1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:06,720
October 14th, 1969, Marjorie Fish speaking.

2
00:00:06,720 --> 00:00:12,480
I think probably the best way to answer your questions is if I send you the material as

3
00:00:12,480 --> 00:00:13,480
I have it now.

4
00:00:13,480 --> 00:00:16,480
I have only a few copies and I would like it back after a bit.

5
00:00:16,480 --> 00:00:22,920
But this way you could go over the material and decide for yourself what the questions

6
00:00:22,920 --> 00:00:29,120
are that you want to ask and we could go over more of it in much more detail then rather

7
00:00:29,120 --> 00:00:31,000
than starting from scratch.

8
00:00:31,000 --> 00:00:32,440
There's quite a bit of material.

9
00:00:32,440 --> 00:00:33,960
I hate to write.

10
00:00:33,960 --> 00:00:34,960
I'm a rotten seller.

11
00:00:34,960 --> 00:00:40,320
But I've done more writing in these last, well, this last years and I think I've done

12
00:00:40,320 --> 00:00:41,320
in the previous twenty.

13
00:00:41,320 --> 00:00:46,560
Much of the material is highly technical but I'll explain anything you have any questions

14
00:00:46,560 --> 00:00:47,560
on later.

15
00:00:47,560 --> 00:00:50,480
You have a chance to talk with me on it.

16
00:00:50,480 --> 00:00:55,680
There's still a lot that I haven't put into writing but the writing hits most of the high

17
00:00:55,680 --> 00:00:57,680
points of the research.

18
00:00:58,240 --> 00:01:05,320
As for the books and material used, I was using the star catalogs that are used at the

19
00:01:05,320 --> 00:01:12,200
observatories for the positions of the stars and the parallaxes and I have the complete

20
00:01:12,200 --> 00:01:16,320
rundown of all the available parallaxes that I know of.

21
00:01:16,320 --> 00:01:22,520
That's the Yale Trichometric Parallax Catalog, the Bright Star Catalog, the Yale Trichometric

22
00:01:22,560 --> 00:01:28,240
Parallax Catalog supplement from 1962 and the Glycee Catalog.

23
00:01:28,240 --> 00:01:33,600
I was using the Glycee Catalog for the most part and you'll get a chance to see these.

24
00:01:33,600 --> 00:01:37,800
The data was very, very hard to come by.

25
00:01:37,800 --> 00:01:45,440
The material is, well, just isn't normally used by lay people and so it just is not available

26
00:01:45,440 --> 00:01:51,840
in libraries and I wrote to a number of universities and I went to observatories and I went to

27
00:01:51,840 --> 00:01:57,640
planetariums and very few people had the catalogs and practically no one would allow anyone

28
00:01:57,640 --> 00:02:01,120
to use them or even look at them.

29
00:02:01,120 --> 00:02:06,240
And finally at Perkins, two years after I started trying to get this data, I was able

30
00:02:06,240 --> 00:02:12,080
to get into the Perkins Observatory to the kindness of the librarian and she allowed

31
00:02:12,080 --> 00:02:13,080
me to look at them.

32
00:02:13,080 --> 00:02:19,800
I found which catalogs I needed and hurriedly copied the data because, again, I wasn't

33
00:02:19,800 --> 00:02:24,680
supposed to be there until very kind letting me in and they've been very kind since then.

34
00:02:24,680 --> 00:02:28,400
Practically rolled out the red carpet and it just made me feel marvelous because I've

35
00:02:28,400 --> 00:02:30,800
had this terrific time getting them at data.

36
00:02:30,800 --> 00:02:36,840
As for the textbooks or sources of material to determine which stars could have planets

37
00:02:36,840 --> 00:02:43,440
or life, those were listed, well parts of them were listed in that list that I gave you

38
00:02:43,440 --> 00:02:46,680
at the meeting if you picked up one of those.

39
00:02:47,040 --> 00:02:51,440
Sagan's Intelligent Life in the Universe, and of course he's a radio astronomer and

40
00:02:51,440 --> 00:02:58,160
quite highly thought of in that field, is more or less accepted on the astronomy part.

41
00:02:58,160 --> 00:03:03,960
Sushu Huong has done a review of his book and he recommends the astronomy part although

42
00:03:03,960 --> 00:03:07,000
he doesn't go along too much with the extraterrestrial part.

43
00:03:07,000 --> 00:03:11,960
None of mine is based on the secondary part of the book just on the straight astronomy.

44
00:03:12,240 --> 00:03:15,040
Suresh Off would be the most controversial.

45
00:03:15,040 --> 00:03:21,800
He's a member of the Royal Astronomical Society, but he has quite a bit of speculative data

46
00:03:21,800 --> 00:03:26,360
but he labels it as such and gives the pros and cons of his data as he goes along.

47
00:03:26,360 --> 00:03:31,760
And I thought his ideas were quite interesting although I found some flaws in some of them.

48
00:03:31,760 --> 00:03:34,720
There's quite a few textbooks out now on exobiology.

49
00:03:34,720 --> 00:03:37,720
Most of these came out after 1963.

50
00:03:37,720 --> 00:03:44,480
Stephen Dole has one, or actually two out, one published with Isaac Asimov.

51
00:03:44,480 --> 00:03:53,160
And Ikeid, I'll have to look up his first name, has one out and there's quite a few others.

52
00:03:53,160 --> 00:03:56,320
And there's nothing particularly controversial over these.

53
00:03:56,320 --> 00:04:01,680
Pretty much boils down to that a star like the sun is going to have planets like our own

54
00:04:01,680 --> 00:04:04,400
or could have planets like our own.

55
00:04:04,440 --> 00:04:08,560
So you need a star within a very close range of the sun and it would have to be a single

56
00:04:08,560 --> 00:04:11,760
star generally speaking.

57
00:04:11,760 --> 00:04:15,120
Some controversies on whether they could be doubled or not, but I was working strictly

58
00:04:15,120 --> 00:04:17,600
with the single stars.

59
00:04:17,600 --> 00:04:23,640
Question on the margin of error in the stars.

60
00:04:23,640 --> 00:04:29,760
It would be at most when the model was first made and the picture is taken.

61
00:04:30,120 --> 00:04:36,120
Hanging error of half a light year, but I doubt if there'd be anywhere near that much.

62
00:04:36,120 --> 00:04:40,120
Assuming that the parallax measurement that the astronomers took was correct.

63
00:04:40,120 --> 00:04:45,120
Now as the star is close to the Earth, the parallax measurement is much more accurate.

64
00:04:45,120 --> 00:04:51,120
As it gets further out towards the 32 light years, the measurement gets further and further

65
00:04:51,120 --> 00:04:56,120
off between the different catalogs.

66
00:04:56,480 --> 00:05:01,480
When you get out to 100 light years, you've got quite a margin of error.

67
00:05:01,480 --> 00:05:05,640
By the time you get to 200 light years, you better forget it and go to some other kind

68
00:05:05,640 --> 00:05:09,640
of measurement rather than the trigonometric parallax.

69
00:05:09,640 --> 00:05:17,640
To me, most of the stars are very close from one catalog to another with just part of a

70
00:05:17,640 --> 00:05:19,640
light year difference in their measurement.

71
00:05:19,640 --> 00:05:24,640
A few of them are two or three light years of difference.

72
00:05:24,640 --> 00:05:29,120
The unfortunate thing is that the base stars happen to be one of the ones where there's

73
00:05:29,120 --> 00:05:32,120
quite a bit of difference in the different catalogs.

74
00:05:32,120 --> 00:05:38,120
The latest published measurement would put it out to around 38 light years.

75
00:05:38,120 --> 00:05:43,120
The one I was using before I got that measurement and when the model was made, I didn't get

76
00:05:43,120 --> 00:05:48,120
that measurement until after that model was made, but was at 30 light years, which is

77
00:05:48,120 --> 00:05:52,120
the Cape parallax from Africa.

78
00:05:52,120 --> 00:05:57,520
I suspect if my interpretation is correct that either the Cape parallax or some way about

79
00:05:57,520 --> 00:06:02,520
halfway between the two is their actual distance out.

80
00:06:02,520 --> 00:06:08,520
Gleasy parallax for that particular star is farther out than that jet too, and if it is

81
00:06:08,520 --> 00:06:15,520
as far as the Gleasy catalog states, I would say that probably the pattern is just coincidence.

82
00:06:15,520 --> 00:06:22,040
No, quite what to say about publishing because I really wasn't intending to do much in the

83
00:06:22,040 --> 00:06:23,120
way of publishing.

84
00:06:23,120 --> 00:06:33,160
I have quite a regard for four, and I really enjoy talking with Mr. Ness, but I made the

85
00:06:33,160 --> 00:06:39,120
report basically for APRIL as an APRIL member, and I wanted to give them a chance to act.

86
00:06:39,120 --> 00:06:41,400
Dr. Stanford and I have been in communication.

87
00:06:41,400 --> 00:06:46,800
He's been pretty busy and hasn't had a chance to do too much with it yet, and he may not

88
00:06:46,800 --> 00:06:50,560
understand quite how I place the stars in the model.

89
00:06:51,080 --> 00:06:57,560
Mitchell of Perkins asked me to come down and show him just how I did it because he

90
00:06:57,560 --> 00:07:05,320
was teaching a class in stellar mechanics, and he wanted his students to see the model

91
00:07:05,320 --> 00:07:11,760
and to go over the placement idea, to have some basic idea on how it was done.

92
00:07:12,720 --> 00:07:20,680
Send you the inflated letter that more or less confirms that the model is at least reasonably

93
00:07:20,680 --> 00:07:21,680
accurate.

94
00:07:21,680 --> 00:07:23,880
He has been very kind.

95
00:07:23,880 --> 00:07:31,320
I do not mean that he agrees with my extraterrestrial theory of UFOs because my work at Perkins

96
00:07:31,320 --> 00:07:37,040
Observatory has been basically strictly astronomy, and I've gone over it with him, but I didn't

97
00:07:37,040 --> 00:07:40,040
put him on the spot by asking him what he thought of it.

98
00:07:40,040 --> 00:07:43,040
It's kind of a touchy situation.

99
00:07:43,040 --> 00:07:49,200
As I mentioned before, it's very hard for an amateur to get into an observatory in the

100
00:07:49,200 --> 00:07:54,240
research part, and I wouldn't want to do anything that would embarrass the people who are kind

101
00:07:54,240 --> 00:07:57,360
enough to let me in and to help me.

102
00:07:57,360 --> 00:08:01,360
Fully in accord with you and that I don't want to get into the pulp magazines.

103
00:08:01,680 --> 00:08:06,480
I wanted it basically for AFRO.

104
00:08:06,480 --> 00:08:14,520
I also had sent material to Dr. Heineck, who I think is a fair and impartial judge.

105
00:08:14,520 --> 00:08:16,560
I don't know if he's reading it or not.

106
00:08:16,560 --> 00:08:22,360
He was very kind in having an associate answer some of my astronomy questions.

107
00:08:22,360 --> 00:08:27,680
However, neither one of them had read the report very carefully, but it was very long.

108
00:08:27,680 --> 00:08:30,520
I couldn't see why they might not.

109
00:08:30,680 --> 00:08:36,440
I also want a copy to go to Jack Valley if I could never get in touch with him, because

110
00:08:36,440 --> 00:08:40,520
he was the one who first got me interested in UFOs.

111
00:08:40,520 --> 00:08:47,840
The FSIC, these were the only ones I was really interested in getting the report to.

112
00:08:47,840 --> 00:08:54,560
Not even completely sure that it should be generally made public because it's a lot easier

113
00:08:54,560 --> 00:09:00,440
to weed through contact reports when you have some basic idea of what's going on.

114
00:09:01,360 --> 00:09:05,360
Which ones can be reliable and which ones aren't reliable.

115
00:09:05,360 --> 00:09:10,360
Since contact reports are so interesting and since you seem especially interested in them,

116
00:09:10,360 --> 00:09:13,360
I was wondering if you could help me out on one particular aspect.

117
00:09:13,360 --> 00:09:20,360
I remember a vaguely reading of a contact report where the contactee said that they

118
00:09:20,360 --> 00:09:24,360
had claimed they had visited 40 different worlds.

119
00:09:25,280 --> 00:09:31,280
If my mapping theory is correct, this will be approximately how many they may have gone to.

120
00:09:31,280 --> 00:09:36,280
I can explain this more to you later too, but right now they showed about between a

121
00:09:36,280 --> 00:09:39,280
fourth and an eighth of the sky area.

122
00:09:39,280 --> 00:09:47,280
There were 10 stars beside the base star, so 40 would be approximately correct if they're

123
00:09:47,280 --> 00:09:50,280
visiting in all the other directions also.

124
00:09:51,200 --> 00:09:57,200
I tried to find this report, but I've got so many reports of all, I get all sorts of

125
00:09:57,200 --> 00:09:59,200
different kinds of materials.

126
00:09:59,200 --> 00:10:02,200
Some of them extremely poor, some of them pretty good.

127
00:10:02,200 --> 00:10:07,200
I do subscribe to the Find Auxury News from England, so I know what you mean about that magazine.

128
00:10:07,200 --> 00:10:15,200
Do you remember any contact reports where 40 different places were mentioned?

129
00:10:16,120 --> 00:10:23,120
I started to look at the astronomy part, trying to develop this at Perkins as much as possible,

130
00:10:23,120 --> 00:10:26,120
and then let them carry it through if there's anything in it.

131
00:10:26,120 --> 00:10:33,120
It needs to be carried out to the 65 years at least to make sure that this star grouping

132
00:10:33,120 --> 00:10:38,120
is not just a neighborhood quirk and is actually what is happening out in space.

