Thursday, July 18, 2013

The Betty And Barney Hill Alien Encounter Was NOT A New Development

In 1955, a book by George Adamski, entitled Inside the Space Ships, was first published. Among its illustrations, the original hardback edition contained 'Saturn Scout Passenger Section (Top View)' - a diagram by Glenn Passmore of a spacecraft that George Adamski recounted being inside. In his account of the April 1955 experience, Mr.Adamski quoted a Saturnian man as having told him, while they were on board:

"Although this Scout was built on Saturn, no particular planet owns it. Instead we share it. Consequently, its crew has members from all planets.

As you can see, this is a large Scout and designed for long-range travel. It can remain away from its mother ship for a week or more without having to return for recharge, as it carries generating equipment on board which serves this purpose..."

In 1965 or 1966, Barney Hill made a sketch of the spacecraft that he and his wife, Betty, had been taken onto by aliens. This sketch was published, in 1966, in the book by John Fuller entitled The Interrupted Journey.

As you can see from the scanned excerpts of both of these drawings, reproduced below, the Barney and Betty Hill craft was depicted as having an entrance in the same lower-centre position as the entrance to George Adamski's 'Saturn Scout' was depicted as having been. Another similarity worth highlighting is that the 'corridor that appeared to circle craft' in Barney Hill's sketch is basically the same feature as the 'corridors' depicted on the Glenn Passmore sketch as encircling the Saturnian craft.

It can be ascertained by anyone comparing Glenn Passmore's original, substantial published diagram to Barney Hill's sketch of about ten years later, that the interior layouts of the two spacecraft - as portrayed by these two men: Glenn Passmore and Barney Hill - are much too much alike for the evident similarity to be easily dismissed as being of no significance.

During the more than 45 years that have elapsed since details of the Barney and Betty Hill alien encounter were first published, a big, false idea has been spread by prominent people within so-called UFOlogy.

Most of us with a serious interest in the 'subject', have not tended to question this false idea, probably because there seemed, superficially, to be one or two very good reasons to believe that it was really true.

However, if you take the time to study both the contactee accounts of the 1950s and the Barney/Betty Hill account, with a view to finding similarities, you discover that numerous common factors are there: these are straightforward and obvious to perceive.

The idea promoted by, among others, anti-contactee prejudiced abduction researchers, Budd Hopkins and David Jacobs, that the Hills' alien encounter was a new development in publicised Human-Extraterrestrial interactions, has now been proven to be false.

We need not be misled any longer on this matter by biased men and women serving up a false view of history.


Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Sean Donovan Responds

In response to my post explaining the situation, from my point of view, regarding the removal of the forum from his Daniel Fry website, Sean Donovan has sent an e-mail, in which he has kindly provided the text from most of my posts on the forum. See below:

Jun 07 2013, 08:48 PM

Deletion of the Forum on Daniel Fry Dot Com

Hi Daniel,

As I do every once in a while, I search for Daniel Fry related topics on Google to see what people are writing about him. I stumbled across your blog entry "Sean Donovan of Nullifies My Existance"

As you took personal offense at my suggestion that "no one ever used it anyway", I have changed the wording [link]. 

Below are the content of the posts you wrote on the forum if you with to republish them:

Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:44 pm 
Post subject: Daniel Fry and The Hills : A Link Established

For more than 40 years, the impression has been given in literature and other media concerning Extraterrestrial encounters, that the case of Betty and Barney Hill was - in ways that are rarely, if ever, specified - somehow radically different to earlier accounts of E.T. encounters by the people known as contactees. Anyone who takes the time to actually compare these alleged encounters (The Hills and the contactees), as I have quite recently done, will find that this long-running idea, is no more or less than a huge myth.

So-called UFOlogy - including me - has allowed itself to be misled on this matter for decades. Prominent individuals like Professor David Jacobs and Budd Hopkins have believed in and spread the Big Myth around to a wide audience, most of whom probably never bothered to read the contactee accounts to find out whether or not their favoured abduction-promoting "gurus" were being truthful.

Here is just one example of a feature of the Betty & Barney Hill abduction having been pre-dated by the same sort of feature in a contactee account - specifically the account of Daniel Fry....


Daniel Fry

‘..I had gone about half a mile past the rifle range on this road when I first saw it. The sun had been down for some time, and there was practically no daylight left, but the sky was bright with stars, and the moon, though not yet above the horizon, was producing considerable diffused light in the sky. As I looked up at a group of especially bright stars hanging just over the peaks of the mountains, one of the stars suddenly went out. This, of course, immediately riveted my attention on that spot, for stars just don’t go out (not in a cloudless sky anyway)…

…Then another star just to the right went out, and a few seconds later two more just below. By this time a strong prickling sensation was travelling up my spine. Whatever it was that was cutting off the light of the stars, was increasing rapidly in apparent size, and since the bearing remained constant, it could only mean that it was coming directly toward me.

Then finally I saw it and at the same time realized why I had not been able to see it sooner. It’s color appeared to be so nearly that of the night sky that even when it was quite close it was difficult to see anything but the outline…’

Daniel Fry The White Sands Incident (1954)

Betty Hill

Doctor Simon: When I talked to you last time.. and you said something like, “I looked at it, and I kept thinking I didn’t see it, because I was expecting to see the lights. And I didn’t see the lights”. You went on to say that you saw the bottom of it, right over the car. And you couldn’t see the bright lights or the stars. That you know this big, dark mass was moving right over the top of the car.

Betty Hill: Yes. That’s right.

John G. Fuller The Interrupted Journey (1966)

‘..I put down my car windows and looked out. I could not see the craft. Then I put my head out the window and realized I could not see the sky, nor the stars. Nothing but a large, black “something” above us…’

Betty Hill A Common Sense Approach To UFOs (1995)

Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2012 1:18 pm.

The comparative survey that I compiled on this subject is now posted on my FLYING SAUCERS forum. Hopefully, no one, after reading through the information at the link below, will be able to retain as a belief the 'Barney and Betty Hill case bore no resemblance to contactee stories' myth in their mind. 

Light That Cast No Shadow : Contactees & The Hills - A Basic Comparative Survey


Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 11:40 am 
Post subject: Intriguing Comment By UFO Historian, Jerome Clark

In an August 13th post on the UFO UpDates mailing list, Jerome Clark stated, in part:

'..I would add that the failure of any substantive evidence to
emerge for a hoaxed Socorro event after all these decades makes
its likelihood seem vanishingly small, though of course never
quite nonexistent, at least in principle if nowhere else...'

If no substantive evidence for a 'UFO event' being hoaxed has turned up after about 50 years, or more, then are we to think that there is 'vanishingly small' likelihood of the event actually having been generated by a hoax? This seems to be what Mr.Clark is implying...

How does Jerome Clark's concept apply to events reported by contactees during the 1950s and early 1960s, for which positive evidence has existed since that time, without 'substantive evidence' ever having emerged to consider the supportive evidence part of a hoax?

Daniel Fry Dot Com