UFO Conjecture(s)

Monday, October 08, 2012

Betty Hill's Recollection of Alien Symbols

Terry the Censor provided a linked image of Betty Hill's note about the "writing" she saw on a "book" in the alien craft that allegedly abducted her and her husband, Barney.

Here's Betty's remembrance:


Terry notes that this aspect of the purported Hill encounter hasn't received much ufological attention. Why not?

We are absorbed by the small residue of extraterrestrial symbols, most hoaxed, admittedly, but think the Zamora-seen insignia is significant to the denouement of that event.

Did Betty Hill actually see/remember, under hypnosis, alien writing? And if so, can it be deciphered? Or is it a mental confabulation (from within Ms. Hill's fervid mind)?

We don't think the Hill's created a hoax. They had a "real" experience, the nature of which is still open to scrutiny and discussion. We think the Hills were involved in a folie a deux brought on by something unusual that  triggered their incident, which, at its base, was an hallucinated experience.

That said, the perceived "symbolic writing" remains interesting, from a psychological standpoint or, if you must, a remnant of an extraterrestrial culture.

Also, why has this element of the Hill story been suppressed by advocates of the alien abduction explanation for the Hill tale, Stanton Friedman among them?

Terry the Censor, we think, and we would like to know...



  • I think it hasn't received much attention because its indecipherable.Are they numbers or letters? Are they arranged vertically or horizontally? Do they have a base zero numbering system? Are there capitals? No context of comparables. Sample is too small. In our little primitive world books are going by the wayside..so is it wrong to assume as an advanced race, they need their own information in a hard copy? How many digits ( fingers) do they have? For all reasonable purposes, it's gibberish. Theres nowhere to go with this ink blot.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, October 08, 2012  

  • I'm going to have to disagree Bruce.

    As a Freudian and fan of Conan Doyle's detective, everything is significant.

    Whether the "symbolic notations" are from the mind of Betty Hill or are actual recalled symbols she saw on a craft, the notations resonate, or should, in some forensic way.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, October 08, 2012  

  • Is that a date of August 2000 on the note?

    That may have something to do with why these aren't taken seriously. Betty was seeing saucers everywhere in the later days but no one else was seeing them. Even the true bluest believers realized that maybe Betty was prone to exaggeration.

    It's funny how the Jimmy Durante noses of the aliens (reported initially by Betty) faded away as the "proper" alien visage became part of the mythology. Believers just gloss over these kinds of facts.

    They also gloss over the rather earthly way the aliens spoke. Most hilariously when, after saying that they had no concept of time, one alien asked Betty to "wait a minute"!

    That this nothing more than the creation of a fantasy prone and often hysterical domineering woman seems like such an obvious and much more likely explanation for the whole case.



    By Blogger Lance, at Monday, October 08, 2012  

  • Indeed, Lance....

    Mrs. Hill seems to have confabulated from some internal imagery and predilections.

    And the writings, along with the infamous star map are part of her mental detritus.

    However, I don't think she was consciously hoaxing.

    But she did get deeper and deeper into her fantasy as time went on.

    The question for me is what triggered this "fantasy" or event?


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, October 08, 2012  

  • Have you ever tried to count how many examples of 'alien writing' there have been?

    There was of course Adamski. Then came Betty Hill, then Roswell; not in that precise order. There must be others.

    Come to think of it, didn't Truman Bethurum (or whatever his name was) once get a missive from his lady from Clarion written in French?

    How about other contactees or abductees? Lastly, what about the Aztec craft? Any writing associated with this?

    By Blogger cda, at Monday, October 08, 2012  

  • Surely Christopher, you've passed by the many examples of supposed alien messages we've posted here; some very recently.

    I'll put a few more online here; some of the obscure "messages" that seem crazy, but are they?


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, October 08, 2012  

  • The Hill case has always fascinated me, and I believe it was a genuinely anomalous event of some kind, albeit obviously not of a literal extraterrestrial abduction. The idea that the whole thing was entirely a creation of Betty’s imagination is problematical on a couple of counts. First of all, if we go back to the Hills initial recollections of the event in its immediate aftermath, prior to both the hypnosis and Betty’s dreams, we find that all the fantastic elements occur to Barney and not to Betty. Betty only sees a light in the sky; Barney sees (or thinks he sees) the craft up close, with passengers in the windows. During the initial event, it is Barney who becomes hysterical, after looking at the “craft” through his binoculars, and not Betty. If the whole incident stems from her imagination, then it should have been the other way around: she should have seen the passengers in the craft, and Barney only a light in the sky that Betty could project her fantasies onto.

    Another question raised by this hypothesis is: if it really was all Betty’s creation, why could Dr Simon not guide Barney towards this conclusion during the hypnosis sessions? We have every indication that Barney was never comfortable with the fantastical elements of the case, and would have been much happier if none of it was true, and yet when Dr Simon gently but quite persistently tried to guide Barney towards admitting that Betty had dreamed the whole thing, he wouldn’t budge. Since we are, as sceptics, keenly aware of how suggestible people are in the hypnotic state, and how easy it is for pro-abduction hypnotists to “lead” their subjects to confabulate, isn’t it then remarkable that Simon couldn’t lead Barney to concede that Betty had dreamed the whole thing, if this were not even a confabulation but the actual truth of the matter?

