On a dark September night in 1961, Barney and Betty Hill had a frightening experience in the mountains of New Hampshire. Later they came to believe that they had been captured and studied by beings from another world. During their ordeal on the spaceship, Betty saw a star map said to contain astonishingly accurate astronomical details. We look at what some ufologists see as proof of alien contact.
A real UFO, almost certainly a Chinese lantern, seen in a still from a short movie made by a member of the public and sent to the Planetarium. (Image credit: Armagh Planetarium)
Here is a strange story.
On 19 September 1961 Barney (1922òÀÓ1969) and Betty Hill (1919-2004) were returning from a holiday. Middle-aged, the Hills were respectable pillars of the community, living quiet, decent lives.ˆà They drove overnight from Montreal, Canada to Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Their journey took them through the forested and deserted White Mountains of New Hampshire. Both observed a bright light in the sky under the Moon. As they drove, both believed it to be following their car, the couple rationalised it as an aircraft or satellite. Barney observed the light through binoculars, revealing it to be an odd-looking flying vehicle, a flying saucer with extensive windows, bright lights and variable geometry wings. It was clearly not of this Earth, and to Barney’s horror grinning humanoid beings were looking right back at him through the craftòÀÙs large windows. Anxious to escape this ominous presence, the Hills drove on at high speedòÀæand then it was dawn and they were nearly home.
The New Hampshire sky on the night of the Hill’s journey looking south. Under the Moon are Jupiter (left) and Saturn (right). (Image credit: Armagh Planetarium, made with Stellarium)
On their arrival, the couple were puzzled; their journey seemed to have taken a couple of hours longer than it should have. The Hills were worried by this missing time, more alarming still, they also had a selection of minor cuts, grazes and clothing damage that they could not remember receiving (other intriguing-sounding physical evidence claimed by the Hills’ supporters, such as odd areas of exposed bare metal on their car and strange “chemical” stains on Betty’s clothing have been lost to history). Frightened, the Hills began to suspect that something very odd had happened to them.
In the following months, Betty suffered from severe nightmares of a kidnapping. Betty was interested in UFO stories, and she began to believe that during their journey she and Barney had been abducted and taken on board a spaceship. Eventually the Hills sought help, initially from UFO investigators (who, it seems leaked the coupleòÀÙs details to the press, the Hills had wanted their experience to remain private).ˆà Increasingly distressed, the Hills looked to more professional help. Hypnotised by a distinguished psychiatrist, Dr Benjamin Simon, both gave detailed accounts of what they believed had happened on their fateful drive. This is the most important points of their story as recorded by Dr Simon in 1964.
The Hills had been forced to stop their car by a landed spaceship and its crew who compelled their captives to board their vessel.ˆà Their kidnappers were small greyish-coloured men who seemed to be conducting a scientific investigation of earthlings. After performing a strange, bumbling but painful and degrading medical examination of the Hills (using technology which seems oddly archaic now, such as the chart recorders the Hills’ vital signs were plotted on), the alienòÀÙs leader showed Betty a star map. The alien, who spoke English, told her that the map showed trade and exploration routes between stars and that our Sun and the aliensòÀÙ home star were marked on it (he pointed out roughly where he and his crew came from). The abducting aliens intended that the Hills would be unable to remember their ordeal, presumably using their advanced technology to block the couple’s memories.ˆà The dazed Hills were released and allowed to go on their way while the spaceship disappeared into the dark starry sky.
(It should be emphasised both that Dr Simon believed that the Hills were utterly sincere but sharing a delusion and that Dr. Simon personally believed that he had witnessed UFOs: he in no way matched the stereotype of “mean old sceptic”.)
Since then this basic story has been repeated so often by others. The circumstances are the same; nighttime abduction by little grey men, bizarre and unpleasant medical tests, release, amnesia of the events followed by nightmares and eventual total recall under hypnosis.ˆà Retelling alien abduction reports and circulating rumours of government coverups of saucer crashes have been the meat and drink of UFOlogy since the 1980s (actually attempting to observe and analyse UFOs in the sky is a very minor part of UFOlogical studies it seems). As it is the prototype alien abduction narrative, Barney and BettyòÀÙs adventure has been hugely influential (it was was dramatised for TV in 1975 as The UFO Incident), inspiring thousands of flights of fancy in the years that followed. What makes this account more than just another tall tale that many people have copied is the claim that Betty Hill had astronomical knowledge unavailable in 1964. If true, this is truly astonishing, possibly suggesting that the HillòÀÙs account really happened.
A redrawn version of the Betty Hill Star Map. The aliens’ home star (or planet) is one of the two spheres. Solid lines are ‘”trade routes”, dotted lines are “exploration routes”. (Image credit: Armagh Planetarium)
Under hypnosis Betty was able to redraw the map the alien leader had shown her. Betty was vague about what the map actually showed; sometimes she referred to as showing stars and planets. Her sketch was reproduced in books and magazines. In the late 1960s, a teacher called Marjorie Fish (1932-2013) tried to compare the map with real nearby stars and see if any matched. This would not be an easy task as there were about a thousand stars within 50 light years of the Sun. To make things easier, Fish made a series of sensible assumptions based on how similar to us the aliens seemed, suggesting their home planet was very similar to Earth. Based on data that was accurate at that time, she eliminated
- All non-main sequence stars (habitable planets are unlikely to survive their staròÀÙs transition to red giant)
- All variable stars (it is difficult to see how life could arise on their planets because the huge temperature variations)
- Stars of class F4 or higher (these would have much shorter lifetimes than our Sun, so less time for life to arise)
- Multiple star systems where the stars were too close together (stable planetary orbits seem impossible)
- M class red dwarfs (potential planets would be tidally locked)
After this sifting process, Fish was left with 46 stars. Using data from the 1969 edition of the Gliese Catalog of Nearby Stars, for nearly five years Fish painstakingly constructed several three-dimensional models of the SunòÀÙs stellar neighbourhood from wire and beads. She viewed these from every possible angle, hoping to find a pattern matching the Hill map, a long and very difficult process.ˆà It is impossible to criticise the effort Fish made. Eventually she found almost a perfect match! It seemed that the map drawn by Betty Hill accurately depicted the stars near our own. All the stars lay roughly on the same plane and the aliens apparently came from the Zeta Reticulum system. The view point was from slightly above the star Zeta 2 Reticuli.
A redrawn version of Marjorie Fish’s interpretation of the Betty Hill Map, note “trade route” to the Sun! “UFO investigators” ignore anomalies like this. (Image credit: Armagh Planetarium)
This pair of G type stars is only 39.5 light years away in the small and unimpressive constellation of Reticulum (the Net). A binary system, the two stars are at least 3750 AU (about 0.06 light years) apart, far enough a separation for each to have its own planetary system.ˆà From the planets of one star, the other star would be a brilliantly bright star about as 30 times as bright as Venus looks in EarthòÀÙs sky. It was not clear which of the pair was the aliensòÀÙ home star. No planets have yet been discovered around either star, see the truth about Zeta Reticuli. Fish concluded
Since we did not have the data to make such a map in 1961 when Betty saw it, or in 1964 when she drew it, it could not be a hoax. Since the stars with lines to them are such a select group, it is almost impossible that the resemblance between BettyòÀÙs map and reality could be coincidental. BettyòÀÙs map could only have been drawn after contact with extraterrestrials.
Alas, it is probably more complicated than that. Based on obsolete data, Marjorie Fish’s interpretation of Betty Hill’s map has been shown to be wrong. In the early 1990s the European Hipparcos (“High precision parallax collecting satellite) mission measured the distances to more than a hundred thousand stars around the Sun more accurately than ever before. Some turned out to be much further away than previously thought. Other research has looked at stars included in FishòÀÙs research. Two, 54 and 107 Piscium, have been revealed to be variable stars, while Gliese 67 and Tau 1 Eridani are in fact close binaries. Then some stars discounted by Fish have turned out to be potential abodes for life after all, for example Epsilon Eridani is not after all a binary star. Using FishòÀÙs own assumptions and more up to date data, six of the fifteen stars chosen by her must be excluded.
The Fish interpretation falls to pieces at this point, and at some point Fish herself confirmed this (see update section at the end). As far as I know, this was first pointed out in an article Goodbye Zeta Reticuli byˆà Brett Holman published in the November 2008 Fortean Times and the silence which has followed from supporters of the Hill’s account has been telling. Using more up-to- date details of nearby stars, one could probably come up with a reasonable match with completely different stars (no UFOlogist appears to want to do this), but that is beside the point, the whole idea that Betty Hill was accurately reproducing something she really saw is flawed.
Marjorie Fish’s map redrawn with the six no longer suitable or too distant stars removed. Note that the precise location of virtually every star really should be changed too as modern measurements disagree with the 1969 catalogue she used. The match is no longer very impressive. (Image credit: Armagh Planetarium)
Remember it was drawn from memory, so any correlation with the real stars is almost certainly the result of chance; the idea that this correlation can be tested and found to be accurate to so-many thousand decimal places is fantasy. I have never understood why it has ever been taken seriously, being based on what seem to me several big assumptions.
- Hypnosis is a real mental state which enables ‘lost’ memories to be recovered (to me it appear a kind of roleplaying game played by the subject and hypnotist).
- A hypnotised individual has perfect memory recall of what they have seen. (Note, for example, that Barney and BettyòÀÙs accounts under hypnosis disagreed about major details, especially in their descriptions of the aliens. Betty said they were hairless and wore grey or blue jackets and trousers, while Barney said that they did have hair on their head and wore shiny black uniforms with peaked caps which he compared to Nazi uniforms. It is interesting too that over the decades Betty’s story changed, dropping elements which later seemed silly like her aliens’ original bulbous “Jimmy Durante” noses.)
- An individual can reproduce from memory dots on a map with accuracy down to the millimetre? (Does anyone know how often Betty redrew the map?ˆà Was each copy identical?) Note that Betty Hill herself appears to have been unsure just how accurate her drawing was. She wrote “As for the 8 background stars – I really do not know if they exist and in that position, or if I added them to try to show that the other stars were seen on the sky map in the background. I know I added them to show that stars were in the background; however, as to their position on the original skymap, I am not sure.”
Here is a test, look at this picture of the constellation Reticulum for five minutes. A week later draw it from memory and see how accurate your drawing is is. (Image credit: Armagh Planetarium)
None of these seem believable to me. I believe that theˆà correlation with some real stars reported by Marjorie Fish is the result of chance. Betty Hill’s drawing is in no way at all proof of alien contact. I have no idea what really happened to the Hills on that September night but I am certain that the Hill Abduction case is not after all evidence of extraterrestrial visitation to our planet.
UPDATE: In June 2013 I was saddened to hear that Marjorie Fish had passed away. An obituary reports
As one of her hobbies, Marjorie made an investigation into the Betty Hill map by constructing a 3-D star map in the late 1960’s using several databases. She found a pattern that matched Mrs. Hill’s drawing well, which generated international interest. Later, after newer data was compiled, she determined that the binary stars within the pattern were too close together to support life; so as a true skeptic, she issued a statement that she now felt that the correlation was unlikely.
(Article by Colin Johnston, Science Education Director)
Colin, you had me going there! I really thought you were taken in by this, right up to the final paragraph.
Interesting to see Kappa Fornacis on the map. In Star Trek mythology this star is the centre of the solar system containing the planet Deneva, one of the most beautiful planets in the galaxy. Well, who knows? One day we may find out if it’s true!
Paul.
I’ve never taken this seriously (well I did at the age of 8 when reading about this case scared the pants off me). The Hills seem to have been impecable witnesses and Majorie Fish worked very hard but the assumptions behind the Hills’ story are just so wrong. The solution to the case lies in the “inner space” of the Hill’s minds rather than outer space!
You need to read this http://www.kochkyborg.de/BBHill/hill05.htm
Thanks for the link Sam. I’m impressed by the work put into this but remain unconvinced. It still depends on the idea that even it was based on a real experience that Betty recalled a map and drew it with complete accuracy. I don’t find this credible.
Ahh, you need to try past life regression for your self!!
I’m afraid it wouldn’t work on me, I don’t believe in hypnotism or past lives!
Yes, even on brief acquaintance (Your Betty Hill article) we’ve noticed what you don’t believe in. You can of course proscribe your own view of reality – but we don’t have to accept it.
The number of realities you are dismissing is pretty large by any measure.
I am sure she was accurate and all that doubt will see in the near future. She was a strong woman to tell the story. I know she is right.
Hi, thanks for your comment. So why are you so sure Betty Hill’s story is an accurate depiction of what happened that night?
“I am certain that the Hill Abduction case is not after all evidence of alien contact”.
What proof / evidence have you of that statement? If none, it then lies in the domain of supposition and speculation.
No one can say what happened to the Hill’s on that night. Betty was reporting an event which she and her husband experienced. It is my opinion that she believed what they reported. The only aspect of the incident I have a problem with is the star map. It doesn’t feel right to me.
Only The Hills can say what happened to the Hills on that night. Who are you to say your personal feelings override what may very well be empirical evidence?
“I just didn’t feel that Galileo saw what he claimed to see.”
“I really wasn’t feeling it when Darwin drafted his conclusion about what he saw on the Galapagos islands.”
Don’t ever bring personal feelings to the table as a counter argument.
Did I say that? It was a bit sloppy of me if I did.
Your examples aren’t great though, both Galileo and Darwin brought real evidence to the table. Evidence that, it is claimed, some of their opponents refused to even look at. The Hills brought evidence that was examined scientifically but doesn’t pass muster.
Hi, let’s turn the question around: what proof have you that the Hill case is evidence of alien contact?
I believe you overlook one important thing, regarding memory of such a star chart. You say –
“Here is a test, look at this picture of the constellation Reticulum for five minutes. A week later draw it from memory and see how accurate your drawing is is.”
Betty described the star chart as being what we now would call a holographic display; it existed, according to her, in three dimensions, glowing, in a screen of some kind.
She was terrified almost beyond reason, so she claims, and undergoing a peak experience so powerful that nothing else in her life could compare.
You test is invalid.
You should have said:
“Try looking at a future technology 3D floating holographic map of Zeta Reticuli, whilst being addressed by an actual alien being with different smell, look, and behaviors than a human, yet with intelligence in it’s eyes, while simultaneously being frightened beyond your capacity to cope, and stimulated by wonder and awe greater than you have ever experience in your entire existence.
A week later, try to recall that map.”
Under that appropriate test, I personally would be unable to forget that map, likely for the rest of my life. It would be burned into my mind like any horrific, mind-shattering peak experience.
I’m not saying Betty Hill was proof of contact.
I am saying you are vastly misjudging just how strong her memory would be.
Her memory would be as seared into her as the most terrible memory of a soldier at war, every detail burned into her brain – if the experience were real.
If the experience were real, then it would be that powerful.
It would be the most traumatic experience a human could suffer other than, perhaps, partial vivisection. If it were real.
This must be considered.
Hi. I don’t believe your theory that fear or stress induces total recall of a visual image (plus the ability to recreate it with an accuracy of a few millimetres) is correct. Note too that how the map was displayed to Betty is another of the elements of the story that has changed with time; originally it was on a page of a printed book that the alien leader showed to her, only in recent decades is it it described projected by a holographic iPad gizmo.
The Hill case was interesting because the map could be interpreted to contain astronomical data not in the public domain at the time. My point is that recent research has totally disproven that. It’s just another tall tale!
According to Elizabeth Loftus, emotional trama accompanying the experience reduces accurate recall.
Are you sure about that? I’d thought that Loftus made her reputation by showing that eyewitness recall of traumatic events was not necessarily accurate. I’d appreciate a reference to where you heard this.
Colin, would it be fair to say that one could count on their left hand the sum total of seemingly ‘interesting’ incidents be it a encounters of a second or third kind (using Hynek’s classification) that have occured worldwide?
There are lots of reports that are interesting (in the sense that any tall tale is interesting), but there are none that can be considered evidence of extraterrestrial visitation!
Just my 2 cents;
-I actually think Jennifer has a point that Betty (or anyone) would be in a heightened conscious state and quite possible under such circumstances to leave a stronger imprint on one’ memory under the circimstances
-Where did you read that Barney said they had hair – I haven’t found it. At one point he mentioned that one of the crewmen looked like a ‘red headed irishmen’ but he was using a simile and it wasn’t meant as a literal desc. but more alluding to an impression of ‘friendliness’.
– The key point is that both Betty’s and Barney’s description of the experience while under hypnosis matched fairly closely. It was Betty’s dream material that differed from both Betty’s own, and Barney desc of the aliens/experience under hypnosis
– The explanation of the star map as a hologram was later ascribed (by others) to the map that Betty saw as a possible explantion of what she was seeing. As far as I know, she never ‘changed’ her description/story from ‘I saw a map’ to ‘I saw a hologram’
– Even the most ardent sceptic doesn’t characterize their experience as a ‘tall tale’. That would imply something made up, consciously, to intentionally deceive. Everything I’ve read about it indicates they honestly beleive in the veracity of what happened that night.
Having said all that, personally, when push comes to shove, I can’t believe the story (belief is all that is possible without any tangible evidence). Whether it was some bizarre invention of the mind, or something else, it will have to remain as just one of the more (few) fascinating ‘alien encounter’ stories around.
Dear RC, thanks for your comments. I got the idea that the Hills’ originally said the aliens had hair from various UFO books I read decades ago, but I checked the book Captured! by Friedman and Marden (a niece of the Hills). There I see that the aliens had black hair in the original bad dreams but the aliens were reported to be hairless in the hypnosis sessions with Dr Simon. Similarly, in the hypnosis session the map was in a bound book but it but Betty told Marden it was pulled down from the ceiling and was “almost like looking out a window about three feet wide and two feet high”. I interpret this as a description of a hologram (or similar)
I’m sorry but to me, a “tall tale” is just a hard to believe story (not necessarily a deliberate deception). I believe the Hills believed that something odd happened to them.
Hi again,
Thanks for your comments. RE: close binaries – it may be (looks to be) that close binaries, (i.e. gliese 67 on the star map), does not preclude the existence pf orbiting planets, even planets within the habitable zone. From the Kepler satellite;
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120828190127.htm
Actually, what is going on in astronomy today is absolutely ‘breathtaking’. The system described in the article is 4900 light years away! As a boy growing up interested in astronomy, what the advances in technologies/ techniques is allowing astronomers to do today is amazing – I’ve read it may be possible to analyze atmospheric content around some of these very distant worlds. Wow!
I found these on dvd at these sites if anyone is interested. Thanks
http://www.dvdsentertainmentonline.com/product/the-ufo-incident-dvd-tv-james-earl-jones-estelle-parsons-1975
http://www.vendio.com/stores/OldTimeMoviesandTV/item/the-ufo-incident-dvd-tv-james-/lid=6812813
the betty hill is real, it happened and the map is genuine, only those that dont want you to know are in the position to alter its meaning and facts . . . thats all there is to it . . . take for instance everyone pretty much knows who wacked JFK dont we, but again only those that dont want you to know are in the position to alter its meaning . . .
I agree with the above comment about heightened awareness during a traumatic event. It is very probable that if Betty did indeed have a close encounter–an exceedingly rare and traumatic event!!!–then she would remember the star chart. People tend to remember things that are out of the ordinary. An alien kidnapper, complete with spaceship and star charts, certainly falls in the extraordinary category in my opinion.
As for the up-to-date star charts raising the possibility of other alien home world candidates–well, I see no reason why you leave it to ufologists to come up with another candidate. Skeptics should take up the challenge. I don’t think it’s as easy as you imply. It could very well be that there isn’t another suitable candidate.
Finally, I would like to point out that other close encounters have left trace evidence which tends to be dismissed as simply conspiracy theories such as the sighting on the american base in England. It’s interesting that in a court of law physical evidence and a person’s sworn testimony mean something but where ET us concerned it’s all dismissed. I guess the bottom line is: seeing is believing and only the Hills know for sure.
Hi Lee, well until someone sends me a link to psychological research suggesting that traumatic experiences induce photographically accurate memories I will be unconvinced.
I don’t think you quite saw the point about more modern astrometric research. If Ms Fish was doing the same exercise today, some would be omitting dozens of stars which we now know don’t meet her criteria, and adding dozens which we now know do. Using her methodology in 2013 she would never get the same answer, that Zeta Reticuli was the aliens’ home star! It is impossible to use Betty Hill’s map to prove she met beings from Zeta Reticuli, modern research has shown this interpretation to be wrong!
I don’t personally feel the need to replicate Ms Fish’s work. The UFOlogists want it to prove an alien visitation occurred, so its up to them to prove their case. By the way, doing this would be very hard and take a long time. I really admire the effort Ms Fish put into her research, I was making the point that modern UFOlogists seem completely uninterested in accepting that the “traditional” Hill map interpretation has being invalidated. Instead it still seems to be one of the great pieces of evidence for alien spaceships.
I know little about legal standards for evidence but I didn’t think that sworn testimony alone was acceptable in law courts, in fact I believe eyewitness testimony has been shown to be highly unreliable, surely there has to be some form of corroboration.
I assume the American base you mentioned is a reference to the Rendelsham Forest case, I was not aware there was any physical evidence that an alien spaceship landed there. In fact to the best of my knowledge there is no evidence alien spaceships have landed anywhere, hence UFOlogy is not a science.
Colin, Nice post; I enjoyed your expert update on problems will the Hill/Fish map in light of recent discoveries. But I want to comment tangentially; while scientific consensus (or conventional wisdom?) has completely circled the SETI wagons around the radio contact thesis, I remain puzzled why no credence is ever given to the “von Neuman Hypothesis”– an exploration of the galaxy by self-replicating machines. The assumption that we would have detected any v/N machine in our own solar system is belied by NASA’s repeated admissions that we cannot yet even account for all earth-threatening asteroids crossing our own orbit. Moreover, after a v/N machine had entered our solar system and replicated, it takes no great leap to imagine it dispatching occasional stealth probes to Earth and other planets in our solar system for data gathering. Stealth probes functioning with capture-avoidance algorithms (=AI) might well display seemingly arbitrary and erratic aerial actions reported particularly in any number of airline pilot sightings. I am not persuaded that all airline pilot sightings on file are mere “noise.” Nor am I persuaded by the rather tired assertion about “extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence.” Even if true in a summative sense, it ignores the formative process that evidence gathering and evaluation MUST go through before any summative assessment of “ordinary” or “extraordinary” benchmarks can ever be applied. In other words, it’s a cop-out, given the imposition of a taboo against serious evidence gathering that will necessarily prevent summative assessment. A cop-out also known as a “catch-22.”
Meanwhile, keep up the good work, sir. Best regards, Don
I really must get round to writing about vN probes!
In my opinion we cannot use the possibility that alien spaceprobes are visiting Earth to explain UFO reports. We have no idea what an alien spacecraft looks like (I would expect an alien probe designed to be stealthy would not be easily seen or detected by radar), and no evidence that any UFO sighting was a report of physically real object. My reading suggests that pilots cannot be regarded as perfect observers (see http://www.armaghplanet.com/blog/astronauts-aeroplanes-and-ufos.html).
You may not like the “extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence” phrase, but anyone who wants to us accept that UFOs represent alien technology must present evidence. Sad to say, UFOlogists do not seem to understand this and are happy to go on rehashing the same sad old spooky stories (see http://badufos.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/that-citizens-hearing-on-ufo-disclosure.html for a recent example).
