More on Marjorie Fish's Star Map

After my last post I got ZERO comments but undaunted by that I became a bit more curious about what Fish had done so I went looking to see what could be found on the subject. I found many things. 90% of which was believers "singing to the choir" about how the map proves this or that; or "No, that is the wrong map because the grey that is telepathically talking to me says the map is wrong.". 

Most of the rest is commentary or ridicule from skeptics no more qualified to judge Marjorie Fish or the map she produced then they. After all what does a scientist working in an unrelated field know about star maps, coordinate rotations, or slicing a 3d object into a 2d plane and playing connect-the-dots?

I discovered a reproduction of a presentation on the NICAP web site where Fish gives her explanation and justifications for her selection of stars.

Among the interesting things she says:

Kinds of Stars on the Main Sequence, and Their Relation to Life. There are 7 main spectra groups of main sequence stars. These are, going from the most massive to the least massive, from the hottest to the coolest, from bluish to red: OV, BV, AV, FV, GV, KV, MV. Each of these groups is divided into 10 subgroups of descending size. Thus B9V is closer in size and characteristics to AOV than to BOV. Theoretically there are 70 subgroups within these 7 groups but not all of these are used regularly.  

Star types 0, B, A and down to F2 are massive hot stars. Gravity forces the atoms closer together so atomic reactions take place at a faster rate than on smaller stars. So, although they have more matter, they burn faster, and last for a shorter period on the main sequence, not long enough for life to form if it takes as long as it did on Earth. Almost all of these stars are rotating fast, indicating that they probably do not have planets. There is very little chance for planets with life around these stars.  

F2V to F5V could support planets with the beginnings of life but not all of these stars are rotating slowly so probably many do not have planets. In an F2 system, life might just be forming as the star starts to leave the main sequence.  

F5V to F7V have more stars rotating slowly indicating the possibility of planets. 

From approximately F8 on, all main sequence stars are rotating slowly, probably indicating planets. According to Carl Sagan, F8 is the point where intelligent life would have time to emerge. So main sequence stars from F8 through the Gs, to the early Ks have a possibility for life, including intelligent life.  

Many exobiologists place the break-off point for life in the early Ks, usually K2. A few extend it to KS. Stars get progressively cooler. With late Ks and Ms the stars are so cool a planet would need to be very near the star’s surface to get enough heat for life processes. This raises problems of synchronous rotation, but one of the biggest problems is solar flaring. Apparently tiny stars have the same kinds of solar flares as stars like the sun. On the sun a solar flare changes the over-all output of energy very little, as there is so much total radiating surface besides the flare. On a small star, the same size flare may give off many times the star’s usual energy, destroying any life that might be on a nearby planet.  

To summarize, the best chance for life is F8, all Gs, through KO, especially where the KO and G8 groups overlap. There is a possibility for terrestrial life and/or colonization around F5 to F7 stars, and much more remotely F2 to F5. There is some chance for life in K1 and K2 systems, and possibly, in special cases K2 to K5, but little around stars smaller than K5.  

This answers the question as to why she selected the stars she did. So far as I am aware nothing has changed in the Astro-biology field. The range of most probable candidates  for habitable planets is long lived stars in the F8 through K2 class stars. Yes I am aware that there are those that have proposed "more extreme" habitable zones but so far as I can tell those are more the exception than the rule.

Internal Consistency does not constitute proof

Fish's conclusion in the presentation about the Betty Hill map was:

Since we did not have the data to make such a map in 1961 when Betty saw it, or in 1964 when she drew it, it could not be a hoax. Since the stars with lines to them are such a select group, it is almost impossible that the resemblance between Betty’s map and reality could be coincidental. Betty’s map could only have been drawn after contact with extraterrestrials.  

I don't necessarily agree with the last word in the last sentence. Accepting her map as a "Zeroth Approximation" does give enticing enough results to say there may be validity to the map Betty Hill sketched but to say that it proves that this was proof of contact with ETs is a far stretch. I won't say that it is untrue, I just believe that it takes more than a map and conversations remembered via hypnosis.

