The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

UFO couldn’t save Betty and Barney Hill

hills.jpg

Even though Betty and Barney Hill’s alleged abductors seemed to have cutting edge medical information and instruments, they (the abductors) couldn’t save or chose not to save Barney Hill from a pending cerebral hemorrhage which he died from eight years after his abduction and medical exam by the gray UFO beings who had what seemed to be advanced medical knowledge and procedures.

Betty Hill, who died much later (2004), of lung cancer wasn’t cured either, or apprised of her potential disease.

What does this tell us?

That the episode was bogus, a fiction, or that the UFO occupants were a callous lot, who cared little or nothing about the human beings they had kidnapped.

And the UFO beings in other contact cases --Travis Walton, Parker and Hickson in Pascagoula, Shirmer, (to name a few) -- have been described as cold, indifferent, lacking compassion or sensitivity to the plight of those abducted.

But the indifference of the Hill captors was portentiousless, and cruel; the callous “objectivity” of the Hill UFO beings was almost satanic.

Or, perhaps, the medical expertise of the gray UFO beings is not as advanced or evolved as UFO stories would have it.

Something happened to the Hills – something imaginatively or something real but bizarre.

We can never know what the Hill story means. It’s remains a mystery or a contrived influential canard. But we do know that whatever the Hill episode was, it reflected a fiction or a strange reality wherein the main “characters” were probed, like guinea pigs, and left to die, without any help or instructions from their medically-oriented captors.

Either way, the Hills ended up getting no health benefits from their concoction or abduction. The incident that defined them was no help in the end. That is the nature of UFO episodes: nothing good comes from them, whether they are contrived or real.

28 Comments:

  • This is a very curious post. What is the motivation for it? First of all, I don't see how this really says ANYTHING about the ETs. So, they let them die of their respective diseases...human doctors do that to patients all the time. No insurance? Well, I guess you're screwed, pull the plug. Lets also consider if the ETs are here doing research. How do we treat our research animals? We inject them with various substances, and see how they react. Many die, and in painful ways. Many argue this is an animal rights violation (which I would agree with), but the point being they would be no different than us in that regard. I find the closing paragraph very telling of a negative point of view toward ET/UFO encounters, saying nothing good ever comes of them, whether they are real or fictional. How about a broadened understanding of whats going on out there with just that extra tidbit of evidence/testimony? I argue, once again, for the scientific approach to these encounters, not an emotional one of fear/anger/distrust.

    By Blogger armakan01, at Thursday, June 18, 2009  

  • Armakan01:

    Our position, over the years, has been that the UFO beings, if they actually exist, exhibit no signs of ethetic or humane behavior: no art, no music, no compassion.

    The Hills, if their story is true, show the grays to be lacking any sensitivity whatever, as is the case in other abduction stories, especially Travis Walton's.

    If the Hill's story is a fiction, one could see how the abductors in their story would not know about their medical problems, since the Hills themselves didn't know how ill they both were.

    You argue for a "scientific approach" to such events or tales as that of the Hills.

    Now just what exactly would be the scientific methodology involved to pursue this matter?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, June 18, 2009  

  • I don't think you can come to that conclusion unless you dismiss other cases that where abductors report them as compassionate. We have to understand most contact are aboard space craft. I would think operating a craft takes discipline and control of one emotions. So to equate a possible military type environment with the real attitude of an ET on it's home planet is shortsighted.
    I do think you raise a very important issues when it comes to the idea of enlightened ETs. Our ideas of enlighten may be wrong. Not corrupting another species by interfering in the natural order of things may be very importing part of there enlightenment. Abductions may be necessary for many reasons but getting involved with humans personal behavior or health could lead to emotional involvement which they may want to discourage.

    Joe Capp
    UFO Media Matters

    By Blogger Joseph Capp, at Thursday, June 18, 2009  

  • Joseph:

    All abduction accounts of contact with UFO entities indicate an indifference or lack of "humanity" that bespeaks a species with no connection to morality or compassion.