Thanks for the comment. I hope you do write something about vN machines. I’ll read with interest. Meanwhile, a couple further thoughts about “extraordinary” evidence. I’m old enough to have used a middle school geology textbook that dismissed continental drift as “puerile pseudo-science.” Yes, that exact phrase. I looked at a globe, and had sufficient temerity to write a letter to the author (I think he taught at Ohio State) expressing my questions about the contours of S. America, Africa, etc. Amazingly he wrote back! It was polite, but still quite the scholarly smackdown; wish I still had it, to frame next to a recent article on plate tectonics. As a geologist friend told me recently, none of the measurements that to that remarkable paradigm shift was really extraordinary in itself. What was extraordinary was the attitude adjustment among scientists that made systematic evidence-gathering and re-assessment permissable. But suppose, Colin, geologists had instead circled their wagons around the comfortable truism that it was “peurile pseudo-science,” and left data gathering to a fringe group of amateurs we might call “driftologists.” Doubtless, driftologists would have been rapidly aligned with even fringier folks like Atlantis zealots & hollow earthers (both were specifically mentioned in my letter from that guy at OSU, by the way). I can just see an amateur driftologist announcing a finding of a crust shift of half an inch, and being met with the catcall “You call half an inch extraordinary evidence?” Sorry, but I am skeptical that anything close to sufficiently systematic gathering and assessment of pilot reports has ever been done.
I think you’ve put your finger on it. Continental drift was proved to be a fact by the accumulation of physical evidence by scientists, not by retired naval officers saying that thirty years ago they watched the coast of Africa move and tracked it on radar or by leaked documents revealing that the US government has been covering up that in 1947 Roswell air base was a few metres west of where it is now.
BTW In the late 1990s the UK Ministry of Defence did systematically analyse 10000 or so UFO reports, some by aircrews. This is was PROJECT CONDIGN. The report found no evidence of alien visitation but the anonymous authors did suggest a novel atmospheric phenomena may trigger some UFO reports (rather dubious in my opinion).
For redrawing the constellation: after an hour or so, I got 5 stars making up the diamond right. I missed the star that is very near the star on left that makes up diamond. I put one star outside diamond on right. I put one star inside diamond. I put 4 stars in close grouping to left of diamond. I think my recall would have been different (worse) if there were no constellation lines drawn forming a diamond and I had to redraw it a week later.
I read that Betty first drew the map under hypnosis about two years later. Imagine staring at a constellation (Virgo for example) for several minutes and having to redraw it 2 years later. I bet even most people couldn’t draw the Big Dipper accurately.
I think you proved one of my points. Even if the Hills were abducted by weird beings, the map Betty Hill drew is not good evidence.
Dear Admin,
I’m a bit puzzled by your veiled arrogance as a skeptic. I find this to be a common occurrence- that skeptics deem themselves experts of what is and isn’t credible evidence. If it is the scientific method you wish to cite as your “religion”: being that a fact must be verified by multiple similarly reproduced results from various independent sources, you will find that some of the hallmark theories of the scientific age has never met this criteria.
(I present these examples, not with personal doubts of their existence, but as examples to stress that “evidence” and “facts” are relative to your epistemological beliefs):
1. The Big Bang Theory has not thus far been physically verified (nor could it ever really be, yet they are currently trying at the LHC), only theoretically reproduced mathematically (with caveats). And although many consider math to be purely empirical, math can produce possibilities that have absolutely no tangible evidence of existing (multiple dimensions beyond the observable four dimensions).
2. That black holes are literally a “singularity” is still (and will probably always remain) theoretical, even if the gravitational force they produce can be detected.
3. Physicists are still in search of the gravity particle (graviton) even though we experience gravity at every moment of our existence. Not to mention that the formula for calculating gravity (and many formulas in chemistry and physics) require a constant- which is usually an arbitrary value that zeros the equation.
4. Evolution has tons of “evidence” but we still have not reproduced the creation of a new species from existing ones in several different independent labs (yes, arguments have been proposed that new microbes and viruses were created in petri dishes, but these are really just altered strains of existing microbes, not quite the same as evolving eukaryotes from prokaryotes, or even vertebrates from invertebrates).
5. Primordial ooze experiments have produced complex organic compounds but still no self-auronomous life has come from them. And there is still is no sound explanation for why nearly all living creatures maintain L-amino acids while they live, which convert to D-amino acid equilibrium when they die.
Again, this isn’t an argument against science or any of these specific theories. This is, however, meant to exemplify that your idea “evidence” “proof” and “fact” still maintain a subjective referent to what YOU believe is “legitimate” knowledge. And this is chronologically as well as technologically rooted in your current pool of knowledge.
Today an American does not think that a man walking on the moon is absurd, but people in many countries still doubt that it occurred, and number of people that would doubt this as a possibility increases the further back in time you go.
No one can test or even observe all things. In the end, we all tend to “believe” that various information told to us is legitimate or not. I have never “seen” an atom but I “believe” others have. When enough people claim to have “seen” something (like the aurora borealis, or the green flash at sunset) even though I personally have not, I choose to either accept their validity or not.
No one needs to, nor should they bother trying to “prove” their experience to a skeptic. It did not happen to you, so you do not believe it. If you want acknowledgement of your skepticism, you have the burden to prove to the people who “saw” something that their experience was false.
Hi, thanks for your comments. I just want to clarify and correct you on some of the points that I think you are making (forgive me if I have misunderstood you on any of them).
I am indeed sceptical about many space and astronomy-related claims out there and I believe scientific methods are the best way of investigating the physical Universe, but I deny that the scientific method is my òÀÜreligionòÀÝ. I find that assertion as meaningless as saying “economics is my religion” or “arithmetic is my religion”.
I agree we cannot “verify” the Big Bang but that does imply the concept was just invented which is what I think you implying. There is extensive evidence that the Universe is expanding and that expansion began 13.8 billion years ago. The details of the Big Bang event are pretty well unknowable but based on observations scientists (of the cosmic microwave background for example) can make informed speculations.
Astronomical objects of extreme density have been observed; their properties match those predicted of black holes. This seems very good evidence that they are indeed black holes (you actually seem to be agreeing with this) whether or not there is a physically real singularity at their centres.
I don’t understand the point you are trying to make about gravity.
Biology is not my field but I was under the impression that there no biologists expecting to observe the evolution of species, phyla or even domains in the lab because human timescales are too short so the failure to see these is not really evidence against evolutionary theory’s validity. I understand that there are sometimes excellent fossil records showing organisms transitioning into other forms (fish into land vertebrates and land mammals into whales are a couple of examples) so it seems reasonable to accept that biological evolution occurs. Similarly it is not surprising that we have not observed abiogenesis in lab experiments.
I have the biggest problem with your statement “you have the burden to prove to the people who òÀÜsawòÀÝ something that their experience was false”. I have spoken many times with people who have observed phenomena in the sky they cannot identify. If I can suggest a known object or event that meets their observation I put it forward as a possibility, if I can’t I regret not sharing their observation, I never tell them their experience was false even if what they claim to have seen is fantastically unlikely. I do believe though that anyone who wants the world to accept that something remarkable is true needs to produce convincing evidence. There is a family of unicorns living in the grounds of Armagh Planetarium. Do you believe that? If not, why not?
Thanks for replying so quickly,
My point is the one confirmed by your endorsement of popular scientific theories.
You claim that the arguments for the Big Bang Theory are supported by “extensive evidence”. The theory was born from the fact that in the mid 20th century, radio telescopes detected a background “hum” pretty much everywhere in space, which seemed to emanate from a single direction. Since then, tests have shown that the “edge” of the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light, which violates a scientific law (law = proven, no longer a theory). Why the edge of an explosion that happened trillions of years ago would be speeding up similarly violates basic principles. But in the realm of astrophysics, they do not reject the observation (that the universe is expanding faster) but instead they seek new laws to explain why it is observed. In science, a phenomenon has to be observed first, then hypothesized, then tested. This is the proper procedure for the scientific method.
My point as it relates to claims of aliens and UFO’s is that many people have, and continue to claim to observe themòÀÔmany more people than the number of physicists who have actually observed the expansion of the universe. Yet for the big bang, which by definition is still a “theory”, you consider the claim of its supporters to have extensive evidence. And yet you call the claim of alien encounters “fantastically unlikely”.
Your reply about black holes is that astronomical objects of extreme density have detected properties that match those predicted by black holes. Again I say you are ‘putting the cart before the horse’. Black holes have been theorized to explain what we observe as being super massive objects in space. But black holes, like the big bang, remain theoretical because they have not yet been confirmed.
To accept things based on the belief or faith that they can or will be confirmed, without actually having the means to confirm them, is no different from religion.