    The most intriguing, and least discussed, element of the case is the series of electronic beeping sounds which the Hills describe as bookending both their amnesia and the whole abduction experience. Those sounds, whether ultimately neurophysiological in origin, or something odder, seem clearly to put the Hills into an altered state of consciousness of some kind, and would seem to be to be the key to the nature of the whole experience.

    By Blogger Tristan Eldritch, at Monday, October 08, 2012  

  • Tristan,

    The creative mental aspects I'm referring to are the later embellishments to the story that Betty Hill added, on her own, after Barney died, like the symbols noted here.

    You are dealing with the core story which I think is an example of a folie a deux.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, October 08, 2012  

  • I have to disagree while agreeing regarding significance as any written language is essentially composed of signifiers or referents to either intangibles or materials. In this case, there are no materials unless you cross the line and say that an absent piece of evidence in context is material as a qualifier.
    In this case, in a sense it is but to me it points to redefining the nature of their experience which is a dream state. Certain drugs can do this, the stimulation of the brain by magnetic fields can do this, organic hallucinations can do this.
    We have to redefine our definitions. As you know, dreams can expand the experience of space, as well as make the prosaic recombinant. The fact that these cases are rare tells us that there must be several tumblers that have to be opened by both the environment and the observer. We have to redefine what a ghost is..Do ghosts need books? Or do we?
    You could say ( if you take all this to heart) this is an example that crosses and blurs the line between possession and discarnate memory acted out as if it were real but is more like a jumbled recording pulled from the observer and then the outside which is really the inside is projected. The major question is why. I suspect there are creatures of a sort that are and once had been human, and they desire life on any term, and the closest they can come is to be observed, experienced on their terms, not ours. Are they sentient? I don't think so but they very effectively appear to be. Our the people we meet in dreams sentient in of themselves? It's like being in a library where the books come alive. All this I suspect.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Tuesday, October 09, 2012  

  • Bruce,

    You're creating a clotted scenario for something that is almost simple; that is, either Betty saw the writing (symbols) and belatedly remembered her observation.

    Or she created the symbols from inherent memories.

    I think it's the latter: she thought she had seen such writing on the book that she noted in her initial accounts.

    Betty Hill came to believe and expand upon her core story.

    She wasn't hoaxing, as such.

    She, like Jesse Marcel Sr. and Jr., came to create supporting details for the original story.

    There is a psychological mechanism for doing that, and I'll address the issue upcoming, as it explains, not only the Roswell extrapolations and Betty Hill's embellishments, but also the Travis Walton tale, the Hickson extensions and other add-ons to some UFO sightings and encounters.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, October 09, 2012  

  • If so what triggered the experience wherein memory became recombinant and was projected as a external experiential reality? You seem to be focused on their post editorialising due to personality drives, which I agree with but these are effects and not causes. I don't think the beam myth and Betty Hill originated from the same root. I think you are overly simplifying these cases to make them quasi-intelligible, where they are clearly not. I would love to see you convince me otherwise.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Tuesday, October 09, 2012  

  • Bruce:

    It's not complicated nor am I trying to make the "page" (or such messages/symbols) quasi-intelligible."

    Again, we have only two reasonable possibilities: Mrs. Hill really saw symbols (writing) or created a recollection from her extensive reading about UFOs after the attention given to her reported abduction.

    You'd like to make, I think, the creation of the drawings into something more than a remembrance or a creation from amalgamated memory-detritus accumulated before (maybe) or (more likely) after the fact (of her abduction scenario).

    The latter explanation is called hyperesthetic memory.

    Mrs. Hill's "affliction" I think.

    Or she actually saw such writing and her abduction account was real.

    Symbols or writing showing up in various UFO accounts derive from hoaxes mostly, I believe.

    Mrs. Hill's doesn't fall into that category, nor does Lonnie Zamora's insignia observation.

    Co-joining my discussion here with the likely hoaxed creations confuses the issue.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, October 09, 2012  

  • It's an interesting theory. Of course the first question would naturally be if this diagnostic definition was in use at the time of the incident. If not, when? If it was in use, then were either or both screened for this malady? If it was not in use, purely from a speculative point of view, you probably know there are other symptoms associated with this ( physical as well ) and it would be great to see other criteria for this were met by either or both. Perhaps close friends or relations could recall. ( better than zero as far as medical records)

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Tuesday, October 09, 2012  

  • BTW
    I can just see it now. Instead of a trained and medically trained psychiatrist as questioner, we have a
    "enthusiast" loading them with biased leading questions chock to the brim with the potential contamination of circumstantial witnesses that cannot be "undone." And so it goes or not goes.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Tuesday, October 09, 2012  

  • Lance Moody wrote: "That this nothing more than the creation of a fantasy prone and often hysterical domineering woman seems like such an obvious and much more likely explanation for the whole case." - - -

    Blatant, misogynistic debunkerisms....

    ~ Susan

    By Blogger Brownie, at Tuesday, October 09, 2012  

Post a Comment

<< Home