    In the Hill case, if such entities had a medical expertise or technicality far in advance of our own, they could have intervened and "cured" Betty's lung cancer and stemmed or prevented Barney's pending cerebral hemorrhage.

    That the entities did neither shows a barbarity that evolved beings would not/should not have.

    Or the "beings'" medicine was as primitive as own at the time, and is a detail that could help clarify what they are or who they are.

    Was the Hill abduction a CIA charade, similar to that in the Villas Boas incident?

    Did the Hills enter a Bruce Duensing surreality, where all they experienced was contrived for purposes that make little or no sense to we humans, as has been the case with God or those deities who created this world and have played with us for millennia?

    The Hill case, and a few others, have to be re-examined for a pattern of behavior by the alleged abductors or a pattern of fiction by those telling tales of abduction.

    The UFO mystery is intertwined with the human mystery of why we are here, on this Earth...the purpose of being, as it were.

    Duensing is a brilliant thinker who approaches the real reality of UFO episodes and related strange episodes that baffle science and thinking men and women in general.

    You and a few other UFO aficionados take a mundane view of UFOs: they are ET-oriented.

    This view may be right, but it seems that more is going on than just an intrusion by extraterrestrials who treat human beings (and even cows) cavalierly after traveling stellar miles to get here to see what this Earth is all about.

    Even time-travelers wouldn't be so dismissive of their prior generation.

    Would curing Barney or Betty Hill have screwed up the future? Or put a chink in the space-time continuum?

    A review of classic UFO cases needs to be taken, with blinders off, and fresh viewpoints considered.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, June 18, 2009  

  • Rich,

    If it is OK with you to post this invite on your blog, those interested to have a fresh viewpoint, can read a three-part article I wrote on the Hill's story at http://parasociology.blogspot.com/

    Eric

    By Blogger Eric Ouellet, at Thursday, June 18, 2009  

  • Eric:

    As usual, you provide a brilliant exegesis of events and your views on the Hills incident should be must-reading for anyone interested in UFOs and the subliminal ramifications of them for humanity's collective unconscious.

    We'll be noting, at all of our blogs, your parasociology blog, which exemplifies that desire of ours for out-of-the box viewpoints.

    Your approach to the UFO mystery is unique and, again, just brilliant.

    Thanks for the comment and link.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, June 18, 2009  

  • Well . . . here’s the bad news . . . our space brothers are not going to save us from dying, which is the inevitable result of life. Sorry if you’re waiting for some kindly, Godlike aliens to take away all of life’s pain and suffering and give you eternal life. You’re going to die before that happens.

    Why are you presuming that aliens can cure death or would dare to if they had the power? Even on earth, different cultures view death differently. You’re just looking at it through one lens of a particular color. There is no universal viewpoint.

    Nothing you’ve said disproves the Hill’s experience. The post-traumatic stress both experienced is a good indication that something out of the ordinary happened to this couple on that lonely New Hampshire road.

    By Blogger purrlgurrl, at Friday, June 19, 2009  

  • P:

    To give the epithet "space brothers" to our alleged alien visitors doesn't work, if they are not able to or cannot use their supposed medical advances to help those they choose to scrutinize in their abduction activities.

    Yes, something happened to the Hills, but was that something self-instigated or a truly extraterrestrial-oriented event?

    The Hills experience is moot, still.

    As is every other UFO episode...

    Your "space brothers" are not here to help, just as God hasn't helped humanity, since the Garden of Eden scenario.

    We humans are alone, fending for ourselves, in a cold, cruel universe....that's the real reality.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, June 19, 2009  

  • So have we decided on this blog not to allow thoroughly explained opposing viewpoints, or was there just a technical error here? I posted a long follow up to your reply to my first post and have seen many comments approved since then, but not mine. Just don't like my viewpoint (which is echoed by others, so its nothing new) and care not to publish it? This is the second or third time I've seen this happen on this blog to me. The first couple times I didn't care all that much about the topic, but I'm a little more adamant about this one. So...care to explain?