My point about gravity addresses the same issue from the other end. Gravity is something we all can confirm, yet we do not fully understand it. This relates to the alien debate as a counter-argument example. A person does not need to be able to explain everything about aliens for their experience of them to be considered a real experience. I, nor the top astrophysicist, can convincingly explain what causes gravity, but we all can agree that it exists and we experience it.
Your reply of biological evolution use the same subjective endorsement that you used for the big bangòÀÔthat it “seems reasonable to accept” even though it has not been reproduced in a lab. The criteria for scientific confirmation requires reproducible results. The effects of gravity are reproducible in a lab. Evolution has not thus far. The fact that biologists don’t have enough time to prove (macro) evolution does not exempt it from that criteria, which is why evolution (no matter how reasonable it seems) is also still a theory.
So coming back to my statement that the burden of proof is on you (although I was referring to the general skeptic, not you specifically), your reply was that when you spoke to people who claimed to observe something, you offer the possibility of an explanation that YOU deem is more plausible. My point here is that you are the one offering an explanation to counter their experience. So you should accept the responsibility of not just suggesting, but also proving to them why your explanation of something you had no first-hand experience of, is better than their ‘lying’ eyes.
Getting back to the Betty Hill case. You said in your previous posts that the “star map” is not proof that aliens exist. This is a convenient diversion for you, to conflate her claim of an alien encounter to just one element in her story. Of course the “star map” is not proof that aliens exist no more than my map of Canada proof that Canadians exist. We know that Canadians exist, but simply showing the geographical land mass is not evidence of the people who live on it.
Betty Hill never meant for her “star map” to be evidence of her claim. She drew it, not the aliens. The claim that she was shown a region of space that she was unfamiliar with by aliens is the line of evidence that should be addressed. It doesn’t matter how accurate the map is, no more than it matters how accurate the Dogon tribe of West Africa was with their knowledge of the companion star to Sirius (which for a time was thought by scientists to be a black hole, but now is scientifically theorized to be a white dwarf). The fact is that she claimed, like the Dogon, and many people for many years, to have had contact with beings that were not from Earth. To prove her wrong would require convincing her (not me) that every part of her story is better explained by alternative theories. Of course you are free to choose not to believe Betty Hill, but please recognize that in the end your skepticism is based on your beliefs, not based on a mastery of scientific facts, evidence, or understanding.
Just to briefly respond to some of your points:
Your comments on the Big Bang theory, discovery of the expanding Universe and Cosmic Microwave Background radiation suggest that you perhaps should read Simon Singh’s excellent book Big Bang which is a great introduction to these amazing discoveries to better understand their history and scientific background.
You understand, I hope, that the term ‘UFO’ is not the same thing as ‘alien spaceship’, and ‘anecdote’ is not the same ‘scientific evidence’. Many, many people have told anecdotes about observing things in the sky that they cannot identify, in my personal experience the vast majority (9 out of 10 as a rough estimate) have completely mundane possible explanations. The remainder mostly have too little content to make any meaningful attempt at explanation. Astronomers have produced numerous high-quality repeatable observations that the Universe is expanding. There is no comparable evidence of alien spaceship visitations.
I am in agreement with you that the existence of black holes is not completely proven (we have yet to directly observe one) but we have observed things that meet the predicted parameters of black holes. If we reject these he have to surmise there are things that tend to the same extreme density as black holes yet are something completely different!
I acknowlege that it is not impossible the Hills encountered aliens, my argument is with all the UFOlogists who claim the ‘map’ is the central evidence that they did. We know this is incorrect yet still it is lauded as proof!
Your understanding of the Dogon people’s claimed astronomical knowledge is based on knowledge that I believe to be out of date. There is no evidence that they had any hard to obtain astronomical knowledge at all, see for example the Bad Archeology site.
I am sorry that my inability to accept claims of alien visitation seems to upset you, but I think our views on what constitutes evidence seem irreconcilable.
Dear Admin,
by referring me to a book to “better understand the history and scientific background” of the Big Bang (and I stress again) THEORY, is condescending. What part of the radio telescope discovery of a background hum that I provided was inaccurate? I agree that people should know how this theory came about. Perhaps you should revisit your own source, and a few others, and I will agree to revisit the Dogon, if you can provide a source that doesn’t require that I store their junk on my computer (as the Bad Archaeology site requires). Or please, cut and paste the info from that site here in your response.
Agreed, “UFO” is not the same as “alien spaceship” and “anecdote is not “scientific evidence”. I might also add that a first-hand account is not the same as an “anecdote” (would you call a rape victim’s account an anecdote?), and a “hypothesis” (as all theories are) is not “scientific evidence”.
Many of the “remainder” UFO accounts you dismiss as “anecdote” come from first-hand accounts of pilots, astronauts, and even government investigators of UFO’s whose intent was to discredit the claims. Those “remainders” add up to over 100, just in the United States, just within 50 years. Add to that the reports now being released from the governments of the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Australia, Russia, even China, and it becomes apparent that something significant is occurring that we admittedly can not explain. If you feel uncomfortable using the term “alien” then stick with UFO, but it is becoming puerile to overlook the credible claims that have been unsatisfactorily explained. Sure, there are hundreds of thousands of claims that can and should be dismissed, but at least acknowledge that several governments could not dismiss hundreds (worldwide) of claims.
And if you want to make an argument for the small percent of unexplainable claims compared to the percent that can be dismissed, I would open up the line of argument for the “wobble” of the planet mercury. How Kepler’s laws of gravity explained the motions of all the planets except for Mercury’s “wobble”. Trying to explain this relatively insignificant blip is what led Einstein to come up with his theory of gravity. History is filled with scholars making significant scientific advances by investigating the rare, unusual, or unexplained. Why stop at UFOs? I’m sure you are aware that Stephen Hawking said that to his “mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational,”
So maybe you should explore why this possibility makes you think irrationally? Do you fear aliens? Is your self confidence and identity rooted in the stability of your world-view? Or do you hold past anger or discouragement towards faith-based epistemologies?
In conclusion, the Betty Hill map alone should not be considered the central evidence for aliens in her account, but her testimony should be added to the growing number of testimonies regarding them. And your inability to accept other people’s accounts as evidence (although that is exactly what a testimony is called in a court of law) does not upset me. Claiming that your explanation of what someone else experienced is more credible because you believe you better understand the universe through the current scientific epistemology is a little upsetting, but it is even more disappointing and counterproductive. It is akin to telling a trained musician that they missed a note because you didn’t hear it. Or denying a chef’s recipe based on only the flavors you could detect.
I spent my whole life studying science, so I am quite proficient in its use, but science is just a method. Its limitations are rooted in the same thing you dismiss from others: observation. I reiterate that science is rooted historically and technologically to the culture wielding it. I guarantee that with better instruments of detection, the current theories on the big bang, gravity, and yes maybe even UFOs, will change.
Dear Charles, I’m sorry that you were unhappy with my book recommendation. The point, as described in Singh’s book, is acceptance of the Big Bang theory came about through decades of astronomical observations in different sub-fields not just by scientists leaping on one single observation.
You can find up to date material on the Dogon and their claimed knowledge of astronomy across the internet and in libraries worldwide. In brief, they had not received information from space beings. By the way I find the Bad Archeology site excellent and I have no reservations about recommending it.
Reports from crime victims are used as evidence, but (note I have no legal expertise at all) I do not believe they are used as the sole evidence, I believe medical reports, forensic evidence, statements from other witnesses are necessary to make a case for the prosecution. If I am correct this says something on the legal standing of eye witness reports.
It is difficult to accept UFOs to be a real phenomenon if that requires a much lower standard of evidence than any other hypothesis.
The main reason why governments appear to releasing their UFO files is that there is nothing of any significance in them, so these releases cannot be said to be making any case for the reality of UFOs (rather the opposite). I do not find UFO reports by astronauts, pilots etc significant, using when you look into these reports they fall apart see UFOs,Astronauts and Aeroplanes.
I find it telling that you think my scepticism of reports of alien encounters is a failing on my part. I accept that you believe in the existence of aliens and this is important to you. I do not think aliens beings are currently visiting Earth based the evidence I have and read of. Please bring me compelling evidence and I will change my mind!
