AIC

would like to thank,

ERROL BRUCE KNAPP

moderator

for his permission to reprint these e-mail posts

X-Sender: updates@mail.globalserve.net

Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 20:39:41 -0500

To: updates@globalserve.net

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> Subject: UFO UpDate: The Hill case and social effects on UFO reporting Mime-Version: 1.0

To: updates@globalserve.net

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> Subject: The Hill case and social effects on UFO reporting Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 19:41:11 -0800

Nods to the Duke et al.

Any approach to the Hill case which ignores the consciously recalled and reported UFO sighting does a disservice to the case and to research generally. We know from the record that both of the Hills observed an object which remains unidentified. Barney Hill observed the object at close range through binoculars, and claimed to be able to see the leader through the binoculars. Apparently sufficient detail was available for him to be able to distinguish clothing and eyes, and the sight of one occupant's eyes was enough to convince him that the occupants were not normal (i.e. human).

There is also the physical evidence of the tops of Barney's shoes being scuffed (which was later correlated to his having been dragged up the ramp to the object), the broken binocular strap and sore neck (from Barney's fearful reaction to the sight of the occupants), the spots on the car paint (and an associated effect on a compass); and, finally, the medical effect of a circle of warts on Barney's groin (where the hypnotic account later indicated a device had been placed).

And, of course, the missing time period.

Betty's dreams did not begin until 10 days after the sighting. By that time, the sighting had been reported to the Air Force and to NICAP, and the Hills had done independent drawings of the object which agreed to the extent one might expect given their different perspectives on the object and normal observer variation.

As for the "Bellero Shield" psychosocial explanation for one aspect of the Hill case, it aired in 1964. Since Betty's dreams started in 1961, 10 days after the sighting, it could not have influenced the dreams, and thus, neither Barney nor Betty could have incorporated them into the abduction account, even if that account came from nothing more than said dreams. In addition, Betty mentioned the eyes as being very dark - almost black - in her dream account, but said nothing about their geometry, so we do not know what shape she thought they had.

Interestingly, neither Hill ever describe the occupants in detail under hypnosis. Barney drew his sketch and talked about the eyes, but Betty never described the occupants, eyes, or any hypnotic experience with the eyes. And since Barney noted the exotic occupant eyes in his consciously recalled story, one can reasonably conclude that this represents a real observation which may have affected which aspect of the occupant description was most important to him subsequent observations. In fact, if the event were real, it is also possible that, in accord with the "wish-fufillment" nature of dreams, Betty minimized the non-human aspects of the occupants in her dreams, so that the event would be less traumatic.

Let us consider the pro and con of a "psychosocial explanation" of the Hill case:

Pro physical reality

Consciously remembered UFO experience, physical evidence, medical evidence, apparent emotional trauma, long term psychological effects reportedly alleviated by hypnotic and other therapy.

Pro psycho-social

There are TV shows and movies which show aliens with "wraparound" eyes, and one of those was seen just before the first hyponotic session where Hill clearly described the eyes.

Psycho-social disconfirmation (in addition to pro-physical reality components)

Witness reports that they did not watch the program; occupant's eyes had been described as unusual shortly after the initial sighting; the hypnotic recollection of the consciously recalled sighting is consistent with its conscious recall, even after a lapse of 3 years; the therapist did not encourage any particular interpretation or ask leading questions, nor was the therapist familiar with the UFO literature.

In short, psychosocial explanations cannot solve this case. While confabulation is possible, and certainly must have occurred to some extent, even consciously, over a period of 3 years (as Haines [1980] showed in regard to another account), it is impossible to attribute several aspects of the case (esp. physical evidence) to confabulation.

Cause and effect seem to be reversed in applying psychosocial reasoning to the Hill case. Rather than taking the commonsense approach that trauma comes from real events, and such trauma stimulates psychological effects, dreams, tension, etc., this explanation states that dreams cause trauma, and the source of dreams is some form of literature, cinema or TV program. The explanation fails to account for much of the evidence in the case (not to mention failing to follow much of the psychological literature), and if the objective evidence of the case is accepted, the weight granted to the rest of the case must necessarily increase.

Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman

- Original digital art, writing, and UFO research - Author of SF novels available at...

http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront ------