1 video containing this reference
After one of the hypnosis sessions, Betty drew from memory a sketch of a star map that
[0:00:00 - 0:00:12] ▶
And with that, he put the star map, pushed something and the map was gone.
[0:01:11 - 0:01:16] ▶
Years later, Marjorie Fish and Ohio School Teacher decided to take the star map and to
[0:01:50 - 0:01:56] ▶
see if it matched reality, to see if there really was a 12 star pattern like this in the
[0:01:56 - 0:02:03] ▶
Now, later, in the research of the star map, I was contacted by a school, at that time,
[0:02:04 - 0:02:12] ▶
to me in greater detail about the star map.
[0:02:21 - 0:02:24] ▶
had in the star map except two were missing.
[0:03:01 - 0:03:04] ▶
a whole 12-star pattern flashed into view.
[0:03:36 - 0:03:39] ▶
As for the books and materials used, I was using the Star catalogs that are used at the
[0:05:19 - 0:05:27] ▶
Parallax catalogs, the bright star catalog, the EO Tricometric Parallax catalogs, supplement
[0:05:39 - 0:05:46] ▶
a star like the sun is going to have planets like our own or could have planets like our own.
[0:08:19 - 0:08:26] ▶
So you need a star within a very close range of the sun and it would have to be a single star
[0:08:26 - 0:08:30] ▶
Now as the star is close to the earth the parallax measurement is much more accurate as it gets
[0:09:01 - 0:09:07] ▶
The unfortunate thing is that the base star is that it would be one of the ones where
[0:09:46 - 0:09:50] ▶
Gleasy parallax for that particular star is farther out than that, too.
[0:10:24 - 0:10:29] ▶
It needs to be carried out to the 65 years at least to make sure that this star roofing
[0:14:47 - 0:14:54] ▶
explain that to you in star placement in the catalog.
[0:15:07 - 0:15:11] ▶
I have the 65 light years listening down although I am rechecking it with the double star
[0:16:15 - 0:16:20] ▶
And so you may think you have a single star that is really a double and first the
[0:16:42 - 0:16:46] ▶
I have checked the stars in the basic pattern in the double star catalog which just came
[0:18:20 - 0:18:26] ▶
I had originally intended just to make the star catalog and then I decided to be able
[0:19:38 - 0:19:44] ▶
about 20 years ago which does not amount too much except it did show me star placements.
[0:21:41 - 0:21:46] ▶
If there is any chance of your reading the chapters in the Sagan's intelligent life in universe before we meet just the chapters on star formation and which could have planets and planet formation.
[0:26:21 - 0:26:39] ▶
I think it was because I was looking at your map which must have had number two at the reticulum one star.
[0:41:00 - 0:41:07] ▶
Another error was when I said that 107 Pisces was a G star, it is a K star, a range is from K-O to I think K-2 depending on the source of the information.
[0:41:07 - 0:41:26] ▶
Actually, a bright star is in one of my group one stars.
[0:41:26 - 0:41:33] ▶
I just looked up 107 Pisces and it is generally called a K-1 main-pickland star.
[0:42:45 - 0:42:54] ▶
Also in the summer of 1968 I got into Perkins and got a crack at the Star catalog.
[0:49:04 - 0:49:13] ▶
But I found the address for the great Star catalog and I ordered that.
[0:49:24 - 0:49:29] ▶
It's Jerry takes months for me to Star catalog to come and this was no exception.
[0:49:29 - 0:49:35] ▶
The first thing then was the Star catalog since it is absolutely necessary to understand which stars are which.
[0:50:21 - 0:50:28] ▶
After that the page of a radiation was done so that people could understand the Star catalog and also a brief idea of the number of these sizes and colors and so forth so that understanding the model would be easier.
[0:50:29 - 0:50:44] ▶
So I do not think it is rigor so referring. Now so referring in a smaller star like a red dwarf changes its luminosity very very much in several magnitudes and facts but in one light the sun does not change greatly.
[0:52:12 - 0:52:27] ▶
But at this time there was quite a bit I didn't know because I only had the data for about eight or nine months. One of the things that I really slipped up on this point was the SB notations I had killed the copy of the bright star catalog and then realized that they were the specifically such a scoping binaries which I was trying desperately to find. I discovered this soon afterwards that so rather embarrassed that I hadn't caught it at that time.
[0:55:02 - 0:55:30] ▶
Dr. Nann kindly explained it to me that it was the apparent backwards movement of the star and that it could be caused by the various stars actually moving more than the stars being measured.
[0:59:29 - 0:59:44] ▶
I learned too that one of these is a group four star or a usually class that will sometimes as a five which means that this is the MK group four and five being the sequence of four being subjiant which would put it as rather unlikely for life.
[1:06:24 - 1:06:46] ▶
So does not show the correlation in the best possible way 2d pictures are very hard to interpret because you can't tell which is the small case star close or a large case are in the background since they both would have the same diameter on the slide.
[1:13:44 - 1:14:04] ▶
Rather than the write-star number and the write-star number is 483 which I quoted correctly on the tape last Sunday.
[1:17:20 - 1:17:30] ▶
The parallax on Zeta 1 and 2 reticulum has been changed. It's not as far out as the Yale trigonometric parallax supplement had it but it's not still quite as close as what the bright star catalog had it.
[1:19:59 - 1:20:16] ▶
Some other minor corrections are my catalog A star which is the top star in the hill pattern is a light star catalog number 483 on my summary sheet.
[1:20:35 - 1:20:48] ▶
The bright star catalog number on the left star in the V shape at the top of the body pattern.
[1:21:15 - 1:21:24] ▶
I am checking through this list of 500 stars to this catalog also to see what star classification they give it.
[1:26:42 - 1:26:51] ▶
It's quite difficult to say where to draw the line between a double star or those that just share a common proper motion because those that share a common proper motion can be revolving around each other also.
[1:30:33 - 1:30:46] ▶
So I had to know where to say that this is a single star or this is a part of a double system.
[1:30:46 - 1:30:54] ▶
Since it is brighter it means that the system is a young system and that any life would probably be destroyed when the other star turns into the red giant.
[1:31:08 - 1:31:20] ▶
I imagine there will be at least three or four hundred stars in the final listing in just the single stars alone to say nothing of the double star listing in the Sputterscopic binary listing.
[1:35:36 - 1:35:50] ▶
And so I think probably in my total list, I'll probably include the F5 through the absolute magnitude 6.6, and even though this will extend over the range and either side, it should politely star.
[1:42:47 - 1:43:01] ▶
Whereas actually it wasn't really any farther from the base stars than my A star, which he thought seemed a little nearer.
[1:44:00 - 1:44:09] ▶