UT025: Analysis of the Dress Worn by Betty Hill During the September 19, 1961 Abduction in New Hampshire
From The Black Vault Encyclopedia Project
Contents |
Background/Objective
This famous case is well documented in many publications and on many internet web sites. On September 19, 1961, Betty and Barney Hill, along with dachshund “Delsey”, were returning home (Portsmouth, New Hampshire) from an extended weekend pleasure trip to Canada. Their itinerary took them to Niagara Falls, then to Montreal, and home. They were traveling south on US Route 3 in central New Hampshire. At approximately 10:15 they noted a “bright star” which appeared to move erratically. They continued to observe it as it apparently paced them and got closer and closer. Barney stopped to retrieve a 0.22 pistol from the trunk. After resuming the drive, both Betty and Barney looked at the object through binoculars. They observed a spinning, flattened circular disk with multicolored lights on the rim. About two miles north of North Woodstock, the object descended and hovered about 100 feet in the air. No spinning was noted. A blue-white fluorescent glow shone through its windows.
The object appeared to be the size of a 4-engine aircraft. Barney stopped the car and got out. He could see several uniformed, human-like figures. He suspected they were about to be abducted, jumped in the car, and raced down the road. Suddenly an irregular beeping sound was heard. The Hills felt a tingling sensation and became drowsy. The next thing they remembered was a second series of beeps as they were passing through Plymouth. The craft was gone. Two hours of missing time were noted. They both felt clammy and dirty, and Barney suffered other physical problems. Hypnosis of both Barney and Betty suggested they had been abducted. Both Betty and Barney were subjected to physical examinations. Further details of what may have occurred can be found in previous cited references. The object of this report is to document the analysis of the dress worn by Betty Hill during the abduction.
Phyllis Budinger's Analysis Report
Phyllis Budinger's Post Analysis Notes
Publications relating to this report:
- Stanton T. Friedman and Kathleen Marden, “Captured! The Betty and Barney Hill UFO Experience”, New Page Books, Franklin Lakes, NJ, 2007.
- Dwight Connelly, “The World’s Best UFO Cases”, Bookseller, Inc., Martinsville, IL, 2004.
- Phyllis A. Budinger, “MUFON UFO Journal”, Number 429, January 2004.
- Phyllis A. Budinger, UFOs – A Search for Physical Evidence: Abductions, “36th Annual International UFO Proceedings”, Presentation: July 24, 2005,
Additional Information
The swaths were sent for DNA analysis to another lab by Frontier Analysis, and the results were received a year after the dress Analysis (TSR no.: UT025) was published. TSR No. UT025 identified a lining stain as protein, and noted it to be different than the protein on the outer dress surface (mold) in the report. DNA specifically identified this protein as spider blood. The DNA report follows with all the other details.
Speculations
Betty told me there was a “most unpleasant”, unidentifiable odor on the craft. I offer a speculation that this odor could have emanated from the craft occupants and could be a result of natural body elimination of oils/respiratory agents. These transferred to the dress on contact. The pink areas are most profound around the top of the dress, especially around the sleeve where the occupants had gripped Betty as they escorted her to and from the craft. The pink on the dress skirt is easily explainable, because contact was made with Betty’s “escorts” when she kicked them as she was forcefully taken over the threshold of the craft. The “escort” on the right may have taken the brunt of her attack, because this is where the lining is ripped. Also, it is noted that the right sleeve is totally permeated with the material, which may indicate a tighter grip on her was necessary. It is also possible some material transferred from the top of the dress to the skirt when Betty folded the dress after returning home. The moist, damp biological components found on the dress were probably also on Betty’s skin, causing her to feel clammy and dirty.
I do not think the original substance deposited on the dress directly caused the discoloration. Betty found the discoloration days later when she took the dress out of the closet. The substance on the dress was originally moist, so the moisture was not allowed to dissipate because the dress was folded. This moist substance, probably slightly acidic, served as a nutrient for a natural biological growth (bacteria, mold or mildew). This grew. Days later the dress finally dried, and a pink powdery residue from the growth remained. It was this biological growth material that probably caused the discoloration and possibly interacted with the dress fiber. The dress interior and drier lining probably were minimally affected.
It would appear small remnants of the original materials remained, such as the soil bacteria. As previously mentioned, I find it likely that the soil bacteria found on the left sleeve got there when the dress was thrown on the craft floor. The event occurred in a rural area on a dirt road. Clearly dirt could have been tracked in by footwear worn by Betty and the craft occupants.
And finally we know at some point during the weekend Betty sat on at least three spiders (a nest perhaps). She sat at a picnic table several hours before the event to eat a hot dog. So it possibly could have happened there. If not, the probability increases that it happened during the event.
This was literally a new dress that was reduced to a rag as a result of a bizarre event. The chemical analysis supports the Betty’s account of the event. I found nothing that would contradict her story.
Acknowledgments
I am indebted to Kathleen Marden for communicating my desire to analyze the dress to her aunt, Betty Hill. Thanks go to Dr. Colm Kelleher (formerly of NIDS) for his critiquing of the data and constructive comments. I am also appreciative of the NMR spectra provided by Dr. J. Robert Mooney, as well as his comments on the data presented. I am grateful for the help of Bill Chalker for putting me in touch with the biochemists who did the DNA analyses. And of course, I thank the microbiologists who made the “extra effort” and provided in-depth DNA information. There’s Dr. M., a DNA expert, who I consulted for a second opinion. And I must acknowledge and thank my husband, Bruce Budinger, for his thoughts, help, and indulgence, and putting up with me throughout the analysis.
