Betty and Barney Hill

What the file holds

Project Blue Book’s file on the case, no. 7641, is split between two rolls of microfilm and so between two units in the National Archives catalogue (Blue Book’s roll list, NAID 28921348, image 5):

• “Lincoln, New Hampshire, September 1961” (NAID 28994660, 57 images): the record card (image 1), the handwritten analysis sheet (images 2–3), the Foreign Technology Division’s letter of 27 September 1963 (image 4), upper-air charts from Portland, Maine (images 5–53) and four pages of Look (images 54–57);
• “[BLANK], [BLANK]” (NAID 28994718, 44 images; the catalogue has no file 0002): pages of Look of 4 and 18 October 1966 (images 2–27), a covering note of 9 November 1965 (image 28), unsigned notes on the press reports (image 29), the Boston Traveler’s series of October 1965 (images 30–35), the 817th Air Division’s cover letter (image 36), an extract from the radar controller’s log (image 37), a NICAP clipping (image 38), the Air Force’s report 100-1-61 (images 39–41), an undated summary (image 42), the Climatic Center’s letter on the soundings (image 43) and The A.P.R.O. Bulletin of March 1963 (image 44).

Blue Book’s index lists the case on image 259 of NAID 28921348. Below, image numbers without a NAID refer to the second unit, NAID 28994718, unless the sentence names the first.

The sighting, in report 100-1-61

The report was prepared by Maj. Paul W. Henderson, Chief Combat Intelligence of the 100th Bomb Wing at Pease AFB, on 21 September 1961 (image 39). It says how: “Information contained herein was collected by means of telephone conversation between the observers and the preparing individual.” (image 41) The cover letter of 29 September explains why the report was not sent electrically: “Non-availability of observers for early interrogation precluded electrical transmission of report.” (image 36)

What the couple reported:

• They were “traveling south on route 3 near Lincoln, N.H.” between 0001 and 0100 on 20 September “when they observed, through the windshield of their car, a strange object in the sky.” They noticed it “because of its shape and the intensity of its lighting as compared to the stars in the sky.” (image 39)
• “Continious [sic] band of lights - cigar shaped at all times despite changes of direction.” In size: “When first observed it appeared to be about the size of a nickel at arms length.” Its elevation when first seen: “About 45°”. They used binoculars “at times” (image 40).
• “They report that the object was traveling north very fast.” It “changed directions rather abruptly and then headed South”, then “stopped and hovered in the air”; “wings seemed to appear from the main body”, “Described as V shaped with red lights on tips.” It seemed “to swoop down in the general direction of their auto” and to descend until it was only “a matter of ‘hundreds of feet’ above their car” (image 40).
• They drove off, and while the object was above them they heard “a series of short loud ‘buzzes’” (image 40). Near Ashland, “about 30 miles from Lincoln”, they heard the sound again but did not see the object (image 41).
• The wife described its flight as erratic: “Its flight was described as jerky and not smooth.” (image 41) The length of the observation: “Approx 30 Min’s.” (image 40)

Of the observers the report says: “Mr. [blacked out] is a Civil Service employee in the Boston Post Office and doesn’t possess any technical or scientific training. Neither does his wife.” And: “The reliability of the observer cannot be judged and while his apparent honesty and seriousness appears to be valid it cannot be judged at this time.” (image 41)

The radar return at Pease

The report adds an item from a conversation at Pease whose opening lines are illegible on the scan: “a strange incident occurred at 0214 local on 20 Sept. No importance was attached to the incident at the time.” (image 39) The attached extract from the controller’s log: “0614Z OBSERVED UNIDENTIFIED A/C COME ON PAR 4 MILES OUT.” The target made an approach, pulled up at half a mile and was lost, and “TWR UNABLE TO SEE ANY A/C AT ANY TIME” (image 37). The report concludes: “It is not possible to determine any relationship between these two observations, as the radar observation provides no description.” And: “Time and distance between the events could hint of a possible relationship.” (image 39) The record card treats the radar and the visual sighting together (NAID 28994660, image 1); the index evaluates each as “Insufficient Data” (NAID 28921348, image 259).

What the Air Force did with the report

• The soundings. On 22 November 1961, after a telephone call of 15 November from the Foreign Technology Division (TD-E), the Air Force’s Climatic Center sent rawinsonde observations from Portland, Maine, for 17 to 22 September 1961, adding: “Lincoln, New Hampshire, does not take rawinsonde observations, and Portland, Maine, is the closest station.” (image 43; the charts are images 5–53 of NAID 28994660)
• The analysis sheet. Its radar line reads “POSSIBLY FALSE TARGET DUE TO WEATHER (INVERSION)”, and its evaluation of the source “PROBABLY GOOD.” (NAID 28994660, image 2)
• 1963. Forwarding the letter of a correspondent who had made “fourteen specific requests”, the Foreign Technology Division gave its answers on the case: “The Barney Hill sighting was investigated by officials from Pease AFB.” It added: “No direction (azimuth) was reported and there are inconsistencies in the report.” (NAID 28994660, image 4)
• 1965. Unsigned, undated notes in sixteen points (image 29), filed after a covering note of 9 November 1965 (image 28), answer the press of that year point by point (our reading). The first: “The Hill case is closed, and has zero priority”. Point 10: “We did not even bother to contact the Hills personally.” Point 15: “The time motion sequence is missing in all reports.” Point 8 repeats the Boston Traveler’s claim that the couple reported only a bright star moving toward them (compare image 30); the report of 1961 describes much more (images 39–41).