133
00:10:39,040 --> 00:10:45,040
You see these groupings of light stars in a catalog would be very difficult, and I'll

134
00:10:45,040 --> 00:10:49,040
explain that too in Star placement in the catalog.

135
00:10:49,040 --> 00:10:56,040
I'm planning on building possibly two models out to 65 light years, one with just the stars

136
00:10:56,040 --> 00:11:04,040
brighter than the absolute magnitude of plus 7.5, and the other would be have all the stars

137
00:11:04,960 --> 00:11:09,960
and now there's a thousand stars, actually a thousand systems, many of these are double

138
00:11:09,960 --> 00:11:13,960
stars, 65 light years.

139
00:11:13,960 --> 00:11:18,960
This raises problems in hanging them because your lines are getting so close together if

140
00:11:18,960 --> 00:11:24,960
I would use the same size base, which means I should go to a larger base and this creates

141
00:11:24,960 --> 00:11:28,960
other problems in handling anything that large.

142
00:11:29,880 --> 00:11:34,880
There are problems with the lines tangling, so I'm going to have to work out some ideas

143
00:11:34,880 --> 00:11:41,880
on this before I actually go ahead and start it to be turning the tape over now so we'll

144
00:11:41,880 --> 00:11:46,880
have at least some leader here until I'm still rather self conscious of this tape recorder.

145
00:11:46,880 --> 00:11:52,880
The thing I'm working on is all the stars that could have planets with light up to 100

146
00:11:52,880 --> 00:11:53,880
light years.

147
00:11:54,800 --> 00:11:59,800
I have the 65 light year listing done, although I'm rechecking it with the double star catalog

148
00:11:59,800 --> 00:12:05,800
to see if any of these are such ascopic binaries that weren't marked as such in the other catalog.

149
00:12:05,800 --> 00:12:11,800
Markings for binaries are quite often found in the footnotes and sometimes the footnotes

150
00:12:11,800 --> 00:12:14,800
are not as accurate as they could be.

151
00:12:14,800 --> 00:12:18,800
Sometimes too, the person who's writing the catalog isn't interested in that particular

152
00:12:18,800 --> 00:12:23,800
aspect and doesn't mark it as such, and so you may think you have a single star that's

153
00:12:23,800 --> 00:12:27,720
not in the first two doubles aren't nearly as likely to life.

154
00:12:27,720 --> 00:12:33,720
Listing of stars and the models should take at least a full winner if not a couple years

155
00:12:33,720 --> 00:12:37,720
because I'm setting for the scratch for the 100 light year model.

156
00:12:37,720 --> 00:12:41,720
Again, I'll have to explain some of these things when we get together and I can show

157
00:12:41,720 --> 00:12:44,720
you the catalogs themselves and what it entails.

158
00:12:44,720 --> 00:12:51,720
Ness asked me about the possibility of not going on radio, but I carried it for the time

159
00:12:51,720 --> 00:12:52,720
being.

160
00:12:52,720 --> 00:12:53,720
I just don't know.

161
00:12:53,720 --> 00:12:56,720
I'm not very keen on public speaking.

162
00:12:56,720 --> 00:13:03,720
In fact, the talks before the acronym, as I mentioned before, was my first real voluntary

163
00:13:03,720 --> 00:13:04,720
public speaking.

164
00:13:04,720 --> 00:13:10,720
The teacher sometimes I have to do something, the PTA or something, but I took out of it

165
00:13:10,720 --> 00:13:12,720
every time I possibly can.

166
00:13:13,720 --> 00:13:22,720
If after a dozen that I would probably go to fuller or a Ness side it's that important.

167
00:13:22,720 --> 00:13:27,720
I said before I don't want it to get in the wrong hands.

168
00:13:27,720 --> 00:13:36,720
I was basically aiming at the people who could understand the star data because I don't want

169
00:13:36,720 --> 00:13:37,720
to accept it as a face value.

170
00:13:37,720 --> 00:13:43,720
This is why I was so tickled to get your letter because you're the first one of all the groups

171
00:13:43,720 --> 00:13:46,220
that really wanted proof and this is what I want.

172
00:13:46,220 --> 00:13:52,720
I want someone to actually examine it to give their opinion, to try to tear it apart and

173
00:13:52,720 --> 00:13:56,720
see what makes it tick and see if they can find any flaws with it.

174
00:13:56,720 --> 00:13:58,720
I've gone over it with the fine-tube comb.

175
00:13:58,720 --> 00:14:04,720
I checked the stars in the basic pattern in the double star catalog which just came out.

176
00:14:04,720 --> 00:14:10,720
I just got it a couple of weeks ago and found any flaw in it.

177
00:14:10,720 --> 00:14:16,720
Except the two stars where the line was a little bit shorter, actually considerably shorter,

178
00:14:16,720 --> 00:14:21,720
than Betty had drawn on her map which I think is because they were large jumps and you could

179
00:14:21,720 --> 00:14:23,720
see they were large jumps.

180
00:14:23,720 --> 00:14:28,720
So she made her lines long instead of the short lines that they show from her particular

181
00:14:28,720 --> 00:14:29,720
viewing angle.

182
00:14:30,720 --> 00:14:36,720
Again, if you could take the map and actually see the model and though I don't have my model

183
00:14:36,720 --> 00:14:41,720
anymore because I'm giving it to the Ohio State University or Perkin, anyway, I'm leaving

184
00:14:41,720 --> 00:14:46,720
it to Dr. Mitchell to discuss what he wants done with it.

185
00:14:46,720 --> 00:14:53,720
My niece has made one for a science fair project and you could get a very good idea from it.

186
00:14:53,720 --> 00:15:03,720
The fact that it is not easy to make a pattern similar to Betty's map and have it be a logical

187
00:15:03,720 --> 00:15:08,720
pattern to judge for yourself when you actually do it.

188
00:15:08,720 --> 00:15:16,720
Written report is long, rambly, and repeats itself quite a bit.

189
00:15:16,720 --> 00:15:22,720
I had originally intended just to make the star catalog and then I decided I better put

190
00:15:22,720 --> 00:15:25,720
a page on it giving what the abbreviations are.

191
00:15:25,720 --> 00:15:30,720
Most astronomers know these automatically until it's not really needed there.

192
00:15:30,720 --> 00:15:36,720
And then I thought, well, I better have a paragraph trying to explain how I did the model.

193
00:15:36,720 --> 00:15:41,720
I was on page by page, not necessarily in the order which they're now equipped.

194
00:15:41,720 --> 00:15:50,720
And the writing of it took over, well, I started it in February and I didn't finish with the

195
00:15:50,720 --> 00:15:56,720
main party of the Mimeographs writing until June.

196
00:15:56,720 --> 00:16:01,720
And since then I've been adding pages that I've been duplicating in the copy machine at the

197
00:16:01,720 --> 00:16:04,720
Bowling Green Library.

198
00:16:04,720 --> 00:16:08,720
So all in all, it's been written over a period of nine months.

199
00:16:08,720 --> 00:16:16,720
These things were suggested by some teachers who were rather interested and read it and

200
00:16:16,720 --> 00:16:21,720
felt they didn't understand so they wanted a little more explanation and so I added these,

201
00:16:21,720 --> 00:16:25,720
but it still is not particularly well organized.

202
00:16:25,720 --> 00:16:29,720
So you kind of have to dig to get the information.

203
00:16:29,720 --> 00:16:33,720
It's quite a rough draft and I'm not intending to write a book or anything.

204
00:16:33,720 --> 00:16:37,720
This is, the rough draft is going to be it.

205
00:16:37,720 --> 00:16:39,720
The draft was not made for publication.

206
00:16:39,720 --> 00:16:49,720
It was made strictly as a research project for ACRO to do what they thought best if they ever act on it.

207
00:16:49,720 --> 00:16:52,720
And I assume eventually they will.

208
00:16:52,720 --> 00:17:00,720
I have had some communication from them recently that they're considering it and it looks quite promising.

209
00:17:00,720 --> 00:17:02,720
They understand how the models put together.

210
00:17:02,720 --> 00:17:04,720
It's really not that hard to do.

211
00:17:04,720 --> 00:17:09,720
And it would make an interesting project for anyone interested in astronomy or interested in knowing how the

212
00:17:09,720 --> 00:17:12,720
near stars do fit together.

213
00:17:12,720 --> 00:17:20,720
My qualifications to do this research, I've had one course of an astronomy in college about 20 years ago,

214
00:17:20,720 --> 00:17:25,720
which doesn't amount too much except it did show me star placement.

215
00:17:25,720 --> 00:17:31,720
And I quite an interested in it since childhood, but my main interest has been in biology and anthropology.

216
00:17:31,720 --> 00:17:33,720
My degree was in sociology.

217
00:17:33,720 --> 00:17:36,720
I went back from my teaching credits later.

218
00:17:36,720 --> 00:17:43,720
I also had a moment to the pre-med course with a great interest in biology.

219
00:17:43,720 --> 00:17:50,720
Being passionate about anthropology makes some euphorology so interesting.

220
00:17:50,720 --> 00:17:59,720
When you consider how many different kinds of cultures there might be and add to this a different biological background,

221
00:17:59,720 --> 00:18:07,720
which could lead into even more complex and far-reaching cultural differences.

222
00:18:07,720 --> 00:18:11,720
Prospects are highly intriguing to say the least.

223
00:18:11,720 --> 00:18:16,720
I don't know what to do about mentioning this right now.

224
00:18:16,720 --> 00:18:26,720
I don't want anything in print for a while yet until Apple has a chance to act since they have been doing some of the checking on it.

225
00:18:26,720 --> 00:18:29,720
I hope, I hope, I hope.

226
00:18:29,720 --> 00:18:38,720
I wouldn't care if your friend heard the tape, but I wish he wouldn't print it at this moment then.

227
00:18:38,720 --> 00:18:45,720
I'll report it. I forgot to mention I have quite a bit of speculation, but where it is speculation in this market as such.

228
00:18:45,720 --> 00:18:55,720
Being speculation, this quarter may or may not be true and any reason that it is not true,

229
00:18:55,720 --> 00:18:58,720
I would gladly accept and toss it out.

230
00:18:58,720 --> 00:19:07,720
It's just thoughts for mulling over and working with and possibly letting some other ideas come up.

231
00:19:07,720 --> 00:19:12,720
The astronomy data, however, is as accurate as I can get it.

232
00:19:12,720 --> 00:19:19,720
There might be some copy errors where I would have a catalog number inverted or something like that,

233
00:19:19,720 --> 00:19:22,720
which happens in the best of catalogs.

234
00:19:22,720 --> 00:19:29,720
I'm doing my best to find these and change them, but other than this, they are checked and rechecked,

235
00:19:29,720 --> 00:19:34,720
so I don't think you have anything to worry with on the strictly astronomy data.

236
00:19:34,720 --> 00:19:36,720
I'll see you later then, sincerely.

237
00:19:36,720 --> 00:19:37,720
Marge Fish.

238
00:19:37,720 --> 00:19:39,720
Yes, already.

239
00:19:39,720 --> 00:19:48,720
While I was waiting for the astronomy data, I tried to check out some of the more far out aspects.

240
00:19:48,720 --> 00:19:56,720
I went into hypnotism with whatever material I could get a hold of and read quite extensively in the field

241
00:19:56,720 --> 00:20:02,720
and tried experiments in it to see exactly what could or could not be done.

242
00:20:02,720 --> 00:20:12,720
Also, automatic writing and the experiments with telepathy and other ESP matters.

243
00:20:12,720 --> 00:20:18,720
These experiments, of course, are not nearly as extensive as the astronomy data and really don't prove anything.

244
00:20:18,720 --> 00:20:26,720
They're, I think, rather interesting as far as indicating what might be done for further experiments.

245
00:20:26,720 --> 00:20:30,720
They are certainly not conclusive.

246
00:20:30,720 --> 00:20:37,720
I originally had no intention of including any of this data in the report because it does sound a little far out,

247
00:20:37,720 --> 00:20:41,720
but probably for completeness, it ought to be in.

248
00:20:41,720 --> 00:20:51,720
Just finished reading Dr. Srinkel's article on UFO Perceptions and the latest flying saucer review special.

249
00:20:51,720 --> 00:20:56,720
It goes into the more far out aspects.

250
00:20:56,720 --> 00:21:01,720
I thought he might be interested in the research that I had done in this area,

251
00:21:01,720 --> 00:21:09,720
so I'm sending him a letter explaining what I discovered and also since he knows that I thought he would be interested in the proof

252
00:21:09,720 --> 00:21:15,720
that her report is accurate, I'll include a copy so that you can read it.

253
00:21:15,720 --> 00:21:21,720
As I say, this isn't the same quality or certainly isn't definite.

254
00:21:21,720 --> 00:21:25,720
The resect compared with the astronomy data.

255
00:21:25,720 --> 00:21:30,720
Because of its controversial character, I would not normally have included it.

256
00:21:30,720 --> 00:21:34,720
There are several things I didn't mention about my talk at Akron.

257
00:21:34,720 --> 00:21:40,720
One was I only got through about half of the data I had ready to present there.

258
00:21:40,720 --> 00:21:45,720
I'd be quite happy to go over the rest of that data with you if you're interested.

259
00:21:45,720 --> 00:21:55,720
Much of it, again, is rather technical, but has probably importance in reading through a contactee report

260
00:21:55,720 --> 00:22:02,720
and judging which one could be or which ones definitely are not true.

261
00:22:02,720 --> 00:22:09,720
If there's any chance of you reading the chapters in Sagan's Intelligent Life and Universe

262
00:22:09,720 --> 00:22:18,720
before we meet, just the chapters on star formation and which stars could have planets and planet formation.

