Generally, I don’t discuss private correspondence on my blog, but since in an email to me Kottmeyer offered only a specific critique of my published work and no discussion of anything not already in the public record, I feel that his points are important enough to share with my readers to help us get to the bottom of the Hill abduction.
Kottmeyer feels that I have misrepresented his claim. I will not quote directly from his email, but the gist was that he feels that the “Bellero” bifrost alien’s eyes are unique and that I have purposely selected a photograph that fails to illustrate the truly unique nature of these eyes in order to minimize Kottmeyer’s identification. According to Kottmeyer, in his 1990 article, the “Bellero” bifrost alien is the sole instance of “wraparound eyes” in 1960s media.
Here is another image I found at The Iron Skeptic that gives a profile view of the “Bellero” bifrost alien. I’d like to point out that this image very clearly shows that the eyes are not as Kottmeyer describes. On the left is the untouched image. At right, I have highlighted the eye itself in blue, and I have colored in red the ridges surrounding the eye, which stretch backward toward the rear of the head. There is no lens or sclera in this section defined by the upper and lower ridges, which is clearly of skin. Therefore, these are not “wraparound” eyes in a literal sense but merely give an impression of being large eyes due to the prominent ridges surrounding the small, human-sized eye. (This is not to say that Hill couldn't have been struck by the impression of large eyes, of course.)
I’ve never seen eyes slanted like that.
(He gestures with his hands carefully, in an attempt to describe the eyes.)
They began to be round—and went back like that—and like that. And they went up like that.
But I suppose what gets my goat is that even when I agree with someone and work to expand his claim with additional information, I still get complaints!