UFO Casebook headgraphic

The Hill-Wilson Star Map by Steve Pearse

Zeta Map

Published: 9:00 AM 10/2/2009

By Steve Pearse

The Hill-Wilson Star Map

For years I believed that Marjorie Fish’s Zeta Reticuli interpretation of Betty Hill’s star map was right, and that they really did come from Zeta Reticuli as she claimed. But when better information suddenly presented itself, and I had the time to thoroughly investigate the new information; and then compare it to her version of the star map, it became obvious that she was dead wrong.

A major discovery has taken place that is going to change everything, as new information from a relatively unknown CE-5 case challenges the Fish ZR theory about where the “Greys” really come from. If there was a word that could best describe the turn of events that have taken place, then that word would be serendipity. Serendipity is the effect by which one accidentally discovers something fortunate, especially while looking for something else entirely.

According to M.K. Stoskopf, “it should be recognized that serendipitous discoveries are of significant value in the advancement of science and often present the foundation for important intellectual leaps of understanding.” This amazing clue was found on Kay Wilson’s web site: www.alienjigsaw.com while searching for other UFO information, and is the personal experience of Erik Wilson, Kay’s husband. The combination of the Betty and Barney Hill case with Kay and Erik Wilson’s CE-5 case is the origin of the Hill-Wilson Star Map’s name.

Discovered quite by accident, it contains vital clues that were then used to find what we now believe to be their true origins. This newly discovered CE-5 case gave highly specific information in an unprecedented revelation in a one on one conversation about where they come from.

The conversation was so specific that the Being ended up telling him to look at a well known feature in the constellation Ursa Major in the Northern Hemisphere, then as the conversation continued on, the Being mentioned specific reference points to look for to locate their star.

In this astounding conversation about where they come from, one of the key references made during this chat is a “Triangle” which was investigated and proven to be an exact match to the famous triangle in Betty Hill’s star map, thus allowing us to formally connect these two cases together.

Seeing that the triangle was a perfect isosceles triangle and an exact match to the triangle in Betty Hill’s star map, allowed us to further deduce that Betty Hill’s star map was actually Earth based and was in fact fairly accurate with minor corrections. This time they are essentially telling us where they come from, which makes all the difference in the world.

In both of these cases the conversation is about the location of their home star, the information meshes, and now these two cases are connected together like a puzzle piece showing us the way home. The most shocking aspect was the true location of Sol within the star map.

Our intended purpose of this investigation is to finally build a bridge to the scientific world, in hope that we can solve the UFO phenomenon by beating the scientific community to the punch of finding a second Earth, capable of hosting a habitable planet with life, and proving once and for all that the Extraterrestrial hypothesis is the only logical explanation that can adequately explain the UFO phenomenon beyond a reasonable doubt that will end the debate about the validity of visitation to our world by advanced extraterrestrial civilizations with the technology and knowledge to travel through interstellar space. In time we will have the same capabilities when we finally admit that contact has already taken place.

The Clue of the Century

In July of 1993, my husband Erik had an amazing alien encounter while we were living in Portland, Oregon. I was very careful to write down exactly what my husband said because an alien being specifically told him where he - or they –were from. Erik remembered his experience immediately - no hypnosis was used.

Erik’s conversation with a Grey is as follows: "We go on the deck. I ask him, 'Are you from the Pleiades?' The Being adamantly replies, 'No.' I ask him where he is from. We look in the sky to see the Big Dipper. He says, 'See the Ursa Major?' I reply “Yes”. The Being then tells me, 'The star cluster to the right and below. The one with the triangle to the left and the little stars in between...we're from that one. “The fourth planet from our sun."

The Hill/Wilson star map is the result of an amazing clue that was uncovered in the year 2000, a truly amazing clue, that shortly thereafter lead to a eight year scientific investigation and journey of discovery to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the star map as drawn by Betty Hill in 1964 is fairly accurate as drawn.

They’re directing our attention to the Big Dipper in the Constellation Ursa Majoris as a visual starting point to find their home star. The Being went on with further detail, as it specifically mentions the presence of a triangle as it says:

“The star cluster to the right and below the one with the triangle to the left and the little stars in between.” as it spoke to Erik Wilson, giving him directions on how to find the location of their star. I have found their star, and it is Not Zeta Reticuli!

The triangle is an integral and key feature of the star map, and with the realization that this new challenge to Fish’s Zeta Reticuli theory would be an up hill battle, I had to re-examine Fish’s star map interpretation and her selection of triangle stars; knowing full well that it would obviously give life to a new heated debate about the Pros & Cons of Marjorie Fish’s ZR theory.

I really had to do my home work to show beyond a reasonable doubt that her ZR theory was wrong and that they do not come from Zeta Reticuli as she claimed. The location and visual prominence of the triangle is the key issue.

There are several quotes attributed to Marjorie Fish that are of critical importance to this discussion, so we will focus our attention on the background support data used in the promotion of the ZR Theory. This specifically involves her comments about the triangle as a key feature of the star map.

Fish quote: It wasn't until the updated 1969 Gliese Catalogue of Nearby Stars became available to Marjorie that the last three stars with connecting lines as well as the stars in the triangle could be pinned down and identified in the Constellation Fornax.

The triangle stars are identified by the Gliese numbers of 86.1, 95, and 97. Quote: “With that specific star data, Marjorie had all the proof she needed to confirm that Betty's map could only have been drawn at the time as the result of contact with extraterrestrials!”

According to Fish:

“No astronomer on Earth could have known that the triangle of background stars existed in its present geometric design - only UFOnauts coming toward our system from the Constellation Reticulum could have known those three shining stars existed in that position and would have plotted them in on their star map for visual orientation.”

