medium.com/on-the-trail-of-the-saucers/fact-checking-ufo-lore-gets-results-e7f4f0fcd689Betty and Barney Hill UFO Sign to Get RewriteThe New Hampshire bureaucracy in charge of the popular road sign about the Betty and Barney Hill UFO abduction proves remarkably nimble in assessing a mistake, learning the truth, and making a change.by Bryce Zabel /
brycezabel.medium.com/Jan 26, 2022
INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING IS NOT AN EASY JOB. It takes time, results are never guaranteed, and its pursuit usually involves upsetting the status quo and offending someone. And even though it can win journalistic awards, actual change rarely results without a brutal pushback and a sustained effort.
That’s what makes this update to a previous story reported here at Trail of the Saucers such a remarkable moment. A case was made in our article that the historical marker erected in 2011 to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Betty and Barney Hill abduction story was incorrect. That effort netted not only five-thousand reads, but also a remarkable and unexpected byproduct.
New Hampshire’s Betty & Barney Hill UFO Sign Needs a Rewrite
It’s only 92 words long but contains two fact errors. On the anniversary of the Hill UFO abduction, it’s time to set…
medium.com
One of the readers happened to be the woman who is in charge of the State of New Hampshire’s road signs who has the responsibility and the access to make a change. Recently, she’s written to us to say that the existing sign will come down this year, and a new one — revised based on the evidence discussed in our article — will be made and erected. It’s extraordinary.
Why I Cared
For years now, I’ve been conducting my own independent investigation into the Betty and Barney Hill abduction case from 1961 to better understand not only what they claimed happened to them on the night of September 19th, but also the circumstances regarding the aftermath of their reporting the event, and its impact on their personal lives. I’ve done this for several reasons:
First, the case became a template for later alleged abductions and, as such, deserves extra scrutiny.
Second, as a trained journalist (BA, Broadcast Journalism, University of Oregon), and experienced investigative reporter (PBS, Los Angeles), I felt I had a skill set that could take a new look into this ‘cold case’ and maybe find something that had previously been missed.
And, finally, as a writer/producer in Hollywood, I had optioned the book Captured!: The Betty and Barney Hill UFO Experience and was developing it to become either a feature length film or a television limited series.
My understanding of the case has certainly deepened through this process. It made the story that follows possible.
What’s Wrong with the Sign
It’s only 92 words long, but contains two fact errors.
If you happen to take a vacation to New Hampshire and end up driving through the White Mountains on Route 3, you may come across this historical marker in Lincoln, near the northern end of the area’s quaint Indian Head Resort. The sign itself has become a tourist destination, and this is what it says:
Betty and Barney Hill Incident.
On the night of September 19–20, 1961, Portsmouth, NH couple Betty and Barney Hill experienced a close encounter with an unidentified flying object and two hours of “lost” time while driving south on Rt. 3 near Lincoln. They filed an official Air Force Project Blue Book report of a brightly-lit cigar-shaped craft the next day, but were not public with their story until it was leaked in the Boston Traveler in 1965. This was the first widely-reported UFO abduction report in the United States.
It’s a fine sign, something long overdue, regardless of what one concludes about the veracity of the couple’s story, and it was placed there by the state of New Hampshire in 2011 to mark the five decades that had passed since the historical (and controversial) event. It is not, however, entirely accurate. Here’s the part that is problematic —
“…but were not public with their story until it was leaked in the Boston Traveler in 1965.”
This is wrong on two counts. The Hills did selectively share their story, and the Boston Traveler reported the story rather than leaked it.
In order to set the record straight, here are the two key misrepresentations made in the sign’s copy:
The idea that Betty and Barney Hill “were not public with their story” is inaccurate. While not actively seeking publicity, the Hills did tell their story to numerous individuals — friends, family, neighbors, renters, fellow church members, and co-workers — plus, they filed two official reports (U.S. Air Force, National Investigations Committee for Aerial Phenomena) that were certainly discussed widely within their respective organizations. They also spoke openly in several well-attended public forums before literally hundreds of strangers.
The Boston Traveler did not “leak” the story of Betty and Barney Hill, the newspaper reported it. Leak is an incorrect, pejorative way to describe the journalism done by award-winning investigative reporter John Luttrell Sr. who broke the story in a legitimate, responsible, and ethical manner. If any leaks occurred, they came from people offering information and reports to Luttrell. He heard about the story, pitched it to his editors, was given the assignment, and put in an extensive investigation that took him hundreds of hours to complete.
