Originally posted by Badge01
(corrected the red strike out entries)
From page 235 One version of the Marjorie Fish Map:
OK, here's a correction on the stars that Marjorie Fish used. I was a little confused with the concept of the Gliese terminology. That is a reference
book or catalog of the known stars and has a 'Gliese number' which corresponds to the older terminology based on the Constellations. As Fish
mentions she found a couple stars in the newer Gliese catalog which seemed to not have been identified at the time Betty made the drawing.
(but still with minor nomenclature problems)
1...136....Zeta Reticuli 1
......138...Zeta Reticuli 2
2... 17....Zeta Tucanae
3... 231...Alpha Mensae
5....139...82 Eridani, e Eridani
10... 86....GC 2610
11... 111...Tau 1 Eridani
12... 59.....GC 1883
15... 97....Kappa Fornacis
Though this seems like a real 'clue' to the reality, it's an example of 'begging the question', in that our 'dots' have been fitted to a
potential, or prospective location and the Gliese catalog helped to name one or two more.
Even the 'strong' fit and yellow main sequence stars don't really 'cement' that this is a real map. We're taking a remembered event, and a
dreamed recall and trying to fit these dots to a location close to us, with criteria, but there's the 360 degree freedom of rotation I talked about
earlier, and the mass of stars available which helps promote a bit of an illusion.
So, though I think it's ok to be thrilled and captivated and encouraged, we should still view this kind of thing cautiously, and not strictly as
evidence of 'reality' of this event.
I think even Marjorie would say it -uses- science, but it's not an example -of- good scientific exclusion (or inclusion) nor is it statistically
significant. It's not like a cartographer's plot or a legal blueprint, which is a 'hard fit' and evidentiary.
Hope that makes sense. I just don't want my researching and collating and reporting to seem like it's a stronger reason to be convinced of any ET
hypothesis in this case. Each case and each fact have to be considered individually. If we want to apply science, then we have to use statistics and
peer review. This paper would not pass peer review, obviously, it's speculation. It was presented to the MUFON convention of 1974
magazine did think it was interesting enough to publish it in one of their issues for reader comment.
[edit on 19-7-2008 by Badge01]