posted on May, 16 2005 @ 09:03 AM
Thank you for the link.
I became interested in this type of thing only a few years ago. I was not aware of the 'ins and outs' of the Hill's case.
It is extremely interesting in that this was information the Hills put forth in 1964.
The decade of the sixties is far far away, scientifically from 2000.
What I mean is, they were describing things that have only been confirmed recently with the advancement that wasn't available in the mid-60s.
I had always just overlooked the Hill caes, opting for more recent events.
Thanks for sharing