Mr. Admin,
in response to your September 4th reply:
I maintain that the Big Bang Theory is based on the observation of the background hum. The background hum IS real, repeatably observable, and seems to have an origin “location” in space. The remaining “astronomical observations” that you perhaps are referring to are the relative motions of far distant objects in space. Based on the red shift in their spectra, their velocities are estimated to be traveling away at great speeds (doppler effect). The red shift discoveries were separate observations that Big Bang enthusiasts have adopted to promote their theory. But anyway, these red shift and background hum observations DO pass scientific scrutiny because they can be repeatedly observed by anyone with access to the technology to do so. BUT the explanation given for why we observe those things is nonetheless a theory, and the Big Bang is just one of the theories.
This same pattern of mistaking explanation for fact is not unique to the scientific epistemology, but has indeed reoccurred throughout history. Case in pointòÀÔ Ptolemy’s (and others) explanation of the “celestial spheres” to describe the motions of the Sun, moon, planets, and stars was a “theory” to describe REAL observations that anyone at the time could look up in the sky and see. Please note that Aristotle’s explanation was taken as FACT for over 1,000 years! It wasn’t until more careful observations and better technology to observe the motions of celestial bodies led to better theories (hence, an epistemological shift to the current scientific age).
The Big Bang Theory has not been DISproven yet, but neither has many UFO or alien theories that you would consider “fanciful”. My point in taking up this argument with you is not so that you will believe in aliens. It is to educate you on the bias you show in supporting some theories and claiming THEY have substantial evidence while claiming the theories you don’t support lack credible evidence. I presented some popular theories from the scientific community to exemplify that many of their theories have the same type of observation-based evidence as some UFO cases, and that some of those same scientific theories lack conventional ways to test them, just like some UFO cases.
In the legal system, many people have been convicted simply by a (often coerced or forced) confession. But yes, crimes SHOULD have evidence, which for almost all of the 20th century included photographs, eye witnesses, police reports indicating an investigation took place, fingerprints when available, hopefully testimony or the body of the victim, and preferably the crime weapon. DNA was not regularly admissible in court until the mid 1990’s. Many UFO cases similarly have photos, eye witnesses, government documents indicating an investigation took place, first-hand testimony, radar tracking, elevated radiation levels, physical burns on victims, and in some rare cases physical traces.
I checked the Bad Archaeology site on a public computer (it asks to put ‘cookie’s on your computer-why?), and the attempt to discredit the claim of the Dogon seems to be based on the website host simply saying the original research was based on a single source who can not be found and one other researchers attempot to corroborate it produced nothing. The man the web host mentions as the single source died, as that research was conducted over 70+ years ago. And a single researcher trying to uncover secretive knowledge of an indigenous african tribe two generations later should not be taken as evidence disproving the original research. To do so would be to ignore the cultural change that has taken place in west africa in the past century. Also any anthropologist would tell you that the researcher’s ability to extract secretive knowledge from a foreign group depends on and requires a long period of establishing trust among that group (see Margaret Mead Derek Freeman debate).
In other words, YOUR acceptance of the claim to discredit the research on the Dogon apparently required little to no evidence. Hence, your assessment of “evidence” seems hypocritical.
Your statement that governments are releasing UFO documents because there is nothing in them is ignoring the actual content of the reports.
If you are sincere about investigating UFO evidence, some released government documents can be found here: http://archive.hmvh.net/txtfiles/ufoalien/FOIA1986.TXT
and some of the credible testimonies you deem as lacking can be found here: http://www.educatinghumanity.com/p/most-credible-ufo-cases.html
and cases where physical trace evidence was left behind can be found here:
http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/physicaltracecases.htm
I honestly have not the time to go through the lists of UFO cases you have provided. Which single UFO case do you find most convincing?
I’m Colin by the way.
P.S. Legends of unicorns most likely stemmed from South Asia, where reports of the existence of the woolly rhinoceros extended into epi-historical times (~2nd or 3rd millennium B.C. cultures like the Harrappan civilization and others in the ancient Indus valley).
Having never been to the Armagh Planetarium, my first inclination is not to assume you are lying, but instead to ponder in what way might your claim be “considered” true.
Dear admin, your getting owned by Charles, who seems to be a truth seeker. You on the other hand are obviously not in search of truth but merely the safety of what your brain can comprehend. Because we know the lack of evidence of an occurrence does not disprove said occurrence, the truth seeker must be open to all possibilities that are yet to be disproven, you don’t sound open to these possibilities and even mock those who are as “wanting” to believe but many of the people who come forward are ridiculed and wish they could go back to their ignorant lives. Anyone who just wants to know the truth and had some common sense can read the conversation between you and Charles and read between the lines, where you are defending your position and Charles is simply stating facts about how science works and is constantly evolving. The only truth is we are very far from the truth. Cuddos to Charles, I thoroughly enjoyed your counter intelligence in this debate.
What a fantastic exchange between Colin and Charles. Both of them have valid ways of looking at the UFO/ET phenomenon. The word that keeps popping in my mind about the subject is “definitive”. I am having a definitive experience right now in that I am clearly observing a bookcase across the room I’m in and in that bookcase are DVD’s. I have not been “positioned” in my chair but, instead, know I walked over to it and sat down in it and I know for a fact that I put those DVD’s in the bookcase and I can observe the titles on them.
I am thus having a pretty darned “definitive” experience right now in my chair in an environment that I’ve been in many, many times. The word definitive means “done or reached decisively and with authority”. I could thus decisively and with authority state 3 years from now that I had sat in this chair and had a bookcase full of DVD’s about 10 feet from me. If I had moved during that 3 years I would have no way of proving to anyone that I had that experience, but for me it is absolutely definitive.
Also, it would not be beyond someone else’s belief that I had that experience if I told them about it. The experience fits in nicely with other’s experiences and as far as myself thinking I’m delusional 3 years later in recounting it, I certainly wouldn’t feel like I was. Nice, comfortable stuff.
However, what is not nice, neat and comfortable is the light I saw in the Cascade mountains of Wash. State in the mid 80’s that was as big as Venus in the night sky that was traveling at a high rate of speed and took an abrupt 90 degree angle turn witnessed by one other. Or the light seen traveling from west to east over the northern edge of the Cascades in Canadian airspace that then stopped in it’s tracks and did a 90 degree turn noiselessly up over our heads and down to the volcano, Mt. Baker.
Or the orange fireballs that I recently saw ascending rapidly from east Tucson that went up into the cloud layer over the Rincon mountains on a breezeless night and, no, these were not Chinese lanterns unless they can travel several hundred miles an hour with no wind.
These were all definitive events in that there was no doubt what I saw and I can speak with authority that I saw these things plus the witnesses who were present attest to the same story. These sorts of experiences are actually quite common but most people don’t want to talk about them due to ridicule. If you don’t believe me, simply ask as many people as you can if they have ever seen something in the sky they couldn’t explain. What you will hear from very ordinary people can be quite astounding. Often they will say they have never told anyone about the events before.
I’ve heard countless very compelling stories from people who would tell you that their experiences are quite definitive in the sense that these experiences happened exactly as they have recounted them but they are far less sure as to what exactly these experiences are.
To relate these experiences to unicorn sightings is very typical of the skeptic. There is no relation. Go ahead an get out there and ask a few hundred randomly selected people if they have ever seen a unicorn and then ask them if they have ever seen a UFO and what exactly did they see. No one is going to say they saw a unicorn but many, many people are going to say they saw something profoundly interesting in the sky.
Also, I disagree with the usual comments by skeptics that there is only a tiny, tiny percentage of reports that could not be explained by ordinary phenomena. I have found from questioning people that its just the opposite. I also found that a lot of people WANT their experiences to fit into the norm so that they can feel more safe and secure about what they had seen. If a large white light is seen in the night sky traveling on the horizontal, then stops and remains stationary for several seconds and then changes trajectory and travels off at a high rate of speed at a different angle…how is this a shooting star? How is that Venus? How is it a military flare?