    By Blogger armakan01, at Friday, June 19, 2009  

  • Armankan01...

    We publish all comments, except those from anonynmous blokes who wax vulgar.

    Re-send your comment...we didn't get it or it ended up as spam in our Google mail and was inadvertently deleted.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, June 19, 2009  

  • The same thing happened to me. I posted a comment last week. This is what I said:
    _______

    It might have been a good idea to declare an 'assumption of reality' as far as the Betty/Barney abduction story goes.

    The article ended up being kind of amusing with the need to continually refer to the possibility that it was not a true non-human encounter. Stating something like "Assuming the Betty and Barney Hill story is true" would have improved the readability off the article too, IMO.

    As far as the idea that they weren't very compassionate goes, I agree with armanak01 in that it's a strange point to try and make. There could have been any number of reasons and unimaginable variables that impacted the situation, not least of which is the possibility that these being either weren't as advanced as were implied (which you mentioned) or that they had no way to peer into the future -- and as far as they could determine there was no guarantee that either Barney or Betty would develop the ailments that they did.

    By Blogger Gareth, at Sunday, June 21, 2009  

  • Gareth:

    Something happened to Betty and Barney Hill, but it was something, possibly, quite different than their hypnotic interpretation.

    So saying something like "assuming that the Hill story is untrue" makes it seem that they were liars.

    The story may be a fiction, but contrived by whom? The Hills? The abductors? The CIA as part of an experiment, like the Villas Boas incident of a few years earlier?

    We are not inclined to write our stuff as others would write it. We write in our own way, and hope that readers get the gist even when they would have taken a different tack.

    so thanks for the suggestion(s), but we'll pass...

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, June 21, 2009  

  • RRR:

    My point was that it would help in structuring the article. I actually said:

    "Assuming the Betty and Barney Hill story is true".

    Including that statement at the start would allow you to avoid the constant qualifiers when discussing the possible alien motivations.

    By Blogger Gareth, at Sunday, June 21, 2009  

  • Gareth:

    Those constant, repetitive qualifiers were used to make a point...literarily.

    Not literally but literarily.

    I regret that they offended your sense of literary rightness.

    When it comes to UFO accounts, qualifiers are a must.

    (You know why of course.)

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, June 21, 2009  

  • "I regret that they offended your sense of literary rightness."

    lol

    Fair enough. I was actually thinking while posting that last comment that it was kind of an irrelevant point to (try to) make.

    Subjective too.

    Ahh well, that's what I'm here for! To get the important issues at the heart of the matter.

    By Blogger Gareth, at Monday, June 22, 2009  

  • Okay, let me see if I can drum up a response similar to the one that got "accidentally trashed." I'm going to take a step back from what people like Joseph, purrlgurrl, and Gareth have already stated, although I agree those are all very valid and probably viewpoints to have on this situation.

    Allow me to paraphrase something I've heard from Michio Kaku (granted, he's not the epitome of science, but he makes good points). Kaku says something along the lines of imagining us (humanity) as ants on an anthill (the Earth). Now, imagine the aliens are building an "interstellar highway," just as we would build an interstate highway, next to this figurative anthill. Now, when humans do this, do we go down to the anthill, offer them cures for their diseases, trinkets, secrets of the universe? No, he says, instead we simply step on a few of them.

    Now, I don't want to support your "aliens are cold and evil" hypothesis by saying this, only to point out that morality is relative. To these ants, humans have become evil, heartless, emotionless beings. They show no art, no compassion, no ethical behavior. We have just become this anthill's worst enemies, and they aren't even sure we are real due to our scale compared to theirs. See how this could be a very valid comparison?