263
00:22:18,720 --> 00:22:26,720
His write-up is fairly clear and I think you might have a better understanding of what we're going into.

264
00:22:26,720 --> 00:22:30,720
This is October 19th, 1969, March, this week.

265
00:22:30,720 --> 00:22:36,720
I received you the tape and your letter. Thank you very much for both.

266
00:22:36,720 --> 00:22:42,720
After listening to this letter, you may decide I'm too much of a coot to go any further and perhaps you're right.

267
00:22:42,720 --> 00:22:50,720
My interest range from A to Z, anthropology to zoology, including archaeology, astronomy, art,

268
00:22:50,720 --> 00:22:57,720
and I do sculpture and drawing, botany, chemistry, physics, and photography.

269
00:22:57,720 --> 00:23:02,720
I do my own darkroom work and every new media and art must be tried out.

270
00:23:02,720 --> 00:23:06,720
And I use things in areas where they aren't normally used.

271
00:23:06,720 --> 00:23:14,720
I found that the body, auto-body plastic works marvelously for sculpture, but the aluminum plastic doesn't.

272
00:23:14,720 --> 00:23:18,720
So things are always in a mess one way or another.

273
00:23:18,720 --> 00:23:24,720
Naturally, I want my work recognized and respected by leaders in the field and want the knowledge gained to be used.

274
00:23:24,720 --> 00:23:28,720
But that's the whole purpose of the research. I don't want publicity.

275
00:23:28,720 --> 00:23:33,720
I chose the people the copies were meant for with care.

276
00:23:33,720 --> 00:23:40,720
APRIL, FSIC, Heineken Valley are not going to jump in announcing the findings until a careful check has been made.

277
00:23:40,720 --> 00:23:46,720
Most of these people either have astronomical background or resources in the field for checking.

278
00:23:46,720 --> 00:23:50,720
The only problem is getting them to really look at it and check it out.

279
00:23:50,720 --> 00:23:54,720
This has proved much more of a problem than I realized.

280
00:23:54,720 --> 00:23:59,720
With a claim like mine, I had expected them to become at least intrigued enough to try to disprove it,

281
00:23:59,720 --> 00:24:03,720
then become interested enough to try to follow it through when they could not disprove it.

282
00:24:03,720 --> 00:24:07,720
I'm sure of the data within reasonable limitations.

283
00:24:07,720 --> 00:24:12,720
I had assumed that everyone in the field wanted to know where they came from.

284
00:24:12,720 --> 00:24:17,720
I put in cross-references and extra data so it could be spot-checked in a matter of an hour or two

285
00:24:17,720 --> 00:24:21,720
and thoroughly checked in about two days, point by point.

286
00:24:21,720 --> 00:24:25,720
The model could be built and checked inside of a week.

287
00:24:25,720 --> 00:24:27,720
Everything I've done can be checked.

288
00:24:27,720 --> 00:24:32,720
Since I've worked out all the methods, these could be followed and redone far easier than the first time

289
00:24:32,720 --> 00:24:36,720
while the method of attack had to be worked out.

290
00:24:36,720 --> 00:24:42,720
Star catalogs were used for cross-checking, so things missed by one would be caught in the next.

291
00:24:42,720 --> 00:24:47,720
Actually, for an astronomer, spot-checking is very easy if they would take the time.

292
00:24:47,720 --> 00:24:52,720
Once it is checked, Appra could take the credit and the headache.

293
00:24:52,720 --> 00:24:57,720
Appra was running a contest for the best research, the Dr. Fonnes Memorial.

294
00:24:57,720 --> 00:25:02,720
Mr. Greenwell wants me to enter it, but I disqualified myself as Dr. Heineck as a judge,

295
00:25:02,720 --> 00:25:08,720
and I wrote him before I knew that for help in the astronomical questions.

296
00:25:08,720 --> 00:25:14,720
I wrote Heineck and told him I was disqualifying myself so that he could answer the questions.

297
00:25:14,720 --> 00:25:20,720
So I had started the research years before and will be continuing it for years after probably.

298
00:25:20,720 --> 00:25:25,720
It was made as my contribution to Appra research and not as a money-making project.

299
00:25:25,720 --> 00:25:27,720
Not that I couldn't use the money.

300
00:25:27,720 --> 00:25:32,720
Appra was finally rolling, and somewhat anyway, on checking.

301
00:25:32,720 --> 00:25:37,720
I offered to take the material to Dr. Sanford in person this summer and talk it over with him,

302
00:25:37,720 --> 00:25:39,720
but he was too busy at the time.

303
00:25:39,720 --> 00:25:44,720
This would have been the longest trip I've ever made if he had said it was all right to come ahead.

304
00:25:44,720 --> 00:25:53,720
Dr. Greenwell has talked to Dr. Sanford over the phone and said that he thinks it's very promising.

305
00:25:53,720 --> 00:25:56,720
Dr. Sanford on the spot too.

306
00:25:56,720 --> 00:25:59,720
I'm afraid I bugged Appra quite a bit.

307
00:25:59,720 --> 00:26:02,720
Betty asked him about it too, to get it rolling.

308
00:26:02,720 --> 00:26:10,720
A copy minus the UFO data was left at Perkins, but I didn't think that any professional astronomer would be interested in that part.

309
00:26:10,720 --> 00:26:12,720
But Dr. Mitchell was.

310
00:26:12,720 --> 00:26:17,720
He asked me down to explain the model, and I talked the UFO material over with him also.

311
00:26:17,720 --> 00:26:21,720
Although he's not a UFO buff, he listened.

312
00:26:21,720 --> 00:26:30,720
I half expected to get tossed out on my ear and gave me much help on my questions about the methods of solving problems, galactic coordinates.

313
00:26:30,720 --> 00:26:31,720
And so forth.

314
00:26:31,720 --> 00:26:34,720
Dr. Heineck worked at Perkins in the past.

315
00:26:34,720 --> 00:26:40,720
Now I don't know if he and Dr. Mitchell are acquainted, but he still probably has connections at Perkins.

316
00:26:40,720 --> 00:26:44,720
A technician with the last name of Heineck is at Perkins now.

317
00:26:44,720 --> 00:26:46,720
He might be a son or nephew.

318
00:26:46,720 --> 00:26:50,720
In any case, professional astronomy is a tight group.

319
00:26:50,720 --> 00:26:57,720
With most astronomers knowing each other, at least by reputation, I asked Dr. Mitchell to send a note to Dr. Heineck.

320
00:26:57,720 --> 00:27:01,720
His honest opinion of the accuracy of the model.

321
00:27:01,720 --> 00:27:04,720
I don't know if he'll do it, quite a bit to ask.

322
00:27:04,720 --> 00:27:08,720
But he wrote me saying that he did not find any errors.

323
00:27:08,720 --> 00:27:11,720
There probably are slight ones now, as the models had pretty rough treatment.

324
00:27:11,720 --> 00:27:17,720
It was out there in the July 4th tornado weather, and it was been taken apart three times, and the cats had been in it.

325
00:27:17,720 --> 00:27:23,720
It was knocked over once, and the strings maybe stretched a little bit on a few of them.

326
00:27:23,720 --> 00:27:30,720
It won't be enough to throw it off very much, but it should be a little from what it was when the pictures were taken.

327
00:27:30,720 --> 00:27:37,720
So trade, work, and visit other observatories that I'm hoping Heineck will either have to come to Ohio State on business,

328
00:27:37,720 --> 00:27:41,720
or to visit his relatives, or be intrigued.

329
00:27:41,720 --> 00:27:44,720
In any case, I hope he gets a chance to look at the model.

330
00:27:44,720 --> 00:27:48,720
Either Dr. Mitchell or I could explain that he's patterned to him.

331
00:27:48,720 --> 00:27:52,720
So there's still some hope in that quarter.

332
00:27:52,720 --> 00:27:58,720
An announcement through astronomical channels would make much more of an impact than any other way.

333
00:27:58,720 --> 00:28:03,720
I'm also hoping to chip away astronomically by sending the 65 light-year list of stars,

334
00:28:03,720 --> 00:28:10,720
most likely to have planets with life, to Sushu Huong, Stephen Dole, and possibly Carl Sagan.

335
00:28:10,720 --> 00:28:17,720
These men have all worked on the problem of extraterrestrial life from an unknown source.

336
00:28:17,720 --> 00:28:22,720
They've worked on the problem of extraterrestrial life from an astronomical or scientific angle.

337
00:28:22,720 --> 00:28:32,720
But as far as I know, no one has worked out the stars that far or broken them into groups based on probability, as my listing is done.

338
00:28:32,720 --> 00:28:35,720
These also have been checked and rechecked.

339
00:28:35,720 --> 00:28:40,720
Sagan presents a problem as oddly enough he's prejudice against UFOs.

340
00:28:40,720 --> 00:28:46,720
This may work our favor if he's reasonably fair, although I've heard he may not be.

341
00:28:46,720 --> 00:28:50,720
He may be mad enough to try to find flaws in the data and he can't and says so.

342
00:28:50,720 --> 00:28:57,720
His word as a respected scientist and as an opponent to UFOs will carry more weight.

343
00:28:57,720 --> 00:29:04,720
I found a few flaws in his work and that just might get him mad enough to want to find some in mine.

344
00:29:04,720 --> 00:29:10,720
Another way the model may get recognition is through the astronomical society of the Pacific.

345
00:29:10,720 --> 00:29:15,720
It is respected by astronomers all over the world and its data is used in their research papers.

346
00:29:15,720 --> 00:29:20,720
If they would publish the methods of making the model and the model is accepted as accurate,

347
00:29:20,720 --> 00:29:29,720
the later release of Betty's pattern would carry much more force with the astronomers and almost forced them to examine it.

348
00:29:29,720 --> 00:29:32,720
More things to be done yet.

349
00:29:32,720 --> 00:29:39,720
A few are to complete my revision of the 32 light-year catalog with more extensive footnotes and cross-referencing.

350
00:29:39,720 --> 00:29:43,720
And the additional stars found since 1957.

351
00:29:43,720 --> 00:30:01,720
Also I want to correct the data to the new list that Peter Bandekamp has just put out in the Astronomy Astronomical Society of the Pacific book in February.

352
00:30:01,720 --> 00:30:04,720
I have the older data. There isn't too much change.

353
00:30:04,720 --> 00:30:08,720
Just a part of a light-year on several of the stars and the two new stars.

354
00:30:08,720 --> 00:30:11,720
But I want it as up to date as possible.

355
00:30:11,720 --> 00:30:19,720
I want to extend the catalog of stars possible for life to 100 light-years, which means actually a complete revision.

356
00:30:19,720 --> 00:30:24,720
Then I want to make a model of these stars to 100 light-years.

357
00:30:24,720 --> 00:30:29,720
Two models of stars out to 65 light-years need to be made too.

358
00:30:29,720 --> 00:30:32,720
Now one of these would take in all the stars out this far.

359
00:30:32,720 --> 00:30:36,720
There are a thousand systems or very near a thousand systems.

360
00:30:36,720 --> 00:30:41,720
One of these models would just have the brighter stars because this could be done much quicker.

361
00:30:41,720 --> 00:30:46,720
And then I can check out Fiddy's background stars to see if we can place them exactly.

362
00:30:46,720 --> 00:30:52,720
This would give more proof that her pattern is correct.

363
00:30:52,720 --> 00:31:03,720
However, I don't really expect these background stars to be as correct as the stars with the lines to them because the ones with the lines to them were the ones that her attention was really drawn to.

364
00:31:03,720 --> 00:31:09,720
Because I will need cooperation from the astronomers and premature publicity could cut it off.

365
00:31:09,720 --> 00:31:12,720
I must ask great discretion.

366
00:31:12,720 --> 00:31:14,720
Most catalogs cannot be bought.

367
00:31:14,720 --> 00:31:16,720
They are sent to all the observatories.

368
00:31:16,720 --> 00:31:24,720
Professional astronomers get them, but the amateur has trouble and must prove his need and then hope and wait and wait and hope.

369
00:31:24,720 --> 00:31:27,720
It usually takes months to come.

370
00:31:27,720 --> 00:31:32,720
I was probably indiscreet in reporting it at all at the FSIC meeting.

371
00:31:32,720 --> 00:31:40,720
When I first asked to report my finding Class Spring, something I've never done before because I dislike public speaking,

372
00:31:40,720 --> 00:31:47,720
I was excited about the things I learned in Sagan's book and how they applied to the model and thought the groups would like to know.

373
00:31:47,720 --> 00:31:51,720
Betty's pattern had not been definitely placed at that time.

374
00:31:51,720 --> 00:31:59,720
But the FSIC is discreet and careful in their reports and would be very unlikely to broadcast it, at least I hope not.

375
00:31:59,720 --> 00:32:10,720
I'm especially hoping it will not get into the hands of Baker and Palmer, Moseley, Steger and John Keel.

376
00:32:10,720 --> 00:32:16,720
I've checked the claims of Keel on several points and found they were not what he said.

377
00:32:16,720 --> 00:32:20,720
I thought he was often mistaken, but at least sincere at first.

378
00:32:20,720 --> 00:32:23,720
Now I feel otherwise.

379
00:32:23,720 --> 00:32:30,720
I would like to get it in the hands of objective, critical researchers who like yourself to be improved, can act on it,

380
00:32:30,720 --> 00:32:35,720
but keep it confidential until the basic work is done and verified by APRA or others.

381
00:32:35,720 --> 00:32:42,720
My unsupported claims should not be accepted at face value. This worried me a bit about the FSIC meeting.

