The video record.
Original interviews, investigator accounts, and eyewitness reports. We link the source, separate testimony from interpretation, and build the case files one review at a time.
Abduction accounts / experiencer panel / memory methods · Eyes On Cinema
The 1993 abduction panel: separating recollection from interpretation
This panel preserves differences between conscious recollection, delayed memories and hypnosis. Debbie Jordan describes experiences after 1983 and asks researchers to examine them; her testimony provides research leads rather than independent confirmation of an abduction.
SOURCE · TIMESTAMPS · PROVISIONAL RATINGS →
Abduction · eyewitness interview · Eyes On Cinema
Betty and Barney Hill: hearing the account in their own voices
A long telephone interview preserves the Hills’ account, with useful distinctions between their roadside recollections, Betty’s later dreams, and material discussed under hypnosis.
SOURCE · TIMESTAMPS · PROVISIONAL RATINGS →
Investigator presentation · schoolyard sighting / reported beings · Eyes On Cinema
John Mack on Ariel School: testimony, clinical judgment and interpretation
Mack recounts the Ariel School reports and explains why he trusted them. His confidence is evidence of his assessment; it does not independently verify what the children saw.
SOURCE · TIMESTAMPS · PROVISIONAL RATINGS →
Abduction account / investigator interview / hypnosis method · Eyes On Cinema
Kristina Florence and Budd Hopkins: recollection, hypnosis and competing interpretations
Florence distinguishes conscious UFO recollections from material elicited under hypnosis. The excerpt also preserves Hopkins's interpretation and criticism of his interview method, making it useful for tracing how an abduction narrative is evaluated.
SOURCE · TIMESTAMPS · PROVISIONAL RATINGS →
How the ratings work
Rubric v1 · editorial scale 0–10. Higher means stronger support within that category. Missing access lowers confidence; unreviewed material is not scored. These are not probabilities of alien involvement.
Compelling case: Specificity, testable details, independent corroboration, and the value of further investigation.
Account support: Provenance, timing, independence, consistency, and relevant counterevidence. This describes support for an account, not someone’s character or mental health.
Video research value: Source identification, completeness, intelligibility, context, and usefulness to an investigator.
Scores 0–3 indicate substantial gaps; 4–6 indicate mixed or incomplete support; 7–8 indicate substantial research value or support with limitations; 9–10 require unusually complete, independently checkable material. Every rating includes its reason and review scope.