Read the reports on the National UFO Reporting Center and get out of the armchair and talk, talk, talk to people. Its one thing to wait for people to come to you with stories but just give it a try by asking co-workers or people you casually meet if they’ve ever seen a UFO. You’ll be astounded at what you hear. And if you are afraid to ask people such a question then isn’t that a little odd in itself? One would think that with all the stories out there about UFOs as well as TV shows about the phenomenon that it would be an interesting topic to bring up and discuss. Sure, go out there and ask people randomly about what they might have seen and you will see a lot of guarded responses but work your way through that by keeping your questions casual sounding and friendly curious and you may be surprised at what people will open up to you about.
Actually Betty drew the star map at home after the session. Dr. Simon asked her to draw the map at home and to bring it to the next session. Who knows how many attempts Betty took to come to the final map. Also the map was first mentioned in her dreams, (November 1961) were she gave a very similar discription of the map she drew for the doctor nearly three years later.
In the end… the UFO nutcases win, but only by default because there’s so many of them and not because they’ve proven anything. This generation has become one that will believe any conspiracy theory thrown at them… it’s sad that many still believe that the moon landing was faked.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWx4f3fqF18
The caller was right the first time, he is a cuckoo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drSqtw0Qywk
Why doesn’t someone just fly a rocket out to wherever that planet is on the star map, come back and report their findings to end all this nonsense.
It would be great if we could do that but the Zeta Reticulum star system is 37 or so light years away. There is no propulsion technique available that could send a probe there.
I do not know why there is such bs going on when people like Betty and her husband say they were involved with an alien incounter. I can explain the map she drew…as soon as I saw it I knew she was telling the truth…the key point was when he (the alien) asked her where she was on the map…and she could not tell them (the ailens)
thus, the point is until she understood where she was on the map there is no way she (or we) could understand where they were or are…I can not only explain what the map shows I can show you how string theory connects with the observable world which is the only way we can understand what the alien meant when he asked her where she was on the map… :o)
A final point on the “star map” is if what Betty saw and was told, why isn’t the Earth on one of the exploration routes? or were the little grey men just on a probing holiday?
I am looking at this from a different point of view. I find it interesting that people are not considering the era when Betty and Barney Hill made reports about this incident. First off, even during that time or era it was not acceptable to be a biracial couple.
As if that was not enough, to then go out and claim to be abducted by aliens? In this day in age, conspiracy theories, alien abductions are common. Back then, no one would have been idiotic enough to report something so “out there” if there was not some sort of truth in it. They did not want it to get out… the story was leaked.
From what it appears, Barney and Betty Hill were quiet, respectful, both with important jobs. After the incident, Barney became very proactive in the community and the civil rights movement. Betty was a social worker.
I can’t say I know this story to be true, I was not there, however, I do believe something happened to this couple. To me it would seem that it took a lot of courage to report this incident. I think sometimes you have to consider all aspects, without saying that you have to accept or reject an idea or incident just because it does not effect you personally.
I am hesitant to comment but just for my two cents worth here it is. Nearly 50 years, 46 to be exact, my boyfriend at the time and I used to sit on the balcony of my two story apartment that I shared with my dad and look out at the sky. Very romantic. Several nights in a row, we saw a bright light in the sky. It raced across the horizon from, yes, the direction of Area 51 to the opposite end of the city. We pondered it and became very curious so one night we decided to chase it. We saw the light and jumped in the car and raced down street to a dirt road in the desert and traveled in the direction of the light. While driving down the road we saw little clouds of what looked like mist on the side of the road and commented on them. To this day, I am not sure what they were, probably a natural phenomena. Once we were down the road and noticed that the craft was coming closer we stopped the car and got out. We were only 17 years old and before this had no interest or much knowledge of UFOs nor were we on drugs or alcohol. We stood in the middle of the road, no one else around, and the craft came slowly up to us and hovered over us. I think they came up slowly so as not to scare us. The craft was smaller than a passenger jet but seemed massive because it was a solid triangle, no wings. It was so close we could almost reach up and touch it. It was really quiet except for a low hum. It hovered there for probably less than a minute and we noticed it had a triangular shape with lights at each point of the triangle, red, green and white. Nothing really happened, they just took off and quickly disappeared from the Area 51 side of town to the opposite side. There was no revving of engines or any sound that accompanied the abrupt departure. They quietly left at a high rate of speed.
As far as I know we were not taken for any purpose. In fact we were not shaken or fearful but excited and decided to go to the airport and ask someone about what we had seen and gave a description. No one could verify that there was a plane or any aircraft that met the description so we left. It never occurred to us to check with the military, we just chalked it up as a cool experience. We had not lost time nor were there any signs of abduction. That was all there was to it as far as I know.
The reason I tend to believe Betty Hill is that she described their initial encounter that was similar to mine. But that is where is stops. I have never had dreams about abduction ever nor any evidence that I was tested or experimented on and in fact I don’t believe I was. But, I know what I saw and what we saw in 1968.
Betty Hill’s map looks exactly like the one from The Crystal Knight epic, somethings gotta be connected
I was amused to see it appear on a monitor in an episode of the Aquabats Super Show too.
Why do individuals who have not had a U.F.O. experience, try so hard to discount or disagree with those who have? All govt.’s for most of history have always and in all circumstances,poopooed U.F.O. sightings. Only now is England and I think France and Russia, releasing info about U.F.O. occurrences. Yet millions, maybe billions, believe in a God with no scientific evidence what soever. Maybe U.F.O’s planted the seeds for human life? It certainly would make more sense than a deity mucking up his project on earth and creating humans who have tried their very best to destroy the creation!
Because we need evidence, not stories.
How much of this released info is about alien spaceships?
don’t regret it
(LINK REMOVED- ADMIN)
It might not be possible for some but in this link the Russian akademik Levashov is showing through the description of old russian folk story called skazka how accurate Bettys map is. All of this was and is true. But the enemies from dark force would like to hold us in the dark.
Here is the link to his site who is interested!!
(LINK REMOVED- ADMIN)
Links removed because they did not appear to have anything to do with the article – ADMIN
On the topic of the star map that she drew under hypnosis it must be emphasized that this
Women Betty hill was basically a simpleton when it came to the sciences no knowledge of astronomy what so ever but the fact that she claims that these alleged aliens showed
Showed her a book containing star maps particularity the zeti reticuli system even if the
The map today would be considered flawed
The point is how could she even have known about this particular system without someone or something telling her about it in the first place.she has to be given at least some credit for that, an while it does not provide proof of any kind that these creatures
Actually exist one must come to the conclusion that indeed something very strange did infact happen to this couple on that lonely dark road back in 1961 or 62,on a side note
Betty hill mentioned that the alien leader was going to give her a book containing star maps etc. the retracting his statement why? What are they afraid of certainly not us perhaps they fear in the future that we may come looking for them as well.
under hypnosis she had asked the alien leader for the book containing star maps the
Alien later saying that they could not give it to her my question would be
What are they afraid of she’s no harm to them an neither would this species perhaps their fear full of the future that we may someday come looking for them,also if they did infact GI
Dear Roget, thank you for your comments. I have two responses.
The word “simpleton” should not be used to describe anyone as it is more a term of insult, I have not edited it as I am assuming that English is not your first language and this would be an easy mistake for a non-native speaker.
Betty Hill never claimed the aliens were from Zeta Reticuli until Marjorie Fish’s flawed analysis suggested it. We now know this star systen is not indicated on Betty’s drawing!
You might also enjoy The Truth About Zeta Reticuli (Link)
I am a theoretical physicist working in the area of Quantum Mechanics, so I have little to say about the Betty Hill event that occurred while I was in grammar school. My only input is my observation that established science (as in this blog) is somewhat hypocritical in how it deal with UFOs/ETs as compared to other “out there” sciences, such as my specialty. I deal with “phenomenon” that are currently un-explanable and, in some ways, impossible under our current understanding of physics (such as “spooky action at a distance”).
Yet, new ideas, new conjectures (even stupid ones) in QM are not mocked and ridiculed like anything in the UFO/ET area. When we observe a strange phenomenon in physics, even if it seems insane or is very rare, we see it as an opportunity to perhaps learn something new. We do not dismiss it out-of-hand. That is not the true scientific method, the openness to new ideas.