382
00:32:42,720 --> 00:32:49,720
I had quite a bit of technical data that I thought would be of interest to critical researchers in evaluating contactee reports

383
00:32:49,720 --> 00:32:54,720
and to give additional information on my research showing data limitations and so forth.

384
00:32:54,720 --> 00:32:59,720
I was going to show it after the meeting. It's the kind of proof I would have demanded.

385
00:32:59,720 --> 00:33:03,720
But Mr. Conduso did not think that anyone would be interested.

386
00:33:03,720 --> 00:33:07,720
We didn't have time for it anyway, but that not interested worried me.

387
00:33:07,720 --> 00:33:17,720
I do a great deal of reading in many different fields, correlating data that a person interested in just a few fields might not notice.

388
00:33:17,720 --> 00:33:24,720
I also had expected to find several possible groups like Betty's pattern out of 188 plus random systems.

389
00:33:24,720 --> 00:33:31,720
With all these dots you would expect to find several similar patterns and thought people would want to check it for themselves.

390
00:33:31,720 --> 00:33:35,720
There's only one that really fit, but this was unexpected.

391
00:33:35,720 --> 00:33:45,720
It should be made up of stars. Most likely to have planets with life is the strongest proof that Betty's map represents reality that we have.

392
00:33:45,720 --> 00:33:52,720
When I started this research I did it because it had not been done and I thought it should be checked, but I didn't really expect to find anything.

393
00:33:52,720 --> 00:33:56,720
Also I wanted to know what was out there.

394
00:33:56,720 --> 00:34:04,720
I had expected people to want to see and actually judge for themselves, hence the individual duplicated map.

395
00:34:04,720 --> 00:34:13,720
When I went into conflicting information I usually read both sides carefully, then rig up an experiment to test it, and then decide for myself which is the correct one.

396
00:34:13,720 --> 00:34:17,720
This is why your questions are most welcome.

397
00:34:17,720 --> 00:34:25,720
I wanted to let responsible people know so that if anything happened to me like a car accident, I have a long drive to work from back every day.

398
00:34:25,720 --> 00:34:27,720
The work would not be lost.

399
00:34:27,720 --> 00:34:31,720
Also it helps to vindicate Betty, who I greatly admire.

400
00:34:31,720 --> 00:34:42,720
A rather interesting point is the people I had expected to be most interested in finding out proof.

401
00:34:42,720 --> 00:34:52,720
The slowest to act and seem the least interested, while those that aren't even interested in the UFO field are the ones that have given me the most help.

402
00:34:52,720 --> 00:34:56,720
I am quite familiar with the Fate Magazine.

403
00:34:56,720 --> 00:35:01,720
I get it fairly often, especially when they have what looks like an interesting UFO article.

404
00:35:01,720 --> 00:35:06,720
I read a great deal in a UFO field, even though some of it is pretty far out.

405
00:35:06,720 --> 00:35:14,720
I read it so that I know how to comment to people that would talk on these articles that you know aren't true.

406
00:35:14,720 --> 00:35:17,720
You at least have some way of answering them when you've read it.

407
00:35:17,720 --> 00:35:21,720
I've written Flying Sauter Review trying to get Valley's address.

408
00:35:21,720 --> 00:35:31,720
I tried to reach him through his publishers and through Dr. Heineck, through forwarding mail at Northwestern University, and through Flying Sauter Review.

409
00:35:31,720 --> 00:35:36,720
Apparently he isn't interested and doesn't care to be reached at the present time.

410
00:35:36,720 --> 00:35:41,720
I found that surprising because he was very kind when I first was interested in the UFO field.

411
00:35:41,720 --> 00:35:48,720
It was because of him that I first got started in the field through reading Anatomy of a Phenomenon.

412
00:35:48,720 --> 00:35:54,720
Sincerely, Marge Fish speaking.

413
00:35:54,720 --> 00:36:02,720
Dear Richard, I have a few corrections and additions to the talk that we had last Sunday.

414
00:36:02,720 --> 00:36:14,720
The main correction is several times when I spoke of Reticulum 2 when we were talking about the map and the numbers that you had drawn on the map.

415
00:36:14,720 --> 00:36:26,720
I spoke of it being Reticulum 2 because I was looking at your number 2 and I meant Reticulum 1, which was your number 2.

416
00:36:26,720 --> 00:36:29,720
Sounds very confusing, I'm sure.

417
00:36:29,720 --> 00:36:38,720
But twice I said Reticulum 2 and I knew from the context of what I was talking about that I meant Reticulum 1.

418
00:36:38,720 --> 00:36:45,720
And I think it was because I was looking at your map, which must have had number 2 at the Reticulum 1 star.

419
00:36:45,720 --> 00:36:53,720
Another error was when I said that 107 Pisces was a G star.

420
00:36:53,720 --> 00:37:04,720
It is a K star, or ranges from K-O to I think K-2, depending on the source of the information.

421
00:37:04,720 --> 00:37:12,720
But actually, it is a bright star. It is in one of my Group 1 stars.

422
00:37:12,720 --> 00:37:16,720
Other than that, the speech stands pretty well.

423
00:37:16,720 --> 00:37:21,720
I've had some other answers, some of the letters, since I was spoken to you.

424
00:37:21,720 --> 00:37:29,720
And the most important one came from Mrs. Apoel, who is Dr. Heineck's assistant.

425
00:37:29,720 --> 00:37:45,720
She wrote to give me some more information when I sent in my last batch of papers there, giving me Sushehohung's address and another source for checking the spectroscopic binaries.

426
00:37:45,720 --> 00:37:49,720
Both of these should be quite useful.

427
00:37:49,720 --> 00:37:53,720
I was very, very happy to get the letter.

428
00:37:53,720 --> 00:38:01,720
Apparently they are reading at least some of the material that's coming in, which makes me feel much better.

429
00:38:01,720 --> 00:38:11,720
Sushehohung is, I would think about the World Authority on the planets that could have life and the stars that could have planets with life.

430
00:38:11,720 --> 00:38:23,720
Since he does much of the original research on this, and so if anyone could spot errors in my papers, he would be one of the best ones to do it if he will do it.

431
00:38:23,720 --> 00:38:32,720
I just looked up 107 Pisces and it is generally called a K-1 main sequence star.

432
00:38:32,720 --> 00:38:43,720
This is using the, I don't know exactly how to pronounce the name, a Haskeg, I think, catalog.

433
00:38:43,720 --> 00:38:55,720
Carlos J-A-S-C-H-E-K. He's the astronomer from La Plata Observatory in Argentina.

434
00:38:55,720 --> 00:39:05,720
Actually the observatory, Ostromico, de la Universidad Nacional de la Plata.

435
00:39:05,720 --> 00:39:24,720
I had a letter from him saying that he is sending my catalog and he hopes that we will meet this winter and talk over some of the projects like the model and possibly the negative parallax, which his catalog may help in solving.

436
00:39:24,720 --> 00:39:48,720
Actually if this theory is correct on negative parallax, it will be a combination of the first catalog and the Eglise catalog that should be able to solve the problem by taking the odd stars in the Eglise catalog and checking them out through this catalog in the Morgan-Canaean system.

437
00:39:49,720 --> 00:39:55,720
We should be able to spot which of these look like regular main sequence stars but are subluminous.

438
00:39:55,720 --> 00:40:06,720
So this may be a productive field, Chris isn't too early to tell because the correlation has not been done yet, but it should let us know when we are the other.

439
00:40:06,720 --> 00:40:15,720
I did not give a very good chronological listing in our talk last Sunday, so I'd like to go over that right now.

440
00:40:15,720 --> 00:40:28,720
I believe I read Interrupted Journey in the summer of 1966, as I said I wasn't too much interested in UFOs at that time and I didn't give too much credit to the story at the time either.

441
00:40:28,720 --> 00:40:43,720
One in November of that year I read Anatomy of a Phenomenon and this got me very interested and after that I joined April and the FSIC at the same time, very nearly the same time.

442
00:40:43,720 --> 00:41:02,720
I wrote Dr. Valley the following May and at this time I was already thinking about Betty's map and had gone over the story somewhat because I had asked him at this time if there were any maps that were done from a point of view outside of our solar system.

443
00:41:02,720 --> 00:41:15,720
And this was asked to check out Betty's map. I actually didn't expect there had been any done, but I thought it would be worthwhile checking to know whether to make my own maps or not.

444
00:41:15,720 --> 00:41:18,720
And he replied in the negative.

445
00:41:18,720 --> 00:41:34,720
So it was the summer, spring and summer of 1967 when I first started to try to get the data and didn't have any luck. Actually it was the summer of 68 before I was able to get the star catalog.

446
00:41:34,720 --> 00:41:56,720
So there was a lot of year and a half that I was looking for the material. During this year and a half I did a lot of reading on astronomy and I read Sagan's Intelligent Life and the Universe and Fairchild's Vice Beyond the Earth which I had read a couple of times.

447
00:41:56,720 --> 00:42:19,720
And I wish to read again and it has quite a bit of very detailed material in it. I also did the research on hypnosis and the experimentation on hypnosis and thought transference and so forth that I wrote about in my letter to Dr. Sprinkle.

448
00:42:19,720 --> 00:42:34,720
This course was not very definite. The information on hypnosis is very contradictory and I found that with myself I could do only certain things with certain other people. It worked very well.

449
00:42:34,720 --> 00:42:44,720
In many respects it does not work with me and I didn't know how good a subject Betty was or what circumstances it was done and so forth.

450
00:42:44,720 --> 00:43:13,720
So it was rather inconclusive. In the thought transference experiments they were higher than just guessing. In fact thought transference between certain pairs of people was quite high and there was no chance of signaling or having it hoaxed because I was one of the participants in one of these sets of thought transferences.

451
00:43:14,720 --> 00:43:26,720
And I know that I wasn't even looking at the other person but I was receiving quite well. This was using the ESP cards. I don't send well however.

452
00:43:27,720 --> 00:43:38,720
But in the other kind of ESP phenomena such as prediction, moving objects and so forth it was strictly at chance level.

453
00:43:38,720 --> 00:43:53,720
It was during this period too that the many trips to Toledo were made to get the material for the 16 light year model and the model was done with inconclusive results.

454
00:43:54,720 --> 00:44:07,720
In the spring of 1968 Connie made her 16 light year model in a cute format with the weather screening or a fire hardware cloth at the top and bottom.

455
00:44:08,720 --> 00:44:19,720
And I liked her idea but again I was more interested in getting complete access rather than having it blocked in.

456
00:44:20,720 --> 00:44:31,720
Then in the summer of 1968 I found a source for the plastic, the queer plastic that I had been hoping to use for the model and for several other projects I had in mind.

457
00:44:32,720 --> 00:44:41,720
And I had it ordered. It took three months to come but at least it was on its way and starting to come at this time.

458
00:44:42,720 --> 00:44:50,720
Also in the summer of 1968 I got into Perkins and got a crack at those star catalogs.

459
00:44:51,720 --> 00:45:01,720
Now I didn't have any of the catalogs on my own until quite late in 1968 so all my data had to be copied out of the catalogs at Perkins.

460
00:45:02,720 --> 00:45:06,720
But I found the address for the Great Star catalog and I ordered that.

461
00:45:07,720 --> 00:45:11,720
If Jerry takes months for a star catalog to come and this was no exception.

462
00:45:12,720 --> 00:45:22,720
Connie Louie and my niece had suggested the protractor instead of the ball system that I was using and the idea was an excellent one.

463
00:45:23,720 --> 00:45:32,720
So I expanded the protractor idea to make it even more convenient and worked on the methods of putting the model together.

464
00:45:33,720 --> 00:45:42,720
Then in the Christmas vacation of 1968 the model was finally constructed which took most of the Christmas vacation.

465
00:45:44,720 --> 00:45:59,720
After Christmas in February and March I started to combine the data that I had in a readable form so that I could send the material into Appro and the fine software investigating committee in Akron.

466
00:45:59,720 --> 00:46:06,720
The first thing then was the star catalog since it is absolutely necessary to understand which stars are which.

467
00:46:07,720 --> 00:46:23,720
After that the page of abbreviations was done so that people could understand the star catalog and also a brief idea of the number of bead sizes and colors and so forth so that understanding the model would be easier.

468
00:46:24,720 --> 00:46:37,720
Some other teachers who were following my work suggested putting in a history of the model so I did a couple pages of that and then I thought I'd better put in a rationale of what I thought that he's not could mean.

469
00:46:38,720 --> 00:46:45,720
And this would explain the various news of investigating various possibilities within the model.

470
00:46:46,720 --> 00:46:54,720
Then I put in some of the early worksheets that I had done to show the weaknesses and strengths of various interpretations.

471
00:46:55,720 --> 00:47:02,720
And the problems with any of these because at this time I had not found the correct one although I was on the right track.

472
00:47:03,720 --> 00:47:08,720
I had reached the conclusion that there were many stars that could have plans with life.

473
00:47:08,720 --> 00:47:17,720
At this time I thought there was around 20. Some of these have been trimmed off since then because I discovered some of these were unresolved binaries or

474
00:47:18,720 --> 00:47:26,720
or just got the binaries and were no longer suitable. Some of these were also marked as possible variables in the right star catalog.

475
00:47:27,720 --> 00:47:36,720
And I'm always hoping for life. So I was hoping that these variables were not true variables or that it was just regular solar fairing like the sun.

476
00:47:36,720 --> 00:47:41,720
However I doubt if regular solar fairing could be seen. I've been trying to find out for sure.

477
00:47:42,720 --> 00:47:49,720
But I don't think that the two percent change in light could be seen at the distance that some of these stars are.

