books to those that already "believe".  

There is a point at which one should recognize they are wasting their time. At this point I think the Hill-Fish map should be written off as completely useless and probably the whole Hill encounter as well. Neither has provided any real "proof" of ETs or abductions... and that also includes Mr. Pearse's attempt to revive it with a "new map". I may look at Mr. Pearse's map but I doubt what I find will change my mind.

Unless of course a 5 foot five inch humanoid with yellowish / grey skin stops by for a beer and tells me all about what those maps are really about. For now I'll leave it to other people to spend time spinning their wheels with improbable maps.

In conclusion: 

The Fish map fails as science.  

Now go forth and do something useful.