Yet, most people (and almost all scientists) are scared to report a UFO encounter, lest they be ridiculed. If I wrote a paper exploring the possibility that some, however few, UFO events might be something real my reputation would be severely damaged. Thus no serious research looks into these events. People reporting them, most in good faith, are called nuts and charlatans. That should be extremely troubling to any real scientists who yearns to discover the truth about our universe. If the UFO phenomenon is nothing but explainable events, then a real scientific investigation would show that. Instead, ridicule and dismissive blogs like this.
Yet, one-on-one, when I discuss this issue with other scientists they quietly agree (even my friends at the SETI Institute!) But no one will say this too loud or write about this for fear of the backlash. A very sad situation.
So my ultimate point, Colin, is keep an open mind, don’t dismiss things out-of-hand. Something is happening out there for so many people to report so many things. Like QM we have no real idea what it is. And many of the witnesses are solid people (when they speak up) like airline pilots, military personnel and even a few (brave) scientists. The old adage “where there is smoke there is usually fire” might just be true and we scientists may end up with the proverbial pie on our face.
Dear Dr J, thank you for comment. My biggest problem with claims that UFOs are alien spacecraft is the dismally poor quality of evidence submitted. I do not regard myself as being a hypocrite for demanding something other than anecdotes. In your research you must be performing reproducible experiments or observing phenomena and publishing your results in peer-reviewed journals. Ufologists absolutely (in my experience) shy away from doing this, preferring to retell spooky stories rather than carefully observing and recording the sky for evidence for their hypothesis.
How could you reproduce something when the technologies and maybe even physics involved are obviously completely unknown?
And to say there is no evidence is just not true, many eye witness accounts are at least verified by radar data. Ok, there is no evidence for alien spacecraft, but it is the likeliest explanation according to the Cometa report(written by military defense analysts). They say that a “single hypothesis sufficiently takes into account the facts and, for the most part, only calls for present-day science. It is the hypothesis of extraterrestrial visitors”. The report also concludes that the studies it presents “demonstrate the almost certain physical reality of completely unknown flying objects with remarkable flight performances and noiselessness, apparently operated by intelligent beings.
Dear Steffan, thank for commenting here.
I am sorry to say that I do not know what you are referring to in this question. Can you clarify please?
Are sure that this is correct? For example if you research the the famous Belgian F-16 attempt to intercept reported UFOs, you find what actually happened did not reveal very good evidence for UFOs being physically real objects. A ground radar station observed an apparent object rapidly manoeuvering, but witnesses on the ground instead reported a group of stationary lights, while the crews of the F-16 aircraft observed nothing visually or on radar despite at times being exactly where the radar reported the UFO to be located!
You do know that the COMETA document is a completely unofficial publication written by believers in alien visitations? Why do you believe that the writings of former military personnel are automatically trustworthy?
You might enjoy this article Astronauts, Aeroplanes and UFOs (link)
Funny how I got on this website – wanted to do some research about near star systems for my science fiction novel and suddenly read about the Zeta Reticuli incident and wanted to know everything about this supposed alien star map.
I’m applauding your immensily well researched background information and discussion in the comments even after all those years. I am interested in everything about signs of extraterrestrial life and one could assume a “real” alien star map would be a huge story for all the alien enthusiasts, but in the end it remains just that: a story. We will never know the truth. We will never know what these little dots show exactly. Maybe there was a grave mistake from the very beginning. Why is everyone so sure those “aliens” are from a world near earth? Maybe the dots are showing a bunch of stars 300 ly away we don’t even know about yet. Maybe, maybe not. In the end people are only assuming. And really – halluzinations?
Yes, I admit, I don’t believe it at all. For me, this whole incident sounds like a bad alien abduction story from the 60s. This is just not my era. This happened decades before my birth. It’s not of any use for our scientific progress to dwell in past maybe-maybe not stories. I completely agree with you: those old stories are and will never be an evidence for extraterrestrial life. We should concentrate our minds on the real science – like the search for exoplanets and exploration of our own solar system. So please, dear scientists: believe in science!
After reading the comments, I have the distinct feeling there are a lot of people out there who are believing in this alien (Edited for language-ADMIN) or at least that there must be some connection between all those 20th century “alien abductions”. I think there is indeed a connection: If you look closely, in those decades, expecially in the 60s space exploration took a great step forwards. The first satellites. The moon landing. SETI. All of this was mostly hyped in the states. People were getting interested in space. People were forced to accept, that there is a whole galaxy, a whole universe out there and that we could not be alone in this universe. Same time, the first “alien abductions” took place. Mostly in the states. Coincidence?
Great article so far. All in all it’s an interesting story and now I spent half of the night reading about it… Sadly it’s not even a fresh idea for science fiction, but I like maps. And I like your blog, I think I will read some more articles later.
Dear Catlin, thank you for your kind words and good luck with your novel.
Well said, I couldn’t write it better, pal!
I started to follow your blog
I, having experienced a unidentified flying target on 4 different radars while in the USAF in Sept 1957; two consecutive nights around 2 AM, just randomly appeared did not fly in. The 2nd night, NORAD scrambled two F-89Ds aircraft (with radar) to have a look. Closing in on the target, we (12-15 Airmen) watched on our radar screens the target go from a hovering position perform an incredible acceleration and then made an impossible hi-speed 90-degree maneuver straight up pass 75,000 feet. Nothing we had then or even today could close to duplicate those events observed; just the g-force alone would have destroyed the craft and everything else associated with it.
I am in the process of writing my second patent for a technology that could duplicate those events we observed 58 years ago titled òÀØLow Energy Technology for Teleportation PropulsionòÀÙ. The previous patent titled òÀØLow Energy Technology for Real TeleportationòÀÙ has been applied also this year, but not yet been granted. So during my research, I ran into the Betty HillòÀÙs abduction and the space map, which Marjorie Fish duplicated with wires and beads. I look at this map in an entirely different context than anyone else. When one is designing something that doesnòÀÙt exist, and even science states impossible, you donòÀÙt listen to the skeptics; authenticity has to come after its feasibility. What aligns with real teleportation is the trade routes, care less about the stars.
In real teleportation, (least wise in my patent) the technology needs to be both at the origin and at the destination. That map makes sense, if trade routes were all over the Universe, I would have doubted its authenticity, it not being feasible. Even with the map it would have taken them many years to create those trade routes. One has to wonder instead of them giving us the technology to teleport, it just could be possible we gave them the technology. I say that because Nikola Tesla was talking about in his speeches 107 years ago of using teleportation of real objects. New York Times 21 April 1908 (on the web – google it). He told us back then how to teleport. I am just proposing current technology òÀÓ bmeupteleport.com
Why would any other species be interested in a species that acts like wild animals, constantly killing each other? Could it be possible many thousands of years ago they saw a different species here? A civilization based upon peace and love versus the greed and evil we are plagued with today. An intelligence that made it to their world and gave them the means to travel lightyears. Could they be trying to help us get back to some sense of living peacefully and expanding our world past earth again? Or maybe they don’t exist at all, its all our imagination – just like the tooth fairy and Easter Bunny!
Cool stuff here!
Colin,
I’m in the process of co-authoring a book on UFOs. I would like to use both Betty Hill’s original star map and that done by Marjorie Fish as illustrations for the book. Can you tell me if there are any copyright restrictions involved in reproducing these two star maps? If so, to whom should I apply for permission to use the images?
Dear Tim, thank you for your question. I believe these images are covered by copyright. Although the Hills and Ms Fish are sadly deceased I believe that their respective families own the rights to them. The versions in this article were redrawn by me to avoid infringing any copyright.
Good luck with your book.
Would it be possible to use your redrawn version of Marjorie Fish’s map? If so, what, beyond attribution, would you require for our use of it?
Dear Tim, I’m sorry but I don’t think we can help. Can your publishers not help you get permission to use the originals? If you are in the USA, is there not a “fair use” principle which would let you use them? (I don’t know this for sure, there is no similar concept in UK law but I have heard it discussed.)
Once again, I’m sorry I can’t help you.
Thank you anyway, Colin. I think I’ll just redraw the map myself. This article and your article on the Zeta Reticuli system, have been very helpful.