478
00:47:50,720 --> 00:47:59,720
So I don't think it's regular solar fairing. Now solar fairing in a smaller star like a red dwarf changes its luminosity very very much.

479
00:48:00,720 --> 00:48:05,720
Several magnitudes impact. But in one like the sun it does not change greatly.

480
00:48:06,720 --> 00:48:20,720
So I think the variability may be more than I had first hoped. Also after checking the Laplada catalog they range these stars in a five or six point spread quite often

481
00:48:21,720 --> 00:48:25,720
which means that different viewers are seeing them quite differently at different places.

482
00:48:26,720 --> 00:48:31,720
A normal range is around two or three points within a spectrum range.

483
00:48:32,720 --> 00:48:40,720
So this would show that they probably are truly variable and so not suitable for life or at least not nearly as likely.

484
00:48:41,720 --> 00:48:51,720
So now the range is the 13 within 32 light years plus these two that are just beyond this range that was coded in the last tape.

485
00:48:52,720 --> 00:49:06,720
Time I also did most of the correlation the correlation by luminosity by components the HR diagram because I couldn't find the actual spread of the HR diagram.

486
00:49:07,720 --> 00:49:20,720
I decided to make my own using all the components within the 32 light years so I could spot where the break off point was as far as luminosity where the K O and the K 1 break off.

487
00:49:21,720 --> 00:49:26,720
I didn't give the absolute magnitude at this point and I haven't been able to get Doral's book.

488
00:49:27,720 --> 00:49:33,720
I have his book now but I haven't had a chance to read it. It just came in about a month ago and I've been very busy with the data.

489
00:49:34,720 --> 00:49:43,720
I haven't had a chance for any extra reading so I've been standing by my HR diagram on this point but I may need some revision once this has been checked out also.

490
00:49:44,720 --> 00:49:55,720
In March I sent the data to Dr. Heineck first because I thought he would be interested since he is interested in UFOs and he has the knowledge to understand the astronomy part.

491
00:49:56,720 --> 00:50:05,720
And secondly I wanted to get Dr. Valley's address and Dr. Valley had been an associate of Dr. Heineck at Northwestern and then I had heard that he had gone back to France.

492
00:50:06,720 --> 00:50:14,720
And then I had heard that he is back in the country again but not at Northwestern so I was trying to reach him because I wanted him to have a copy.

493
00:50:15,720 --> 00:50:27,720
Also I had a lot of astronomy questions that I could not find in the books. I'm learning my astronomy as I'm working with the data so I have a lot of learning to do.

494
00:50:27,720 --> 00:50:40,720
There are still a few columns even now that I don't know exactly how to use in problems. I know pretty well what they stand for but not exactly how they are used.

495
00:50:41,720 --> 00:50:46,720
But at this time there's quite a bit I didn't know because I'd only had the data for about eight or nine months.

496
00:50:47,720 --> 00:51:02,720
One of the things that I really flipped up on this point was the SB notations I had carefully copied out of the Bright Star catalog and then didn't realize that they were the, it stood for the spectroscopic binaries which I was trying desperately to find.

497
00:51:03,720 --> 00:51:08,720
I discovered this soon afterwards but I'm still rather embarrassed that I hadn't caught it at that time.

498
00:51:09,720 --> 00:51:23,720
I did not have my own copy of the Gleasy catalog so I could not check the footnote through the Gleasy and I did not have time to check the footnote through the Yale Trigometric catalog at this time because I didn't have my own copy and I didn't have time in Perkins to do it.

499
00:51:24,720 --> 00:51:32,720
During the winter months my teaching hours coincide with the Perkins Library hours so I have no way of getting into the Perkins Library.

500
00:51:32,720 --> 00:51:55,720
Besides I wasn't quite sure at this point you do but I'd be welcome back since the unauthorized personnel are not supposed to be using the library for a very good reason because they are in the middle of research and it would be very disruptive to have people coming in and out all the time and asking questions and these catalogs are very hard to come by.

501
00:51:56,720 --> 00:52:06,720
Another reason for contacting Dr. Heineck was the hope that he could catch any mistakes before I sent the report in to April.

502
00:52:07,720 --> 00:52:24,720
I was pretty excited about some of the things I was finding about the stars that could have plants with life since this is all new material to me when I was reading a Dr. Sagan's book and the correlation with the model itself and finding which ones actually were the ones that could support it.

503
00:52:25,720 --> 00:52:36,720
I was very excited about the plants with life within the model so I contacted the FSIC to see if they would want me to explain what I'd found to the group.

504
00:52:37,720 --> 00:52:54,720
This is the first time, only time I have ever volunteered to speak before a group because it does bother me to do so normally but I thought they would be interested and since it is a small well net group I could probably get through it all right.

505
00:52:55,720 --> 00:52:58,720
Well it seemed a very long time before I got any answers.

506
00:52:59,720 --> 00:53:09,720
Mrs. Apo who is right under Dr. Heineck as assistant at Durburin wrote a very nice letter answering some of my questions.

507
00:53:10,720 --> 00:53:23,720
I had not made myself clear on one point I was very worried about a minus in terms of some of the parallaxes in the bright star catalog because at this time I thought that his map was 2D

508
00:53:23,720 --> 00:53:43,720
and that they would have to use some sort of projection to make a map possibly something like the northern projection to eliminate the distortion of putting a 3D celestial sphere into a 2D map.

509
00:53:43,720 --> 00:54:12,720
I was planning at this time of making a model of all the bright stars within possibly 800 light years, possibly 1000 light years and then measuring off at taking the actual angle of elevation and the actual turn to make my own northern type map from the various stars that could have plants with life so we could see what their sky maps would actually look like.

510
00:54:13,720 --> 00:54:24,720
This would be quite an undertaking I expected it to take four or five years probably and it would be a rather tedious but it would give us what their skies looked like.

511
00:54:25,720 --> 00:54:44,720
However this minus in front of the parallax was a factor I couldn't account for and I thought it might change all the measurements I had taken so far in my model and all the objective measures that I had in the model that I was planning to do with these bright stars.

512
00:54:45,720 --> 00:54:59,720
This was not the normal plus minus that you have after parallax that shows the margin of error that is likely for that parallax. I just simply couldn't account for it but it worried me quite badly.

513
00:55:00,720 --> 00:55:23,720
I found the answer to this one later when I got to the Perkins Observatory on June 6th. Dr. Nann kindly explained it to me that it was the apparent backward movement of the star and that it could be caused by the comparison stars actually moving more than the stars being measured.

514
00:55:24,720 --> 00:55:33,720
This raised my curiosity about negative parallax and made me much more receptive to anything I read on negative parallax.

515
00:55:34,720 --> 00:55:42,720
So I was very interested when I came across Vasyl Vesky's article on parallax and the problems of parallax.

516
00:55:42,720 --> 00:55:54,720
His article was the first that I realized that there were so many problems involved was taking a parallax measurement. It was quite an eye-opener and very, very interesting.

517
00:55:55,720 --> 00:56:11,720
The exact title of the article is the accuracy of trigimetric parallaxes of stars by S. Vasyl Vesky. It is from the Lick Observatory, molten number 206.

518
00:56:12,720 --> 00:56:19,720
And it is a survey of the literature of this review was conducted in December 1965.

519
00:56:20,720 --> 00:56:31,720
I read the article in the Astronomy and Astrophysics Yearbook, 1966 I believe.

520
00:56:31,720 --> 00:56:43,720
Because of the present inaccuracy of the trigimetric parallax beyond 100 light years, I have completely given up the idea of this 800 to 1000 light-year model.

521
00:56:44,720 --> 00:56:54,720
Mrs. Apo had answered my questions on what the Roman numerals after the inspector meant, which was very helpful.

522
00:56:54,720 --> 00:57:07,720
This is the M.K. system, Morgan-Conan system, and is based on the strength of some of the lines in the front hopper lines in the spectrum.

523
00:57:07,720 --> 00:57:25,720
And breaks the stars up into groupings of main sequence subgiants. The main sequence are five subgiants, four going on into three to one of the large giants.

524
00:57:25,720 --> 00:57:29,720
The Roman numeral six is your sub-dorus and so forth.

525
00:57:30,720 --> 00:57:41,720
This was extremely helpful. I had already worked out a system of my own using the H.I. diagram and their actual luminosity.

526
00:57:42,720 --> 00:57:48,720
And this coincided very nicely with the M.K. system.

527
00:57:49,720 --> 00:57:58,720
And this eliminated some of the stars that I thought were likely to have life because these some of these were subgiants rather than main sequence stars.

528
00:57:59,720 --> 00:58:01,720
I was very grateful for this help.

529
00:58:02,720 --> 00:58:16,720
To say this was sent in March. Between March and June, I had tried to work out some way of showing these subgroupings that were based on luminosity that I had found.

530
00:58:16,720 --> 00:58:27,720
In fact, that many of these stars are pumped together or in sheets of similar type magnitudes. And these grade off into each other.

531
00:58:27,720 --> 00:58:32,720
There was some mixing, but there were much more groups than I had expected.

532
00:58:33,720 --> 00:58:36,720
I did some other correlation at this time also.

533
00:58:37,720 --> 00:58:46,720
Then on June 6, well actually June 6th, I went down to Perkins, but it was too late to get in because we had, this was the last day of school.

534
00:58:46,720 --> 00:58:48,720
So finishing up the records and so forth.

535
00:58:49,720 --> 00:58:57,720
So I camped overnight at the Delaware camp and then went over to the observatory on the 6th.

536
00:58:58,720 --> 00:59:06,720
And Carol let me duplicate the basic catalog, which was a tremendous help. It is written in German.

537
00:59:07,720 --> 00:59:13,720
And unfortunately I don't read German, but the columns are similar to the columns of other catalogs.

538
00:59:14,720 --> 00:59:19,720
And the footnotes are in astronomical terms, so they are not difficult to follow.

539
00:59:20,720 --> 00:59:25,720
Some of the writing at the beginning of the catalog, I haven't been able to follow through yet.

540
00:59:26,720 --> 00:59:28,720
I'm hoping to get a translation one of these days.

541
00:59:29,720 --> 00:59:37,720
I was very worried about getting in. I wanted to use the data so badly and I was so afraid that I wouldn't be allowed in.

542
00:59:38,720 --> 00:59:49,720
But I had a rather royal welcome. Carol was glad to see me and introduced me to the other members of the staff and showed me around the place.

543
00:59:50,720 --> 00:59:51,720
I was so happy.

544
00:59:52,720 --> 01:00:00,720
Dr. Canan at this time also looked up at the Epsilon-Era Danny to me, which is marked as a spectroscopic binary in the footnotes of the Bright Star catalog.

545
01:00:00,720 --> 01:00:09,720
I knew it was one of the stars studied in the Project Osma and I was surprised that they would study it if there was a spectroscopic binary because they said it was a single.

546
01:00:10,720 --> 01:00:16,720
And it turned out to be an error in the Bright Star catalog, which is extremely easy to do.

547
01:00:17,720 --> 01:00:27,720
I'm still catching some of my own errors. Your copying column after column of numbers is very easy to get in the wrong column or transpose numbers or other copy errors.

548
01:00:28,720 --> 01:00:33,720
And he found this in the Baton catalog, which was just issued.

549
01:00:34,720 --> 01:00:38,720
So this was my first contact with the spectroscopic binary catalog.

550
01:00:40,720 --> 01:00:45,720
I wasn't able to find it in subsequent visits to Perkins because it was in use.

551
01:00:46,720 --> 01:00:51,720
So I wrote to Ellen Baton later to see if I could get my own copy, which he very kindly sent.

552
01:00:52,720 --> 01:01:00,720
The evening of June 6 was my first trip to Akron to the FSIC meeting.

553
01:01:01,720 --> 01:01:06,720
Using the directions that Mr. Conduso gave me, I had no trouble at all in finding the place.

554
01:01:07,720 --> 01:01:10,720
So the 6th was a very eventful day.

555
01:01:11,720 --> 01:01:14,720
After I got home, I started correlating the data.

556
01:01:14,720 --> 01:01:24,720
And at this time, within just a few days, I just sent Apple their copy of the data I had at present.

557
01:01:25,720 --> 01:01:34,720
And I'd written that this would probably be the last that I would send until I had the 65-lightyear model that I didn't think that it could be pinned down exactly.

558
01:01:35,720 --> 01:01:41,720
In two days after this, I discovered the correct viewing angle and everything started to fit into place very neatly.

559
01:01:42,720 --> 01:01:55,720
I still was considering Delta and Gamma, Pavel as the two end stars on the exploration end stars, the lower ones.

560
01:01:56,720 --> 01:02:01,720
But I wasn't very happy with these. I hadn't been all along because they are provable variables.

561
01:02:02,720 --> 01:02:23,720
I learned too that one of these is a group 4 star, or usually classes that although sometimes as a 5, which means that it is, this is the MK group 4 and 5, the 5 being main sequence, but 4 being sub-giant, which would put it as rather unlikely for life.

562
01:02:24,720 --> 01:02:41,720
So I thought that possibly at this time, if I could make a model of the stars in this area, since all the other stars fit in so beautifully, that these two should fit in beautifully too if I could find the stars just outside the 32-lightyear range that could be gone to instead of these.

563
01:02:42,720 --> 01:02:48,720
Which would mean taking in the two next closest stars that would be gone to from Zeta to Cana.

564
01:02:49,720 --> 01:02:52,720
So I made a model of this area of the sky.

565
01:02:53,720 --> 01:03:09,720
However, these stars were not where I was expecting them to be. The angle was sharply back and the lines appeared much shorter than should have been following Betty's map unless she is making long lines because these jumps are very long. We just appear to be short.