    We may consider ourselves to be extremely intelligent, but really, when you look at the rest of the animal kingdom, we're not all that great. We're just pretty smart apes, that's it. How could we even comprehend what a being even a thousand years more advanced than us could be doing, let alone even further advanced (what about a million years?).

    If what happened to Betty and Barney Hill was an ET experience, to say that since they didn't cure their disease is heartless is just, well, kind of bleeding heart I have to say. To ET, we may be nothing more than animals (I would think that to be pretty accurate, I doubt they'd see us as equals). Do we cure every diseased animal we ever come across? The obvious answer is no. That doesn't make us heartless or evil, just perhaps we have different priorities, and so does ET. Maybe ET was just out for a ride, checking out the planet, saw some people and wanted to get a closer look. I'm sure curing humanity's diseases never crossed their mind.

    By Blogger armakan01, at Tuesday, June 23, 2009  

  • Armankan01:

    Beings far in advance of us would recognize, I think, a cognitive species, such as mankind, and not confuse it with ants or animals.

    Since Betty Hill had a colloquy with her abductors, they had to know she was a sentient being.

    You want the Hill creatures to be kind of superior to humans but kind of stupid also.

    That doesn't work for us...

    Try to make your point again, won't you, but this time make it sensible.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, June 23, 2009  

  • Okay, I'm not sure if by the "Hill creatures" you're referring to my analogy of the anthill or of the Hill's themselves, since you capitalized, but the answer is the same in either case. Where do I claim them to be superior OR stupid? I've not really discussed the Hills too much in my replies, only to use as examples in the discussion of how this post is an odd point to try to make in the first place. Regardless...

    There is a strong debate in scientific circles where cognition actually occurs. I think we can safely say chimpanzees, great apes, etc. are cognitive species as well. The point I was trying to make is this: in the grand scheme of things, we are hardly more advanced than these other primates. To the arrogant human, we are the pinnacle of evolution: so superior and separated from our other animal kin simply because we are slightly smarter and have developed technology.

    To paraphrase a quote I have heard before: "There is a larger difference [intellectually] between the majority of us and a genius, than in the difference between the majority of us and an ape." The reason I quote this is because of the following: if this was ET, they would most likely be much more advanced than humanity as a species.

    Cognitive as we are (or are not), let's imagine what, say, 1000+ years of genetic manipulation to the ET brain could achieve versus our natural evolution into our current "cognitive species" status. Do you doubt that they would be almost incalculably more intelligent than us? In this respect, they could lump us in as a strange, mutated ape which is barely more cognitive than any other species on this planet: hence, not unique. So, why go out of their way to fix diseases which are commonplace in this smarter-than-average animal?

    I'd imagine if we had taken the time to try, we could by now communicate with other species on this planet more effectively than we do. I know this has been done to an extent with great apes, but not very deeply. If we could develop this communication technique to the point where we could have a conversation (within the other species intellectual limits, of course), we would have to say that this being is also sentient, even if they were slightly stupider than us. I'm sure if ET is visiting, they would have come to the same conclusions.

    So why have I argued all these points? Sure, we're unique. But only slightly. And to an outside perspective, perhaps not unique enough to deserve any merit or special treatment. And to correlate this with our own experiences on Earth, there are many animals/insects we feel the same way about: unique, but not unique enough to really deserve special treatment (i.e. given rights as we have).

    So, just because ET doesn't cure all our diseases, end all war, end all famine, etc. doesn't make him a heartless, cold bastard. It makes him a logical, impartial observer and WORST, but my whole point of arguing in all these posts is to point out we don't have near enough information to make these conclusions. Not by a long shot. And to try to make them as you have bespeaks more to your opinionated worldview, not of any conclusion drawn from evidence, be it anecdotal or scientific.

    Was that point "sensible" enough for you, or does it need more clarification?

    By Blogger armakan01, at Tuesday, June 23, 2009  

  • Armakan01:

    You always make good points but seem to eschew the idea of just throwing out some conjectures that may be bizarre, but apropos of the UFO phenomenon.