What the file says about its label

The record card marks “Other”: a typed entry beside it is struck out, and “INSUFF DATA” is written by hand (our reading of the card). Its comment: “Both radar and visual sighting are probably due to conditions resulting fm strong inversion which prevaled [sic] in area on morning of sighting.” And: “Actual source of light viewed is not known but it has all characteristics of an advertising search light.” (NAID 28994660, image 1) The analysis sheet: “OBSERVATION DUE TO UNUSUAL OPTICAL CONDITION RESULTING FROM ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS.” (image 2) Blue Book’s index: “1. Insufficient Data 2. Insufficient Data” (NAID 28921348, image 259).

What the same files say:

• 1963. “The case is carried as insufficient data in the Air Force Files.” And: “Without positional data the case could not be evaluated as Jupiter.” Yet the same paragraph ends: “As no lateral or vertical movement was noted, the object was in all probability Jupiter.” (NAID 28994660, image 4)
• The report of 1961 describes the object changing direction, hovering, descending toward the car and, in the wife’s account, rising and falling “numerous times very rapidly” (images 40–41).
• No paper of the Air Force identifies the object as an aircraft.

The case stays “insufficient data”, as the files carry it. They hold no measurement of the object and no physical trace, and the radar return at 0214 has, by the report itself, no established relationship to the sighting (image 39), so the mark ◆ does not apply.

What the file says about the later story

The report of 1961 says nothing of an abduction or of lost time. Two private accounts in the file add figures at the windows. APRO’s is dated March 1963, months before the first visit to the psychiatrist, which Look dates to December 1963; NICAP’s is undated and calls that part of its report “still under evaluation”.

• NICAP. An undated clipping: “The next report segment, condensed from Mr. Hill’s impression that some kind of figures were moving at the windows, is still under evaluation.” It says that Mrs. Hill reported the encounter to Pease “but omitted word of the supposed figures” (image 38).
• APRO. The A.P.R.O. Bulletin of March 1963: “Through the binoculars he could see from eight to eleven figures which appeared to be watching them from the windows.” It puts the observation at “from 30 to 40 minutes for 45 miles, between midnight and 1 a.m.” (image 44)

The press of 1965 and 1966 tells of an abduction, of lost time and of hypnosis:

• The Boston Traveler, 25 October 1965. The story “has been related by a New Hampshire couple under clinical hypnosis” (image 30). Its second article: “two full hours still remained unaccounted for!” (image 31)
• Look, 4 October 1966. The Hills’ “words were recorded on tape, and their words are transcribed here, with some of Dr. Simon’s analysis and comment.” (image 13) The article names the psychiatrist as “Dr. Benjamin Simon” (image 12). Its second part dates the first visit to him to “December 14, 1963”, and says that he “also decided to tape-record these sessions for later study and reference.” (NAID 28994660, image 54)
• Dr. Simon, as Look’s editors quote him. “Nothing is absolutely proved to me regarding the alleged ‘abduction.’” And: “hypnosis is a pathway to the truth as it is felt and understood by the patient.” (image 13) A page of 18 October 1966 is headed “Dr. Simon accepted a sighting, but found the abduction improbable” (images 9 and 8).

The tapes and Dr. Simon’s notes are not in the file; point 13 of the unsigned notes asks who “heard the tapes?” (image 29). The University of New Hampshire holds a Betty and Barney Hill Collection. Its library’s page lists “correspondence, personal journals and essays, manuscripts, newspaper clippings, photographs, slides, and DVDs” and does not mention recordings of the sessions, and the collection’s record in the library’s archives system could not be opened on 17 October 2026.

Where it was

The report has “traveling south on route 3 near Lincoln, N.H.” (image 39) and “south of Lincoln” (image 40). The NICAP clipping: “About 4 miles from North Woodstock, the UFO descended in front of the car” (image 38). APRO’s bulletin puts the first sighting “in the Groveton area” (image 44). No document gives coordinates. The pin is OpenStreetMap’s point for Lincoln (relation 2047652, 44.0445° N, 71.6684° W), rounded to 44.04° N, 71.67° W. It marks the town, not the place of the sighting.

Why this scores where it does

Witnesses: 2. Two witnesses, husband and wife, one channel, questioned by telephone; the report: “The reliability of the observer cannot be judged” (image 41).

Radar: 1. A target seen by the radar controller at Pease at 0614Z, “COME ON PAR 4 MILES OUT” (image 37), which the report itself could not relate to the sighting (image 39).

Optics: 0. No photograph; the card marks “PHOTOS” as “No” (NAID 28994660, image 1).

Physical trace: 0. None in the Air Force’s papers. The buzzing that the couple say they felt in the car is part of their account (image 40).

Multi-channel: 1. One couple. The radar return is not tied to them.

Documentation: 3. The card, the analysis sheet, the report with its cover letter and the controller’s extract survive. Not higher: the report was taken by telephone, and the file’s own notes say: “The time motion sequence is missing in all reports.” (image 29)

Anomaly: 2. A lighted object that hovered and descended toward a car, by an account no one tested on the spot; the file’s own explanations, an inversion, a searchlight and Jupiter, are left as possibilities.

Data today: 2. The papers can be opened, but the session tapes cannot, and the Air Force’s record of the couple’s account is a summary of telephone conversations.

The overall is 1.3: class D, testimony only.

What would settle it

• The recordings of the sessions and Dr. Simon’s notes, if an archive holds them; the University of New Hampshire’s Betty and Barney Hill Collection (MC 197) is the place to check.
• Walter N. Webb’s report to NICAP on his interview with the couple in October 1961, known only from APRO’s account (image 44) and perhaps from the NICAP clipping (image 38).
• The missing image 0002 of NAID 28994718.
• A legible copy of report 100-1-61, whose additional item names, in lines the scan does not show clearly, the people in the conversation at Pease (image 39).