566
01:03:10,720 --> 01:03:16,720
In the meantime, I was spending the whole summer waiting for letters to return to know what to do next.

567
01:03:17,720 --> 01:03:27,720
I had written Dr. Stanford that I would come to Minnesota to take the material to him. I wasn't getting any replies at all from Apple, which worried me quite badly.

568
01:03:28,720 --> 01:03:30,720
I was rather afraid there might have been tampering.

569
01:03:31,720 --> 01:03:35,720
And also I was afraid that either that or they weren't taking it seriously.

570
01:03:36,720 --> 01:03:47,720
And then I was wondering if Betty would write and if it was because Apple delayed sending a letter to her so I didn't get her reply from her for quite a while.

571
01:03:48,720 --> 01:03:59,720
And I didn't want to go ahead and make other plans until I had heard to know whether I was going to Minnesota or Illinois or Dr. Stanford was vacationing or going to New Hampshire to see Betty or what I was going to be doing.

572
01:03:59,720 --> 01:04:12,720
So it was a day to day basis. But in the meantime, I was correlating the data all day every day trying to get things worked out, re-photographed, checked through as thoroughly as possible.

573
01:04:13,720 --> 01:04:21,720
Finally, letters came through from Dr. Stanford saying not to come to mail the data. And the letter came through from Betty.

574
01:04:22,720 --> 01:04:29,720
And so we were finally in correspondence and she said it was fine to come and so I went then to New Hampshire.

575
01:04:30,720 --> 01:04:37,720
Right before going to New Hampshire, Carol had written me that Dr. Mitchell Perkins had read my data.

576
01:04:38,720 --> 01:04:47,720
I was quite surprised that anyone down there would since I am just an amateur and had left the data but had not expected anyone to read it.

577
01:04:47,720 --> 01:05:03,720
I had not included the flying saucer data since I didn't want the strictly astronomical data thrown out just because someone was not in agreement on the flying saucer material since it is rather controversial.

578
01:05:04,720 --> 01:05:19,720
Dr. Mitchell wanted to see me talk over the coordinates and so forth. I was of course very delighted to go because he is a very understanding, interesting person.

579
01:05:20,720 --> 01:05:39,720
And so the day before I was ready to leave for New Hampshire, I went down to Perkins and we went over the model and he answered some of my questions and posed some problems and got me thinking too and new lines of thought.

580
01:05:40,720 --> 01:05:55,720
And I think it was very worthwhile for both of us, at least it was for me. He was mildly interested in the UFOs so I rather invented zero on the data that I had there and he made suggestions for worthwhile too in this area.

581
01:05:56,720 --> 01:06:12,720
On the way home I stopped in at Bargain Fair Mr. Wiggs and picked up the colored pictures that I had done of the model and then put those together on the stereo slides which takes a lot of matching.

582
01:06:13,720 --> 01:06:22,720
And sent a copy back to Perkins because I had to make several sets, one I had intended for Perkins and one for Dr. Valley.

583
01:06:22,720 --> 01:06:32,720
If you ever write to one, one I wanted to send to Gleesie and one to Peter Vandekamp. Of course one is sent into ASO.

584
01:06:33,720 --> 01:06:48,720
Since Gleesie and Dr. Vandekamp are the two working that I know of anyway that are working mostly on these near stars and they would be the ones that would be probably most interested in seeing the model.

585
01:06:48,720 --> 01:06:51,720
Betty has a copy also.

586
01:06:51,720 --> 01:07:07,720
I went to the stereo optican slides to show the model in depth. I had originally in April to during period tried to do pictures in 3D using the two color photo system.

587
01:07:08,720 --> 01:07:21,720
But it's quite difficult to do. I managed to do a couple. But I found that quite a few people have difficulty adjusting their eyes to the two colors and some it makes ill.

588
01:07:21,720 --> 01:07:32,720
And there's a great deal of trouble getting filters that were pure enough and then getting a mimeograph sheet that was pure enough to make the colors work.

589
01:07:33,720 --> 01:07:44,720
So I gave up this idea since the colored stereo optican shows it much better. You can get a better idea of the actual colors of these stars and sizes and so forth.

590
01:07:44,720 --> 01:07:50,720
Far simpler, the only problem is to get stereo opticans to view them with.

591
01:07:50,720 --> 01:08:07,720
Anyway, on the fourth and fifth of August, I saw Betty and then saw the pictures that David Baker had drawn and started home on the way home and the few weeks before school started.

592
01:08:07,720 --> 01:08:11,720
I was correlating the data then that I got from Betty.

593
01:08:11,720 --> 01:08:21,720
I sent in the summary sheet and to April but waited until I got that he's OK before I sent in the balance of our interview.

594
01:08:21,720 --> 01:08:30,720
Make sure that I had not misinterpreted anything that she had said and that she agreed that this was an accurate account of what our interview consisted of.

595
01:08:30,720 --> 01:08:37,720
Since the tape recorder wasn't working properly, rather, I probably wasn't working the tape recorder properly.

596
01:08:37,720 --> 01:08:40,720
Just blame it on the tape recorder, of course.

597
01:08:40,720 --> 01:08:49,720
Mr. Conduso had set up October the third as my speech for the SSIC meeting.

598
01:08:49,720 --> 01:08:52,720
So I was busy working on slides and pictures for this.

599
01:08:52,720 --> 01:08:54,720
So I re-photographed the model.

600
01:08:54,720 --> 01:09:01,720
The original photographs, the colored stereo optican pictures were taken before I had found Betty's angle.

601
01:09:01,720 --> 01:09:04,720
Luckily, one of them shows it fairly well.

602
01:09:04,720 --> 01:09:11,720
But this was just coincidence and the angle is much higher on this picture than the actual view angle is.

603
01:09:11,720 --> 01:09:18,720
Actually, I can't photograph it from Betty's exact viewing position because it hits the frame.

604
01:09:18,720 --> 01:09:29,720
It's quite low and hits the frame in two places and so does not show the correlation in the best possible way.

605
01:09:29,720 --> 01:09:38,720
2D pictures are very hard to interpret because you can't tell which is a small k-star close or a large k-star in the background

606
01:09:38,720 --> 01:09:43,720
since they both would have about the same diameter on the slide.

607
01:09:43,720 --> 01:09:48,720
I had at this time also to completely repaint the model.

608
01:09:48,720 --> 01:09:54,720
It was out in the July 4th tornado that touched down just a few miles away from us.

609
01:09:54,720 --> 01:09:56,720
Of course, we had high winds and high rain.

610
01:09:56,720 --> 01:09:59,720
The model had been knocked over several times.

611
01:09:59,720 --> 01:10:01,720
The cats had gotten into it.

612
01:10:01,720 --> 01:10:11,720
So I had to recheck most of the stars' positions and repaint all of the stars before I could take it into the meeting.

613
01:10:11,720 --> 01:10:17,720
I wanted to take it to Prickens the following day so it could be used there as I want the data used.

614
01:10:17,720 --> 01:10:23,720
Because I had wanted as little walkie just possible for photographing and for viewing the model,

615
01:10:23,720 --> 01:10:29,720
I had used a very thin, delicate wood for the original frame.

616
01:10:29,720 --> 01:10:32,720
This had not weathered very well too long.

617
01:10:32,720 --> 01:10:37,720
So the frame itself had to be completely remade before I could move it.

618
01:10:37,720 --> 01:10:42,720
The plastic on the bottom was breaking because the frame was not supporting it.

619
01:10:42,720 --> 01:10:46,720
I was afraid that the model would not hold up.

620
01:10:46,720 --> 01:10:57,720
Thanksgiving vacation, the year before, I had made a quick, very small mock-up of the brighter stars in the 32 light-year range

621
01:10:57,720 --> 01:11:00,720
to see if I could find a pattern using them.

622
01:11:00,720 --> 01:11:06,720
Because I couldn't wait till Christmas, I knew it would take the whole Christmas vacation to do the full model.

623
01:11:06,720 --> 01:11:12,720
On this small model, I had taken to Betty, but the plastic, even though it was cushioned the whole way,

624
01:11:12,720 --> 01:11:16,720
had not held up and the model had broken before I had gotten to Betty.

625
01:11:16,720 --> 01:11:23,720
So I was quite worried that this model would not last the trip going down to Akron and then down to Prickens.

626
01:11:23,720 --> 01:11:28,720
It did, I think, and I thought I wasn't at all sure that it would.

627
01:11:28,720 --> 01:11:32,720
The meeting at Akron went over quite well.

628
01:11:32,720 --> 01:11:42,720
I was very happy, nervous as I was, and the following trip to Prickens was not on a vent hole,

629
01:11:42,720 --> 01:11:45,720
but the model did get down there safely.

630
01:11:45,720 --> 01:11:51,720
In September, I finally heard from APRO that they thought they were getting me all the data.

631
01:11:51,720 --> 01:11:57,720
I have not heard from Dr. Stanford since mid-July, I believe,

632
01:11:57,720 --> 01:12:01,720
but I have heard indirectly through the APRO headquarters.

633
01:12:01,720 --> 01:12:05,720
He thinks it's quite promising.

634
01:12:05,720 --> 01:12:08,720
Betty and I have been corresponding quite regularly.

635
01:12:08,720 --> 01:12:12,720
She is a warm, interesting person with a quesiton of humor.

636
01:12:12,720 --> 01:12:18,720
This week, I got a letter from SSIC, which was very nice,

637
01:12:18,720 --> 01:12:26,720
where the members had signed a thank you letter for my talk on October 3rd.

638
01:12:26,720 --> 01:12:29,720
Now for a correction to a correction.

639
01:12:29,720 --> 01:12:41,720
The La Plata Observatory is actually titled Observatorio Stronomico de la Universidad Nacional de la Plata.

640
01:12:41,720 --> 01:12:47,720
I noticed in this thing over to the first part of this tape that I had not pronounced it correctly.

641
01:12:47,720 --> 01:12:52,720
Another major correction in my written material, and I don't know how this happened,

642
01:12:52,720 --> 01:12:58,720
but on the summary sheet, my catalog number A, I think of it in terms of my catalog number,

643
01:12:58,720 --> 01:13:04,720
or catalog designation, rather than the right star number, and the right star number is 483,

644
01:13:04,720 --> 01:13:08,720
which I quoted correctly on the tape last Sunday.

645
01:13:08,720 --> 01:13:13,720
But in my summary sheet, I have it marked so that the 8 looks like a 5,

646
01:13:13,720 --> 01:13:20,720
and it's probable that I also copied it off the summary sheet on other material as a 5 instead of an 8.

647
01:13:20,720 --> 01:13:25,720
So the correct designation is 483 there instead of 453.

648
01:13:25,720 --> 01:13:27,720
Thanks again for everything.

649
01:13:27,720 --> 01:13:29,720
Sincerely, Marge Fish.

650
01:13:29,720 --> 01:13:35,720
This is Margery Fish, and it is December 28, 1969.

651
01:13:35,720 --> 01:13:39,720
Dear Richard, thank you very much for your Christmas card.

652
01:13:39,720 --> 01:13:45,720
I had hoped to get this tape out to you with my greetings to you before Christmas, but time ran out on me.

653
01:13:46,720 --> 01:13:53,720
The sheet, I don't know if it was discussed at the FSI meeting the last one,

654
01:13:53,720 --> 01:13:57,720
but I sent a correction sheet, and I'm going to send you one,

655
01:13:57,720 --> 01:14:01,720
but I want to double check and have more of the information ready when I send it to you

656
01:14:01,720 --> 01:14:05,720
since you are able to use it more than most of the others.

657
01:14:05,720 --> 01:14:11,720
The Gleasy catalog came in, and there were a great many more changes than I was expecting.

658
01:14:11,720 --> 01:14:16,720
Now as far as the 32 Lightyear model is concerned, there were some minor changes.

659
01:14:16,720 --> 01:14:21,720
Again, not enough to affect the visual view of the model.

660
01:14:21,720 --> 01:14:29,720
However, in the hill pattern, those two that were on the end that I thought were long lines

661
01:14:29,720 --> 01:14:34,720
but didn't appear along in the photograph because they were dipped way back.

662
01:14:34,720 --> 01:14:40,720
These two stars have drastic changes in their parallax in the Gleasy catalog.

663
01:14:40,720 --> 01:14:51,720
Both of these, I believe, are out, or at least, well, 688 may still be in, but 755 is out.

664
01:14:51,720 --> 01:14:56,720
Now some other stars have been discovered in this area,

665
01:14:56,720 --> 01:15:00,720
and the parallax measurements taken now that weren't taken before,

666
01:15:00,720 --> 01:15:03,720
and some of these may be the correct ones,

667
01:15:03,720 --> 01:15:12,720
in which case I think probably 773.5 would be the top point,

668
01:15:12,720 --> 01:15:16,720
and 796 may be the bottom point.

669
01:15:16,720 --> 01:15:22,720
The 796 line would be very similar to Betty's line, a long line going out.

670
01:15:22,720 --> 01:15:27,720
773.5 still dips back considerably.

671
01:15:27,720 --> 01:15:34,720
These would be about 30 Lightyears or 31 Lightyears from Zeta to Canna,

672
01:15:34,720 --> 01:15:38,720
the jump off point from Zeta 1 reticulum.

673
01:15:38,720 --> 01:15:44,720
The parallax on Zeta 1 and 2 reticulum has been changed.

674
01:15:44,720 --> 01:15:50,720
It's not as far out as the Yale trigonometric parallax supplement had it,

675
01:15:50,720 --> 01:15:54,720
but it's not still quite as close as what the BrightStar catalog had it.