    One has to look at such cases as the Hills from an oblique perspective, since the whole episode (and most UFO episodes) turn on their inherent obtuseness.

    To apply (or try to) "scientific logic" to UFO events just won't work. or hasn't thus far.

    Rigorous scientific methodology is not applicable when it comes to UFO incidents.

    We (and others) have argued the similarity of UFO events to quantum events...see our other blog -- rrrgroup.blogspot.com -- for examples and locate Bruce Duensing's blog (Intangible Materiality) for an erudite summing up of the quantum/UFO connection.

    We must throw creative darts at the UFO question, hoping that one of them will hit a bullseye.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, June 23, 2009  

  • Maybe the aliens are just jerks?

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Thursday, June 25, 2009  

  • Well, Nick, the alleged behavioral patterns of the extraterrestrials have not indicated an intellectual species among them, so you may be right, as usual.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, June 25, 2009  

  • You asked earlier how we could scientifically approach this case. Maybe we can't do anything for previous abductions, like Betty and Barney Hill, but the following link is a good argument, I believe, for ways we CAN approach this type of event scientifically. At the very least, it's a start.

    http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0609/correction.php

    By Blogger armakan01, at Friday, June 26, 2009  

  • UFO is a term used to describe any aerial object that is not otherwise easily explained or described. UFO sightings have occurred throughout history. In fact, paranormal light sightings like shooting stars or the northern lights could be described as UFOs by observers in history who did not know how to identify such occurrences. Photos and video proof of UFO sightings can shed some light on the question, are UFOs and aliens real or an elaborate hoax? Find out more at http://ufos.org

    By Blogger oprina tiberiu, at Sunday, June 28, 2009  

  • Its amazing to read how objective these posts are toward each, the abductees and the abductors providing excuse for each and all of their behaviors or lack thereof -- But mention someone who is a contributing American, a conservative and votes Republican, Constitution Party or Libertarian and who believes in self protection via the Second Amendment and Concealed Weapons carry permits and we have a war, hate-filled exchanges and name calling! The real idiot here is the animal lover who eats meat, believes in abortion but demonstrates against death penalty for a mass murderer et al
    it seems everyone is wanting something to beleive in especially now that no one can beleieve in obama as being anything other than another politician who strangely looks very much like Barney Hill

    By Blogger chaser48, at Saturday, July 25, 2009  

  • Chaser...

    Huh?

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, July 26, 2009  

  • Could not an "alien" device that was used on Barney have caused his eventual demise?

    A word of advice: Think before you write. It helps to hide your bias.

    By Blogger Chip, at Thursday, August 20, 2009  

  • well... There is the bizarre case of ruwa 1994 ufo (google this) whereby an agenda was comm'd to young kids.. Having said that I wonder if anyone knows of an African abductee in Africa. There is one gentleman who claims so, Credo Mutwa, but apart from his case I know of no other.. Could the ET,s be racially biased? In my dreams though I always get a replay of a great day of arrival of the ET,s..and I wonder what that day will bring?

    By Blogger Ranto Bokgo, at Wednesday, October 23, 2013  

  • Well,this topic is bias.Well at least for rrrgroup.your pretty much saying if you see a hurt monkey on the street and have all the utensils on you to help them you would.most if not all human beings wouldn't it's in our nature to only help ourselves,family and friends.by helping human beings or not does not prove a sentient being is more intelligent or less intelligent than us.I truthfully believe the more intelligent means a less emotional impact towards other beings.as a people we harvest beings,but because we can't communicate with the beings we eat they are considered worthless.so all I'm trying to say is you can't say alien beings are evil because they didn't help the humans they abduct.the means of an occult or just a hoax solution just tells me you already chose the answer you like the mos and without a open mind or plain common sense.

    By Blogger will lopez, at Sunday, May 11, 2014  

Post a Comment

<< Home