There have been plenty of cases of internally consistent "automatic writing or mediumistic" books written. Among them are the "Sefer HaZohar", the foundation of Jewish Mysticism written in the late 13th Century  and "Seth Speaks" as "channeled" by Jane Roberts in the 70s. Both are internally consistent, have great philosophical and religious insight, and are logically consistent with the topics they deal with but both are "unprovable" in the sense that they only have a tenuous connection to reality.

That is the problem with most "contactee / abduction" reports. Generally there is nothing in an abductee's testimony which can actually be tangible. Betty Hill's star map is different in this regards. It was "testable".  Either there is or there is not a set of stars which map to what Betty Hill sketched. Marjorie Fish showed that there is a set of stars which, within some amount of error, there is such a set of stars.

Marjorie Fish did the painstaking work without the assistance of a computer and showed there is a "near likeness". I'm not aware of anyone that has done any further work other than someone (with a book to sell) that Fish got it wrong because he knew someone who had a "Grey" talking to him who said it was somewhere else. Really? What kind of proof is that? 

So while the map may not be proof  that The! Map! Is! Proof! Of! ET! It does show that at least one point of what Betty Hill recalled had some connection to reality. See the "Proof the map is not a Hoax" section of Marjorie's presentation.

Did She or Didn't She?

Another minor controversy seems to be whether or not Marjorie Fish "recanted" her findings in regard to the map she developed. It seems someone changed Fish's obituary to state that she had "recanted" unbeknownst to the person in her family who wrote obituary. A letter from her niece, who wrote Marjorie Fish's obituary, was posted at the Bad UFOs site noting that Marjorie Fish never did, to her knowledge, "recant". As noted in the letter:

Marjorie’s work on Betty Hill’s map is still viable and worthy of consideration. To clarify what I was referring to, I remember Marj talking about a binary system that would not allow for the development of life – the source was not a newly issued star catalog. While working on the obituary for Marjorie, my father recalled that Marj wrote a letter/statement to the effect that new data indicated that a system could not support life so her matching of the Betty Hill map was incorrect. Perhaps she and/or the recipient(s) realized that the published interpretation of the data was in error – not Marjorie’s work. In any case, Marj did not tell my father who was not involved anyway. If one wishes more details, please see the attached notes from Stanton Friedman. Our current knowledge allows for planets and possible life where Marjorie had indicated. 

The larger point, that Marjorie was a true skeptic willing to let go of projects she was deeply involved in if the evidence was to the contrary, also remains. We will see how many people using my obituary for Marjorie to say her work is “debunked” will make corrections to their sites, etc.

So what about them Aliens?

So let's talk evolution for a moment. So what kind of Star and planet would allow the evolution of this:

An Artist's rendition of an alien abductor

This is an artist rendition of the appearance of the abductors Barney and Betty Hill case. This is not your X-Files grey. The above image is taken from a web page on the NICAP site concerning the artist's impressions of what the various facial features may mean. When reading the artist's impressions think about what it may mean to help understand the evolutionary environment of this species.

Some things of note right off the top: 

1) Wrap-around eyes in our environment is usually a feature found in animal species which are considered "prey". 

2) If the eyes were protected by a membrane it might mean the environment was "dusty" or "polluted" for long enough time for the creature to evolve that natural protection.

3) Large eyes may indicate the creature evolved in a low light environment meaning a dimer sun or more distant sun. 

4) The artist makes note of the Hill's reporting a "blue lighted interior" of the craft. That might indicate a "bluer star" than the sun (Stellar Class F8 or F9?). Much as we use "orange" as dash lights in some automobiles to assist in clearly seeing or using instrumentation.

One could speculate that the abductors possibly come from an F8V or F9V star who's home planet is on the outer edge of the habitable zone. The light received from their star is dim causing their species to have large eyes. The planet is dusty and or polluted with sufficient atmospheric turbulence that they have evolved protective membranes over their eyes.

This is of course speculation --  which is what this blog is about but as is well known:

Speculation != Proof.

Which for you non-programmers translates as:

Speculation does not equal Proof.

Remember that as we slog through things here in the Zeroth Circle.