I don't know too much about the original two who interviewed them, other than their names, and that one was later identified as a presidential
assistant. Major McDonald, Air Force Intelligence Officer, and friend to the Hills, obviously was somewhat satisfied, as he was also present for that
interview, and didn't object to them.
Yes, Betty states that she was given the book, and then later it was taken back. I did not see anything in Betty's own words describing the contents
of the book, so I don't care to speculate on what it contained.
Sorry Byrd, but you know me, I can't just respond and NOT be long-winded!
Here we go:
I read a report just a few days ago (and can't find it now) that indicated that Betty (who did believe in UFOs) initially was the one saying they
were abducted. Barney denied it.
He continued to deny it for at least 6 months while Betty insisted that it was true. She did win him over to her viewpoint after nearly a year.
Added your found link to the quote for reference.
Interesting that you’d believe this author over the foremost authorities in mental health at the time, etc. I’m unaware of Aaron Sakulich’s
credentials in mental health, so perhaps you could enlighten me, as I don’t see a “Dr.” in front of his name? Mr. Sakulich claims that Barney
didn’t think anything happened. This is the first of many outright lies in the article. Barmey
is the one that reported the sighting
after the event. This is a documented phone call to the base, including naming names, etc. As for using Dr. Simon’s words
against him, the author fails to explain how if Betty made the whole thing up, how did Barney’s story match while under hypnosis
See my quote in the post from Dr. Simon regarding the Hills had some type of “real” event, and could not have fabricated it. I don’t see any
quotes from Barney saying he denied the event in that article. How strange? Yet there are plenty of quotes attesting to what happened. Personally,
I’ll take the witness’s taped words over heresay from an author who claims to know what the witness was thinking…
An interesting attack is
that Betty was an avid reader of UFO abductions, etc. and that maybe that led to her claims. That is perhaps the icing on the cake, as it’s
painfully obvious that the author failed to realize that the Hills were the FIRST such publicized case!!!
So any such readings would be well
AFTER her experiences!!! How can one assign any credibility whatsoever to this author is beyond me…
Carl Sagan (and others) on the "star map" (not as accurate as promoted):
Really? Read closer. Aside from the scientific tech talk, here’s something interesting…
To summarize, then:
(1) the pattern discovered by Marjorie
Fish has an uncanny resemblance to the map drawn by Betty Hill;
(2) the stars are mostly the ones that we would visit if we were
exploring from Zeta Reticuli, and
(3) the travel patterns
generally make sense.
Walter Mitchell, professor of astronomy at Ohio State
University in Columbus, has looked at Marjorie Fish's
interpretation of the Betty Hill map in detail and tells us, "The
more I examine it, the more I am impressed by the astronomy
involved in Marjorie Fish's work."
Personally, reading through all of it, I find several attempts to discredit the map, but with each concluding that if restricting the stars to the
types mentioned (i.e. yellow, likely life zone stable stars, etc.), then there simply is no other match than the one made by Fish. Even discounting
such variables, only a couple other matches could be made (i.e. ignoring the star colors reported by Betty) Perhaps you are reading this differently
than I? This seems to only reinforce the map’s validity…and the odds against it being random.
Some of the points of the case (which later become part of mainstream UFO lore) are brand new -- in other words, no previous mention of aliens
mentions these. [Gazrok noting here-this would seem more in the Hill’s favor, than against, no?]
The big-eyed aliens never appeared in any other account until the Hills. After that, they suddenly become popular. But they DID appear in a movie that
was released earlier:
So, aside from a supposition that they “might have seen” the Outer Limits episode, and yet described aliens different than the ones in the
episode, aside from one feature (wrap-around eyes), you (or Mr. Klass) contend that the Hills happen to be aficionados of imported Japanese sci-fi?
As they would have had to have been to see this film. Also, the Hills’ sessions began in JANUARY of ’64. Did the movie come out in January?
(info only showing the year in various sources) Funny, the csicop guys (i.e. Klass) didn’t even take the time to find a pic of the alien in the
film. I did, you can see it here:
Not exactly a dead ringer for the Hill alien….
And take a look at THIS still photo from a much hyped movie of that year called "Earth VS the Flying Saucers"
Again, only one matching feature, wrap-around eyes. In that still, we also see a fully human nose, yet not on the Hill aliens. The logic is
such things as that such sources were the inspiration for the Hill’s accounts, is completely flawed. First off, they were put in a
hypnotic state to specifically recall details. They were NOT looking for an abduction story, just the source of Barney’s anxiety initially. Betty
wasn’t even the patient to start…it was all about Barney’s health. Thus such a contention as fabrication would have to be that the Hills made
up a story, then told each other about it, and then under hypnosis, such a fabrication didn’t come out, while examined by likely the most capable
psychiatrist in the nation. Surely one must not think too highly of such credited professionals.
Klass' logic is also flawed in that it is a complete assumption that the Hills saw such films. This would be akin to me seeing you with a certain
haircut, and then saying, “Ah, you must have seen the cult classic, “Cry Baby” and copied the hairdo! (even though your hair looks only slightly
like it). You’d say, “I’ve never seen such a film.” I’d say, “Nope, I’ve just proved
it, you copied it from Cry Baby.” See
the flaws inherent in such logic?
Chip implants didn't show up until the Hills... but again, they appeared in a 1956 movie and the chip implant was part of the ad:
Same flawed logic employed by Klass as above. One would have to assume the Hills watched such a movie, and then recalled it nearly ten years later
and it somehow influenced them….
There is no proof the Hills saw such films or adverts, and so such a refuting fact is merely assumption.
There's at least one report that the "alien abduction" was a coverup for a racially motivated attack. I find that pretty weak, but there are a lot
of things in the Betty Hill story that don't match up.
You even admit that’s weak, so not much need to go further. Personally, I’ve seen such theories, but not one iota of even shaky evidence to back
such a claim. Not to mention, in order for it to be true, one would have to think Dr. Simon to be one inept psychiatrist, and of course ignore the
other facts, such as the radar contact, sighting report to authorities, etc.
The navel needle probe is one of them. All that's behind a navel is scar tissue and intestine, and you can get to the intestines easier elsewhere on
the body. You can't get to the uterus via that route (she says, having survived about 4 rounds of amniocentesis. It's not fun.)
Really? While I’m not one to quibble with a woman on questions involving child birth, perhaps this would prove interesting?
description sounds like a fairly recent advance we’ve done, laparoscopic surgery. The below is regarding a procedure eerily similar to what Betty
described (but back in ’64)…
Purpose of the Laparoscopy
The laparoscopy lets me visually inspect your reproductive organs. I can see if the tubes are deformed, swollen, or trapped in adhesions; I can
see if the ends of the tubes are open and the fimbria functional; and if adhesions are preventing the egg from migrating from the ovary to the tubes.
I can also detect the presence of endometriosis and perform a number of surgical procedures to correct various abnormalities. I will usually combine
the the laparoscopic procedure with a diagnostic hysteroscopy to evaluate the inside of the uterine cavity….
A laparoscopy can be performed on an outpatient basis. First, you are given a general anesthesia. Then your doctor will slip the laparoscope
through a small incision in your belly button.
[edit on 5-5-2005 by Gazrok]