676
01:15:54,720 --> 01:15:57,720
They are both put out at the same parallax this time,

677
01:15:57,720 --> 01:16:05,720
and they are both about 36 Lightyears away from Earth if this last parallax measurement is correct.

678
01:16:05,720 --> 01:16:08,720
This does not disrupt the pattern in any way.

679
01:16:08,720 --> 01:16:12,720
In fact, it makes it better than what the Yale trigonometric supplement had it.

680
01:16:12,720 --> 01:16:18,720
Some other minor corrections are my catalog A-star,

681
01:16:18,720 --> 01:16:25,720
which is the top star in the Hill pattern, is a BrightStar catalog number 483.

682
01:16:25,720 --> 01:16:28,720
On my summary sheet, it looks like 453.

683
01:16:28,720 --> 01:16:35,720
Either I copied it incorrectly or in state making one copy from another copy from another copy, as I often do.

684
01:16:35,720 --> 01:16:42,720
It copied incorrectly. Sometimes you get a blurring in the printing.

685
01:16:42,720 --> 01:16:47,720
Then I may have copied it wrong off of one of these copies onto some other material.

686
01:16:47,720 --> 01:16:53,720
So in any case, if you'd want to check through your material, it should be 483, not 453.

687
01:16:53,720 --> 01:17:03,720
You put the BrightStar catalog number on the last star in the V shape at the top of the Betty's pattern.

688
01:17:03,720 --> 01:17:12,720
Now in these new stars, some of these parallaxes are not trigonometric parallaxes.

689
01:17:12,720 --> 01:17:18,720
One is just a single spectroscopic parallax.

690
01:17:18,720 --> 01:17:23,720
I dislike placing too much reliance on a single parallax measurement,

691
01:17:23,720 --> 01:17:28,720
especially when it is a spectroscopic rather than a trigonometric parallax.

692
01:17:28,720 --> 01:17:31,720
This is all we have to go by, so this is what I have to use.

693
01:17:31,720 --> 01:17:43,720
Another correction is I had said that only about a fourth of the area around the base stars was on the map.

694
01:17:43,720 --> 01:17:48,720
Actually, it is an eighth. There isn't anything over in the other fourth at the top.

695
01:17:48,720 --> 01:17:53,720
This is why I said it was a fourth, but if we want to get it down to real brass hacks there,

696
01:17:53,720 --> 01:18:01,720
it is only an eighth of the area around the base stars is in the actual map that Betty has.

697
01:18:01,720 --> 01:18:09,720
Getting back to the Theory 2 Lightyear model, there are 16 stars that are not in it that are in the Nougolese catalog.

698
01:18:09,720 --> 01:18:14,720
These are all quite dim. Some of them are about 7th absolute magnitude,

699
01:18:14,720 --> 01:18:22,720
but none of these are bright enough to have planets with life, at least if we understand the mechanism correctly.

700
01:18:22,720 --> 01:18:27,720
There may be other stars that have parallax changes that were in the Nougolese catalog

701
01:18:27,720 --> 01:18:31,720
that also put them in this 32 lightyear range, but this hasn't been checked yet.

702
01:18:31,720 --> 01:18:34,720
It's one of the things I'm going to be working on very shortly.

703
01:18:34,720 --> 01:18:41,720
Right now I'm in the process of going through the Yale Trigometric Parallax Catalog

704
01:18:41,720 --> 01:18:49,720
and pulling out all these stars in a parallax of .049 to .030.

705
01:18:49,720 --> 01:18:57,720
I would take all the stars from 65 lightyears out to 100 lightyears to supplement the Hlesig catalog

706
01:18:57,720 --> 01:19:01,720
so that a model can be constructed of these stars.

707
01:19:01,720 --> 01:19:06,720
Now this is for my listing of stars that could have planets with life,

708
01:19:06,720 --> 01:19:11,720
so I'm not going to be including the stars brighter than F5.

709
01:19:11,720 --> 01:19:21,720
The Yale Trigometric Parallax Catalog does not give the groupings like the MK groupings

710
01:19:21,720 --> 01:19:24,720
so that you know which ones are main sequence stars.

711
01:19:24,720 --> 01:19:29,720
This has to be worked out, so I have to figure out the absolute magnitude for all of these stars.

712
01:19:29,720 --> 01:19:38,720
About 500 stars have been marked in the catalog, and I have to go back over and take out those which are spectroscopic binaries,

713
01:19:38,720 --> 01:19:41,720
which have the wrong magnitude brightness and so forth,

714
01:19:41,720 --> 01:19:44,720
and try to figure out which of these are main sequence stars.

715
01:19:44,720 --> 01:19:50,720
Now the Dole Brook Habitable Planets for Man came,

716
01:19:50,720 --> 01:19:59,720
and finally I have a listing of what the absolute magnitude should be for the spectrum groupings like a G.O. and so forth.

717
01:19:59,720 --> 01:20:09,720
I've matched this with my HR diagram, and the G groupings up to about G5 match quite well,

718
01:20:09,720 --> 01:20:19,720
but from there on down there is quite a difference between his groupings for the spectroscopic subgroupings and mine.

719
01:20:19,720 --> 01:20:23,720
One of the first things I can do before I can finish this listing

720
01:20:23,720 --> 01:20:29,720
is to make an HR diagram of all the stars that are not spectroscopic binaries in the Gleasy catalog,

721
01:20:29,720 --> 01:20:33,720
which is now well over a thousand stars.

722
01:20:33,720 --> 01:20:43,720
This catalog I should be able then to tell if his grouping is correct or if my subgroupings are more correct.

723
01:20:43,720 --> 01:20:50,720
I have already worked out a two-page chart that will show what the absolute magnitude is

724
01:20:50,720 --> 01:20:57,720
for a given visual magnitude of the given parallax within the range of the stars that could have planets with life,

725
01:20:57,720 --> 01:21:07,720
using Dole's system of 6.66 as the minimum absolute magnitude.

726
01:21:07,720 --> 01:21:23,720
He says that the K1s are 6.66 whereas my K1s range about 6.1 or 6.2, and there's quite a difference here.

727
01:21:23,720 --> 01:21:30,720
I have written the Tsushuhun twice, once to send my sheet of the stars that could have planets with life,

728
01:21:30,720 --> 01:21:37,720
and then to send a correction sheet and also ask him where he thinks the absolute minimum should be.

729
01:21:37,720 --> 01:21:45,720
Because in between the time I sent the first letter, I received the Dole book and realized the discrepancies and didn't like them to stand.

730
01:21:45,720 --> 01:21:53,720
He did not want to give a definite answer to the absolute minimums.

731
01:21:53,720 --> 01:21:59,720
We have no way of knowing as yet what it is, but he sent some very interesting material.

732
01:21:59,720 --> 01:22:06,720
I haven't had a chance to read it, and I hope to be reading it the next day or so, but to continue to this question of life.

733
01:22:06,720 --> 01:22:17,720
The Carlos Jasek Horacio Conde y Emilia de Sierra catalog of stellar spectra classified in the Morgan-Canan system

734
01:22:17,720 --> 01:22:20,720
and in from the La Plata Observatory.

735
01:22:20,720 --> 01:22:30,720
I'm checking through this list of 500 stars to this catalog also to see what star classification they give it.

736
01:22:30,720 --> 01:22:36,720
I find a great deal of discrepancy between the Aeltrigeumetric parallax catalog and the Yashchik catalog

737
01:22:36,720 --> 01:22:45,720
The stellar spectra of these stars is not only about a third of the stars in the Beltrigeumetric catalog,

738
01:22:45,720 --> 01:22:54,720
but the ones that I'm checking are in the Yashchik catalog, mainly probably because these stars are quite dim and they're quite a ways out

739
01:22:54,720 --> 01:22:59,720
and there's nothing particularly interesting in them for most astronomers.

740
01:22:59,720 --> 01:23:05,720
They probably aren't studied as much since most of these are below visual magnitude stars.

741
01:23:05,720 --> 01:23:12,720
I'm running into some of those interesting dim stars that seem to be main sequence stars.

742
01:23:12,720 --> 01:23:21,720
Of course this dimness could be caused either because there's a wrong parallax measurement or there's a wrong spectra classification,

743
01:23:21,720 --> 01:23:29,720
or it may be these stars that I'm trying to see if they actually exist that could be causing the negative parallax.

744
01:23:29,720 --> 01:23:37,720
Again there's many things that could cause this discrepancy between the brightness that they should be and their actual brightness,

745
01:23:37,720 --> 01:23:43,720
mainly in errors and measurements, but may be productive.

746
01:23:43,720 --> 01:23:48,720
It's one of the interesting sidelines of the things that I'm working on.

747
01:23:48,720 --> 01:23:53,720
Once the listing on the Egyce catalog for the stars that could have plants with life is made,

748
01:23:53,720 --> 01:24:01,720
and then the Yeltrichometric parallax listing is added to it to bring the listing out to 100 light years,

749
01:24:01,720 --> 01:24:09,720
I'll start working on the models so that we can check what stars besides the ones in Betty's map that the humanoids,

750
01:24:09,720 --> 01:24:16,720
assuming that they do come from there, could go to in the other areas that aren't out in the map area.

751
01:24:16,720 --> 01:24:25,720
As soon as the model is finished then I'll start on the 65 light year model of all the stars in the Egyce catalog.

752
01:24:25,720 --> 01:24:30,720
This I expect to take quite a few months to accomplish.

753
01:24:30,720 --> 01:24:35,720
Another problem with the listing is what stars to include in it,

754
01:24:35,720 --> 01:24:46,720
because according to Sushu Hoon, there's still quite a bit of discrepancy unknown in what causes the planet formation.

755
01:24:46,720 --> 01:24:52,720
I assume this means also that they don't know for sure whether the double stars have planets or not.

756
01:24:52,720 --> 01:24:54,720
Chris and Kipers theory they don't.

757
01:24:54,720 --> 01:25:00,720
If my interpretation of Betty's map is correct, they don't go to the double stars,

758
01:25:00,720 --> 01:25:11,720
even though some of these are fairly wide apart and also the stars, the individual stars that make up the multiple system,

759
01:25:11,720 --> 01:25:15,720
could are in the right spectrum range and so forth.

760
01:25:15,720 --> 01:25:25,720
However, the base stars themselves, Zeta 1 and 2 retic and do form a type of double system that's very, very widespread.

761
01:25:25,720 --> 01:25:32,720
Again, a very crude, quick measurement, if I did it accurately, which I don't guarantee,

762
01:25:32,720 --> 01:25:40,720
puts the mounting minimum of 3,000 astronomical units apart, which is quite far.

763
01:25:40,720 --> 01:25:47,720
Although it's all about the light year would be, certainly don't guarantee my arithmetic in this case,

764
01:25:47,720 --> 01:25:54,720
since I hadn't double checked it or anything, but just to give a very crude estimate.

765
01:25:54,720 --> 01:25:59,720
Double stars are closer together than what Pluto in the sun is.

766
01:25:59,720 --> 01:26:05,720
Many of them are about Jupiter's distance or in some cases just our distance from the sun.

767
01:26:05,720 --> 01:26:10,720
There's a very wide range in the double stars as to their distance apart.

768
01:26:10,720 --> 01:26:19,720
It's quite difficult to say where to draw the line between a double star or those that just share a common proper motion

769
01:26:19,720 --> 01:26:24,720
because those that share a common proper motion can be revolving around each other also.

770
01:26:24,720 --> 01:26:32,720
So, it's hard to know where to say that this is a single star or this is a part of a double system.

771
01:26:32,720 --> 01:26:37,720
I'm not known for sure whether the double stars can have planets of life.

772
01:26:37,720 --> 01:26:43,720
I'm going to also include two other listings, one with double stars that have a suitable component,

773
01:26:43,720 --> 01:26:46,720
as long as the other component is not brighter.

774
01:26:46,720 --> 01:26:55,720
Since if it is brighter, it means that the system is a young system and that any life would probably be destroyed

775
01:26:55,720 --> 01:26:58,720
when the other star turns into the red giant.

776
01:26:58,720 --> 01:27:04,720
However, if they're far enough apart, this might not affect the other one enough to destroy life on the planet.

777
01:27:04,720 --> 01:27:09,720
I'll have a third list that would list the spectroscopic binaries.

778
01:27:09,720 --> 01:27:22,720
Here again, they would have to be checked using Sushu Houn's system for measuring the suitability for a stable orbit with double stars.

779
01:27:22,720 --> 01:27:27,720
And I am not about to undertake this at the present time except for listing these stars

780
01:27:27,720 --> 01:27:34,720
and then anyone who wants to can go through the mathematics of deciding whether it would be suitable or not.

781
01:27:34,720 --> 01:27:38,720
Again, if Betty's map is correct, they don't go to any of these,

782
01:27:38,720 --> 01:27:48,720
which means that probably the likelihood is very small since they are picking the very top of the cream of the ones that could have planets of life to go to

783
01:27:48,720 --> 01:27:55,720
and are ignoring those that are still possible but not as probable.

784
01:27:55,720 --> 01:28:00,720
In most of my calculations, I'm assuming that Betty's map is correct.

785
01:28:00,720 --> 01:28:07,720
It may not be that the indications are in my way of thinking that they probably is correct.

786
01:28:07,720 --> 01:28:16,720
Another problem with the listing is the break-off points, which was discussed earlier, but this creates quite a problem.

787
01:28:16,720 --> 01:28:21,720
I have the other list that I made earlier in several different parts.

788
01:28:21,720 --> 01:28:27,720
The F5 to F8 were the ones that could be colonized.

789
01:28:27,720 --> 01:28:31,720
They could have life of their own, but it would not be intelligent life.