These are my conclusions. The actual story behind them goes into exhaustive detail.
The Reporter Who Broke the Hill UFO Abduction Story
On the 60th anniversary of the Hill abduction, let’s set the record straight about how the story got to the public in…
medium.com
While the roadside sign may have been well-intentioned, it was obviously not written with legitimate journalistic input and editing. It buys into a spin that has been out there in the UFO zeitgeist for years that Betty and Barney were simple innocents, trying their best to keep their story private at all costs, and then were abused by an unethical newspaper that leaked their private trauma to the public. This, we now know, is not at all what happened. In fact, the truth is exactly the opposite.
Setting the record straight now, sixty years later, is important because it can show us the need to respect the role of a free press on the subject of UFO/UAP reality. It reminds us how it is possible for newspapers, including the maligned mainstream media, and other emerging sources to bring valuable information to the public. To tell the world the truth about our place in the universe after seven decades or more of denial and ridicule will require hard-hitting journalism that the public can respect.
The State of New Hampshire Stands Up
Shortly before Christmas last month, I received an email from Amy Dixon, the Community Preservation Coordinator for the New Hampshire Division of Historical Resources, Department of Natural & Cultural Resources. It’s a long, important title but, relevant to the Hill case, she’s the person in charge of the historical markers that dot the New Hampshire roads.
I had sent Amy an email when I first broke the story (“New Hampshire’s Betty & Barney Hill UFO Historical Marker Needs a Rewrite”), alerting her that the Hill marker contained two fact errors or, at minimum, two fact distortions.
My email suggested that in the “spirit of journalism and historical accuracy” that New Hampshire should consider taking down the current sign, redrafting its wording, and replacing the original with something more accurate. I suggested this revision, exactly 92 words long, to replace the existing 92 words.
Betty and Barney Hill UFO Encounter.
On the night of September 19–20, 1961, Portsmouth, NH couple Barney and Betty Hill alleged a close encounter with an unidentified flying object and experienced two hours of “missing time” while driving south on Rt. 3 near Lincoln. The next day, they filed an official Air Force Project Blue Book report describing a brightly-lit cigar-shaped craft. Their story was first reported by John Luttrell Sr. in The Boston Traveler in 1965. Theirs was the first publicized UFO abduction case in the United States.
Sending out a blind email like this did, I admit, feel like a shot across the bow that would likely come to nothing. To my surprise, Amy Dixon wrote back. Normally, I would not include an entire email, but she is a public official working for a state government, and there’s nothing in the email that is problematic. So, here it is:
Dear Mr. Zabel,
My apologies for the long delay in my response regarding your suggested corrections for marker #0224. I took over NH’s historical highway marker program right around the time you sent your email in September. I’ve undertaken an audit of the program and have made some suggested revisions to its management that I hope to implement in the New Year.
Your points about the fact distortions in the marker are well taken. Thank you for sharing your article about the topic and the suggested revised text. I have saved the information and put marker #0224 in my queue for markers that need revision in the future. I’m sorry that the revision will not coincide with the 60th anniversary of the event.
I do not yet have a timeline for when this marker will come up for revision, but please know that it is the DHR’s intent to work through this, and several other markers that need revision based not only on factual errors or distortions, but also inappropriate language or lack of historical context.
I very much value the public interest, input, and passion for the NH Historical Highway Marker Program. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
Best,
Amy
Thank you, Amy Dixon. Not just for doing your job, but for having enough of an open mind to understand that somehow, someway, either through direct intent or simply igannance of the facts, the current historical marker made it through the state’s process, and that it is still acceptable to fix a mistake.
I can’t say that doing this is going to change anything about the reliability of the Hill case, but it does have another benefit. During this investigation, I had been in touch with John Luttrell Sr.’s son and his granddaughter. The entire Luttrell family has had to deal for years with the reality that a campaign had been waged to minimize John Luttrell’s work and even his ethics as a reporter. That is the crime here. He performed his journalistic duties admirably on a story that, if true, has profound implications for humanity. His reputation deserves to be elevated, not denigrated.
The original articles lay out his meticulous journalism in detail. I hope you have the time to look them over, and pay value to the important work he did.
medium.com/on-the-trail-of-the-saucers/fact-checking-ufo-lore-gets-results-e7f4f0fcd689