The statement that no astronomer on Earth could have known that the triangle of background stars existed is absolutely false. Stars have many identifying numbers, and the Gliese Catalogue of Stars is one of the many numbers used to identify a star.

Gl 86.1 has 19 different identifiers’ and Gl 138 (Zet2) for example has even more at 32 identifiers’. What is significant in this case is their Henry Draper number (HD). All three of Fish’s triangle stars have HD numbers. The Henry Draper Catalogue (HD) is an astronomical star catalog that was published between the years 1918 and 1924, giving spectroscopic classifications for 225,300 stars. Oops..!

Her triangle stars are HD13435, HD14412, and HD14802 putting her claims that no astronomer on Earth could have known that the triangle stars existed in its present geometric design in serious trouble in more than one way. This is an error saying that no astronomer could have known about them and I’d have to blame her science advisors who should have caught this. Trouble continues to mount as we closely examine the ZR theory as we will soon see!

In 1974 Mark Steggart also made a very interesting comment about Fish’s ZR theory noting that “The fact that measurements of most of the stars in question can only be made at the relatively poor equipped southern hemisphere observatories accounts for the less reliable data.

The data on some of the stars may not be accurate enough for us to make definitive conclusions.” This is where the problem starts.

There is no dispute that the Gliese catalog was one of the best available data sources at that time, so the real problem stems from the advancement in our knowledge base to what was known 35 years ago. Stanton Friedman the primary spokesman also acknowledged the problem saying that “The distance data was in pretty poor shape back then, you look at five different star catalogs and you get five different distances.” I have to admit he’s absolutely right!

Since 1974 the advances in astronomy have grown by leaps and bounds, and much of what we thought we knew has turned out to be wrong. The passage of time hasn’t helped Marjorie Fish’s interpretation of the star map, and the end result is the fact that Fish’s star map has simply failed to keep pace with the science of astronomy, thus leaving major holes in her star map interpretation.

Major discrepancies have come to light regarding Fish’s positions number #13 and #15 which has now been proven to be much farther away, and out of bounds of Fish’s display model “Psyche” that proclaimed that all of the stars were within 55 light years of Sol in the direction of Zeta Reticuli.

It was a valiant effort on her part to try to break the secrets of the star map, and I admire her for her efforts; but now we must go forward without her because today’s science is tolling a bell on her work.

The distance of Gl 86.1 was previously thought to be 41.30 light years in 1969, and now HIPPARCOS has determined that the correct distance is actually 183.651 light years which puts this star far outside the boundary of Fish's model "Psyche" that thought all the stars were within 55 light-years of the sun in the direction of Zeta Reticuli.

We still have visibility issues too since this star is a very faint 7.10 Vmag star. Neither is it in the close position that Fish originally thought, nor is it a bright and shining star as she proclaimed in her dissertation so many years ago. This is simply science fact.

Position #13 Gl 86.1 (Bottom left Fish triangle)
Constellation: Fornax
Hemisphere: Southern
Star name: GL 86.1
HIP: 10164
DM: CD -28 694
HD 13435
RA: 2h 10m 41.66s
Dec: -28° 13'09.3"

To better understand the question of visibility or I should say the lack of visibility you can see the problem for yourself here: Aim point RA: 2h 10m 41s Dec: -28°

Another major problem for Fish's Triangle -Kappa Fornacis (GL97) one of the closest 46 stars list was thought to be 42 light years distance in 1969, today HIPPARCOS has put this star at 71.49 ly. This now puts its true position outside of the boundary of Fish’s model "Psyche" also, and closeness to the front of Fish's 3D display model called Psyche. GL 95 the remaining star was thought to be 45 light years in 1969 and has been subsequently corrected to 12.68pc (41.33ly) a slight improvement distance wise. One star cannot form a triangle.

This effectively destroys the placement of Fish's Triangle as being part of the star map. Ironically Gl 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 that “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 which cannot be ignored.

If you look at Betty Hill’s star map one can clearly see that Positions #10 and # 3 falls between the upper portion of the triangle and the two lower bottom stars of the triangle. Fish’s triangle was based upon information from 1969 that has been proven to be unreliable and simply wrong.

The bottom line to this story is the fact that Fish’s Zeta Reticuli theory doesn’t have a valid triangle anymore; which has always been a key feature of the star map. So the question now is can we really continue to believe that they come from Zeta Reticuli? Perhaps not. So I ask, is position #10 directly to the right of the triangle or not ?

Do they come from Zeta Reticuli?

Saying that Marjorie Fish had all the proof she needed to confirm that Betty's map could only have been drawn at the time as the result of contact with extraterrestrials is essentially correct as far as the abduction of Betty and Barney Hill is concerned.

But her ZR interpretation of the star map is a mistaken assumption, because the stars are not really where she said they were. The answer is obviously No... simply because the true location of the triangle has been discovered, proving that none of the stars shown in the star map are in the Southern Hemisphere. The “base star” concept is a fallacy.

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, and be able to live up to Betty Hill’s testimony calling them quite prominent.

The fact is that Marjorie Fish’s triangle has always been a very poor rendition of what Betty Hill drew, and now we know that it has never existed as portrayed by Marjorie Fish in her interpretation of the star map. Ultimately, in the end it’s Erik’s conversation that really gives us superior information about where they come from.

We will continue to write more about Fish’s Zeta Reticuli theory in the coming months. As things progress new information about the Hill-Wilson star map will be released prior to our projected release of a book that is tentatively slated for the latter part of 2010.



permanent link: http://www.ufocasebook.com/2009d/hillwilson.html

source & references:


UFO Casebook Home Page