790
01:28:31,720 --> 01:28:42,720
And then F8 to absolute magnitude 6.0 as my group one and then 6.0 to 7.5 as group two.

791
01:28:42,720 --> 01:28:48,720
Now, since I have the dual listing and he breaks off the absolute magnitude as 6.6,

792
01:28:48,720 --> 01:28:54,720
I'm going to take this as the bottom limit instead of going to 7.5,

793
01:28:54,720 --> 01:29:02,720
whether to break the F5 group to F7 as a separate group

794
01:29:02,720 --> 01:29:09,720
or to include it in the just a listing of planets that could have life, period, whether it's intelligent or not.

795
01:29:10,720 --> 01:29:19,720
And this F5 to F7 has other problems in that not all of these may be revolving slowly.

796
01:29:19,720 --> 01:29:25,720
And I don't have rotational data on these, so some of these may not have planets.

797
01:29:25,720 --> 01:29:37,720
And also, if I take into account Betty's map, they don't go below 6.0 or 6.1 at most.

798
01:29:37,720 --> 01:29:43,720
And whether to keep these as a separate group or not is a problem.

799
01:29:43,720 --> 01:29:53,720
That is to have group one go, say, from F5 through absolute magnitude 6.0

800
01:29:53,720 --> 01:29:59,720
and then take it from 6.1 to 6.6 as a separate subgroup

801
01:29:59,720 --> 01:30:02,720
or whether to have the whole listing as one single group.

802
01:30:03,720 --> 01:30:11,720
I think what I shall probably do is list them from F5 down to 6.6

803
01:30:11,720 --> 01:30:17,720
and then add a separate note for those that are interested in the UFO data as such

804
01:30:17,720 --> 01:30:23,720
that they can make their own listing, eliminating those that are too low in magnitude.

805
01:30:23,720 --> 01:30:26,720
I haven't decided entirely on this.

806
01:30:26,720 --> 01:30:31,720
I still have a lot of work to do in the checking of these stars and getting them listing.

807
01:30:31,720 --> 01:30:37,720
Another problem in listing is that the stars in the Eglise catalogue are the 1950 epic

808
01:30:37,720 --> 01:30:44,720
and the stars in the Yelotrichometric and the Morgan-Conan system, the Astrick catalogue,

809
01:30:44,720 --> 01:30:47,720
are in the 1900 epic.

810
01:30:47,720 --> 01:30:53,720
And this means that all the stars in those catalogs have to be changed over to the 1950 epic

811
01:30:53,720 --> 01:30:58,720
or the ones in the Eglise catalogue have to be changed over to the 1900 epic

812
01:30:58,720 --> 01:31:05,720
before they can be listed in an order since the placement would be off considerably on some of them.

813
01:31:05,720 --> 01:31:13,720
Again, I probably should list them both ways, which means I'll have to list probably all,

814
01:31:13,720 --> 01:31:19,720
I imagine, there'll be at least three or four hundred stars in the final listing

815
01:31:19,720 --> 01:31:25,720
in just the single stars alone to say nothing of the double star listing

816
01:31:25,720 --> 01:31:28,720
in the spectroscopic binary listing.

817
01:31:28,720 --> 01:31:37,720
So this, the proper motion of some of the stars, changes their position from the 1900 to the 1950 listing.

818
01:31:37,720 --> 01:31:41,720
And I haven't worked with the figuring out the actual proper motion

819
01:31:41,720 --> 01:31:47,720
and related this to just the normal epic changing position.

820
01:31:47,720 --> 01:31:51,720
I don't think it will take too much to learn it, but it's something I haven't worked with yet

821
01:31:51,720 --> 01:31:56,720
and so I'm going to have a lot of learning to do before I even begin to tackle all of this.

822
01:31:56,720 --> 01:32:03,720
Dr. Vandy Camp, put a very interesting pocket on information on the nearest stars and other things

823
01:32:03,720 --> 01:32:06,720
that arrived yesterday, which I'm very anxious to get at too.

824
01:32:06,720 --> 01:32:10,720
Actually, I received letters from almost every place that I sent.

825
01:32:10,720 --> 01:32:16,720
I haven't received anything from Dr. Sagan yet or Dr. Vasselvesky's.

826
01:32:16,720 --> 01:32:23,720
Not that I really expected to get him, and gave it from either one of them, but I was hoping.

827
01:32:23,720 --> 01:32:26,720
Dr. Sagan sent to the wrong address.

828
01:32:26,720 --> 01:32:31,720
I had sent it to where he was when he was writing, Intelligent Life in the Universe,

829
01:32:31,720 --> 01:32:35,720
but it wasn't returned so I assumed it was forwarded to him.

830
01:32:35,720 --> 01:32:38,720
I immediately took to Perkins Observatory on December 6th.

831
01:32:38,720 --> 01:32:42,720
They normally aren't open on Saturday, but Dr. Mitchell came and let me in

832
01:32:42,720 --> 01:32:48,720
and we talked over the project that his students are doing with the nearest stars

833
01:32:48,720 --> 01:32:53,720
and this odd groupings that I discovered in the model.

834
01:32:53,720 --> 01:33:03,720
There's only been one report that's been turned in, but it showed a high clustering of the 10th magnitude stars

835
01:33:03,720 --> 01:33:09,720
out in the 65 light-year range that is at SIN, beyond the 32 light-year model.

836
01:33:09,720 --> 01:33:12,720
But it's very definitely a clumping of them.

837
01:33:12,720 --> 01:33:17,720
I'm hoping to learn how the other ones turned out.

838
01:33:17,720 --> 01:33:24,720
I'm not able to pin these down quite accurately once the 65 light-year model of all the stars is made.

839
01:33:24,720 --> 01:33:27,720
But again, this will take quite a while to do.

840
01:33:27,720 --> 01:33:29,720
I'm glad that the books you lent me.

841
01:33:29,720 --> 01:33:32,720
The Great Soul Trial was very interesting.

842
01:33:32,720 --> 01:33:35,720
I just have a good beginning on it.

843
01:33:35,720 --> 01:33:41,720
This is the first chance I've had to sit down and relax for months.

844
01:33:41,720 --> 01:33:43,720
I certainly appreciate you lending them to me.

845
01:33:43,720 --> 01:33:46,720
I'll get them back to you as soon as possible.

846
01:33:46,720 --> 01:33:53,720
I hope to have the HR diagram done possibly sometime tomorrow or at least sometime next week.

847
01:33:53,720 --> 01:33:57,720
I'm doing about five to six, seven different things at the same time.

848
01:33:57,720 --> 01:34:01,720
It's rather confusing at times.

849
01:34:01,720 --> 01:34:06,720
Well, again, have a very good new year and good luck in your taping and your other work.

850
01:34:06,720 --> 01:34:15,720
Oh, if you have a chance, I would like a copy of anything that you have on Barney or Betty on your tapes.

851
01:34:15,720 --> 01:34:23,720
Or any case that is similar to this, the normal contact, can-conduct-e-report type thing.

852
01:34:23,720 --> 01:34:30,720
I'm interested in sociologically, but not too interested in the tapes unless you think it is an authentic experience.

853
01:34:30,720 --> 01:34:39,720
Much of the regular contact-e material, I believe, is probably just tapping on conscious material such as it's done in automatic writing,

854
01:34:39,720 --> 01:34:47,720
where it seems to be coming from an outside source but is actually coming from the person themselves at a subconscious level.

855
01:34:47,720 --> 01:34:55,720
This may not be true for all of them, but I think it is true for quite a few of the contact-e type thing.

856
01:34:55,720 --> 01:35:05,720
However, it may mask some of the real physical things that are taking place, which I think Betty's experience was one.

857
01:35:05,720 --> 01:35:12,720
And I'm sure there probably are a good many others that are. However, I doubt if these are your normal contact-e.

858
01:35:12,720 --> 01:35:22,720
Getting into another area, I got a Ray Palmer flying saucer magazine the other day that had one interesting item.

859
01:35:22,720 --> 01:35:31,720
There's a clipping service that is sort of a share-of-the-cost thing. It's $3 per month.

860
01:35:31,720 --> 01:35:43,720
And the address is our research committee, Rod Dyke, that's D-Y-K-E director. Sounds quite interesting.

861
01:35:43,720 --> 01:35:49,720
The magazine as a whole, I think, is for nonsense, but sometimes it has some interesting things in the letters.

862
01:35:49,720 --> 01:35:51,720
It has been somewhat better lately.

863
01:35:51,720 --> 01:35:55,720
I read Mr. Farrish's article and said it was quite interesting.

864
01:35:55,720 --> 01:36:03,720
I'm going to be turning the tape over now and go over some corrections to the first part of the tape.

865
01:36:03,720 --> 01:36:06,720
In listening to it, I realized there are some things I didn't make very clear.

866
01:36:06,720 --> 01:36:13,720
This is Monday, December 29th. I did some more reading in the Soul Trial,

867
01:36:13,720 --> 01:36:21,720
and I also did quite a bit of work on the picking of the stars in the Yale Trigometry Parallax catalog.

868
01:36:21,720 --> 01:36:25,720
And I'm running into some more problems with some of these odd stars.

869
01:36:25,720 --> 01:36:31,720
First of all, on the tape and the other side, I had mentioned that the...

870
01:36:31,720 --> 01:36:36,720
I was taking this list out to Parallax 30 and said it was 100 light years.

871
01:36:36,720 --> 01:36:41,720
I'm going to press the Parallax .032 as 100 light years,

872
01:36:41,720 --> 01:36:49,720
but I'm taking it out a little bit farther because it's easier to pull all the Parallaxes out within a certain set number.

873
01:36:49,720 --> 01:36:52,720
So I'm pulling out all the 4s and the 40s and 30s.

874
01:36:52,720 --> 01:37:00,720
Because Parallax is rather shaky this far out, this may catch a few that were placed a little farther out than what they should have been,

875
01:37:00,720 --> 01:37:02,720
and so they'll still be included in the list.

876
01:37:02,720 --> 01:37:09,720
So I'm going to have the accuracy of the data. Perhaps I can go over this a little bit to clarify it.

877
01:37:09,720 --> 01:37:17,720
Out to about 10 light years, our measurements are quite accurate within a small fraction of a light year.

878
01:37:17,720 --> 01:37:24,720
Out to 20 light years, there are a few stars that vary from one catalog to another as much as one or two light years,

879
01:37:24,720 --> 01:37:28,720
but this is rare. Usually it's only about half light year difference.

880
01:37:28,720 --> 01:37:35,720
When you get out to the 32 light years, most of the stars are fairly stable from one measurement to another,

881
01:37:35,720 --> 01:37:43,720
but a few have quite a few changes in measurements, including the base stars.

882
01:37:43,720 --> 01:37:54,720
By the time you get out to the 65 light years, there's quite a bit of difference in measurements from one source to another.

883
01:37:54,720 --> 01:37:58,720
Of course, out to the 100 light years, it is getting rather shaky.

884
01:37:58,720 --> 01:38:08,720
So my listing will not be completely accurate, and this may account for some of these odd stars that seem to be way too bright or way too dim for the Parallax that they have,

885
01:38:08,720 --> 01:38:16,720
because your absolute magnitude depends on the distance out, which of course depends on the Parallax reading.

886
01:38:16,720 --> 01:38:25,720
If this is off, then your absolute magnitude as it is figured is off, and so your magnitude spectrum ratio is going to be off.

887
01:38:25,720 --> 01:38:34,720
So I think probably in my total list, I'll probably include the F5 through the absolute magnitude 6.6,

888
01:38:34,720 --> 01:38:40,720
and even though this will extend over the range on either side, it should pull in the stars.

889
01:38:40,720 --> 01:38:46,720
I probably have some that don't really qualify as the best stars to have life,

890
01:38:46,720 --> 01:38:51,720
but the list should include most of the stars that should have life.

891
01:38:51,720 --> 01:38:58,720
So far as the stars that we've measured Parallax go, and I mentioned before,

892
01:38:58,720 --> 01:39:03,720
there's quite a few that haven't had the Parallax measured, and I hadn't realized how many.

893
01:39:03,720 --> 01:39:09,720
So there may be quite a few that are not on the list because we do not know how far out they are.

894
01:39:09,720 --> 01:39:18,720
So getting back to Betty's map and the difference between the old Gleasy Catalog and the new Gleasy Catalog,

895
01:39:18,720 --> 01:39:22,720
the most of them had very little changes.

896
01:39:22,720 --> 01:39:24,720
There were a few changes.

897
01:39:24,720 --> 01:39:32,720
54 Pisces is out about two light-years farther in the new Gleasy Catalog than what it was in the old.

898
01:39:32,720 --> 01:39:37,720
This may account for Betty's statement, which rather worried me because it didn't hold true for the old one,

899
01:39:37,720 --> 01:39:45,720
but it seemed quite far out, whereas actually it wasn't really any farther from the base stars than my A star,

900
01:39:45,720 --> 01:39:48,720
which she thought seemed a little nearer.

901
01:39:48,720 --> 01:39:57,720
So Zeta Tucana is 23.3 light-years in the new Gleasy Catalog,

902
01:39:57,720 --> 01:40:01,720
which is about one year difference from what it was before.

903
01:40:01,720 --> 01:40:06,720
Other than the two stars that were mentioned on the other side of the tape,

904
01:40:06,720 --> 01:40:11,720
which I will want to finish the model before I definitely say which two they are,

905
01:40:11,720 --> 01:40:18,720
these are the only major changes in the new Gleasy from the old Gleasy Catalog.

906
01:40:18,720 --> 01:40:23,720
This is all that I have at this time, so again, have a good new year.

907
01:40:23,720 --> 01:40:26,720
Sincerely, Marjorie Fish.