Talk:Zeta Reticuli
From The Black Vault Encyclopedia Project
In 1966, THE INTERRUPTED JOURNEY was released to the general public, a book that described the alleged abduction of Barney Hill and his wife in 1961. In turn, Barney Hill's book inspired THE ZETA RETICULI INCIDENT by Terence Dickinson (along with others), published in ASTRONOMY, Dec 1974 (see www.stealthskater.com/Documents/ZetaReticuli_1.doc for details). Dickenson speculates in THE ZETA RETICULI INCIDENT that the double-star system depicted in THE INTERRUPTED JOURNEY could only be the star system Zeta I Reticuli and Zeta 2 Reticuli. Dickinson claims this because it is the only double star system closest to our system that has a Sun-like star. The problem with this claim is that the nearest double-star system to our Sun is not the Zeta Centauri system but the Alpha Centauri system. Whereas the Zeta Reticuli system is 37 light years away, the Alpha Centauri system is a mere four light years away -- and you can't get any closer than that since these are the closest stars to the Sun that exist. Dickinson only lists GL599A and Proxima Centauri in his data, but fails to list GL599B. Why the blatant error of omission? Then there is the question of why is Dickenson inconsistent in his usage of naming the stars, citing the proper name for GL136 and GL138 (Zeta Reticuli) but the Gliese designation for Alpha Centauri (GL559A and GL559B)? I'm not saying that Dickenson is dishonest, but by citing an easy to remember name for the target system you want your readers to choose and half of a star system using a cryptic numbering scheme, does not sound honest to me. So everything Dickenson says about Zeta Reticuli, applies to the Alpha Centauri system, only more so: all the stars are the same age, and all the stars are approximately the same size as our Sun except for Proxima Centauri (a red dwarf which is way too small and way too distant from the main pair of stars to be of any significance).
If the map drawn by Dickenson (by way of Marjorie Fish) is superimposed upon the map drawn by Hill, they do not even come close. Of course, this is due to "artistic licensing" -- which is another way of saying we are free to change angles (a little) and segment lengths (dramatically) in our attempt to find a match of the 1000 or so stars within 50 light years of the Sun? What is the logic is choosing 50 light years? None is given, but why not choose 20 or 100 light years? Of course, if we use the Alpha Centauri system as our starting point, instead of the Zeta Reticuli system, 50 light years is more than enough space to imagine hundreds (!) of star maps as existing, all "matching" the Hill map -- so long as we are free to radically tweak the segment lengths and viewpoint as Fish does.
Dickenson rationalizes his choice of choosing the Zeta Reticuli system over other systems because it is so Sun-like, but why include so many other stars that aren't Sun-like along the trade route, when they are not likely to support life as we know it? Either the Sun-like size and age of Zeta Reticuli is relevant, or it is not. If it is relevant, then why choose trading posts that aren't likely to support life, instead of restricting your choices to only Sun-like stars? If it isn't relevant, then Dickeson's is saying one thing (in support of Zeta Reticuli having life) and doing another (choosing only stars that aren't likely to support life), and therefore Dickenson is effectively shooting himself in the foot, and invalidating his own argument.
Think about how much easier and believable it would be for the ETs to have only traveled four light years to reach us instead of 37! Think about how much easier it would be to consider the idea that we are not a remote system from the ETs, but are very close to their homebase and trade routes, therefore explaining the numerous sightings that would result as a "spillover" from all that traffic. Think about how much more believable the map would be if all the stars along the trade route were Sun-like stars? The Zeti Reticuli version requires the ETs to go way, way out of their way to visit us for no good reason, while establishing posts on uninhabited stars along the way.
Whole entire books and a small industry have been built upon Dickenson's errors in reasoning, casting into complete doubt any claims associating the ETs with Zeta Reticuli. Of course, none of those kind of claims were believable in the first place, were they?
