Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Abduction Digest Number 26
Abduction Digest, Number 26
Thursday, September 26th 1991
Today's Topics:
Re: Implants
Implants
abductions
Re: abductions
abductions
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Delton@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Delton)
Subject: Re: Implants
Date: 18 Sep 91 05:39:00 GMT
I recently had a CT on my head. The CT is a whole bunch of x-rays that
the computer puts together to get a good view of what's in the noggin.
With my interest in implants I made a point of asking the Doctor some
questions about what was on the plates when we went over them. There
were some little spots here and there. He said that such spots are
common and are calcium and other stuff but not really identifiable, per
se.
--
Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Delton@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Keith Basterfield)
Subject: Implants
Date: 22 Sep 91 16:53:00 GMT
Recently while Jerry Clarke was attending the Sydney International UFO seminar,
I raised the question with him, "When did implant stories start?" One of the
first references I can find in the 1980's is in the Bennewitz saga. At one
stage Bennewitz and Dr Leo Sprinkle regressed a woman abductee. Amongst other
things, what emerged from this woman was that the aliens were surgically
implanting mind control devices into her skull to track her and use her as a
"remote control." (Sources: Clark, J. UFOs in the 1980's.Detroit. Apogee. 1990.
p88-89. Blum, H. Out There. pp230-231.)
Now, we are told that much of what Bennewitz believed was part of a USAF
disinformation campaign. So, does the implant section of the abduction
phenomenon originate from disinformation?
I'd appreciate anyone's thoughts, ideas, more factual information etc on this
matter.
(9:1040/12)
--
Keith Basterfield - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sue.Widemark@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Sue Widemark)
Subject: abductions
Date: 23 Sep 91 07:57:00 GMT
I have a difficult time believing that people are really abducted. The
most believable case to me, was the Barney and Betty Hill case however,
in reading other data (besides the famous book on it which was written
from the point of view that the Hills were truly abducted), one
discovers things which subtract from the creditability of the Hills
testimony.
The author of COMMUNION (Whitney Streiber - I think I spelled that
right!!) seems to typify what might be a pattern for abduction cases.
The hard evidence is rather slim. Abductees are examined with an
emphasis on their genitalia and often sexually aroused by the ET's.
Abductees often show a characteristic often found in schizophrenia, the
"I was chosen to" attitude.
I find it hard to believe that IF aliens landed and wished to
physically examine us, they would emphasize sexual arousal. Our
methods of reproduction are really rather ordinary and sexual arousal
is something only exciting to the human animal - the alien might not
even pick up that sex is something extraordinarily scintillating to
humans - why should they since this attitude seems rather unreasonable
(i.e. our almost worshipping attitude about sex) in the overall scheme
of things.
Descriptions of examinations are often confusing and described as if
these aliens, possessing a far greater technology than ours, are rather
primitive in the methods of examination.
I have studied UFO's for years and have not, to this day, seen any HARD
evidence that any have even landed. Pictures are always fuzzy,
witnesses are often inebriated or fame seeking or lack in stability in
one way or another. Odd circumstances, even such as described in
Operation Blue Book, are explainable in other ways and even if they are
not explicable, it still doesn't mean that one MUST explain it using
the UFO theory.
My theory of UFOs is that it's a modern incarnation of the Greek and
Roman gods and godesses - the aliens often bear great resemblance to
these ancient mythological figures who were super human but very
actively sexual beings etc. It's interesting that one seldom finds
people into Christianity and 'into'
UFO's at the same time. I feel that further upholds my theory -
Christians being satisfied religiously speaking, need not search for
'gods' from the sky.
In investigating archiological data, one finds evidence in the earliest
man of two things - art and religion. (and the art is usually closely
connected to the religion). The need for religion seems to be inborn
in man (and inexplicable since there is no obvious advantage to this
desire, evolutionarily speaking) and I feel that in an age where
traditional Christianity and Judiaism, the most modern monotheistic
religions, are being rejected, mankind is regressing back to the
paganism from whence he came - only the pagan gods are now clothed in
technological mythology, riding in space ships instead of chariots.
I leave this message, not as a criticism, but in hopes that many will
respond to me and present evidence either in favor or against my above
stated theory. I wish to learn more from those who might teach me.
--
Sue Widemark - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Sue.Widemark@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Delton@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Delton)
Subject: Re: abductions
Date: 24 Sep 91 21:58:00 GMT
ON what basis do you state that most witnesses are inebriated or
seeking attention. From my reading it is exactly the opposite - most
witnesses are "normal" people who as often or not don't want to tell
anyone what they saw for fear of ridicule. As to the religious
aspects, again, I have seen nothing that would even provide a basis for
formulating a theory of any substance in regard to the religiosity of
witnesses. I will say however that one might wonder if the failure of
religion to solve the complex problems of today might lead otherwise
religious people to look for something more meaningful and something
that works, i.e., UFOnaughts. I also don't see any evidence that
mankind is regressing back to paganism althought I don't see much
connection of that with UFO's one way or the other.
When all is said and done the "evidence" remains that something is
being percieved in the skys over many cities and countries and not just
by wackos. There have been numerous reports by people who are not
likely to be fabricating what they say, such as the reports by American
Military (Bentwaters) and Belgium Military (Belgium UFO) not to mention
the tons of military reports during the project bluebook days. Most
people don't associate Military with "sense of humor" in regard to
false reporting - I think it highly unlikely that most military types
make suprious reports on UFO's for the fun of it. That is not proof of
extraterrestrial visitation by any means but suggests to me that
SOMETHING is being perceived in the sky whatever it may be.
--
Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Delton@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: abductions
Date: 24 Sep 91 22:20:00 GMT
Sue:
For now, I'll just add one thing to what Jim Delton said. (And this will be a
major element in my presentation to your MENSA group). In order to discuss UFOs
intelligently, we MUST divide the question into two separate but related
issues: 1) Do UFOs exist? 2) Are UFOs alien spacecraft? There really is no
reason to discuss the second issue without first establishing the answer to
the first. The answer to #1 is obviously yes. You claim:
> I have studied UFO's for years and have not, to this day, seen any HARD
> evidence that any have even landed. Pictures are always fuzzy,
> witnesses are often inebriated or fame seeking or lack in stability in
> one way or another. Odd circumstances, even such as described in
> Operation Blue Book, are explainable in other ways and even if they are
> not explicable, it still doesn't mean that one MUST explain it using the
> UFO theory.
I don't know where you've been looking, but evidence (not PROOF - EVIDENCE)
exists that demonstrates the existence of a phenomenon. The phenomenon involves
flying objects that have thus far not been identified, even by our best
scientists. They SHOULD NOT BE THERE. When you say, "the UFO theory" in the
above paragraph, I assume you are referring to the alien spacecraft hypothesis.
That's true, and no one (at least not here on ParaNet) is saying anything about
"MUST". But that's issue #2. For now, issue #1 is on the table. I can, and
will, show you videotapes of objects that A) evade explanation by ordinary
means, B) exhibit aerodynamic properties we are not yet capable of, and C) SEEM
to exhibit intelligent guidance. Once that's established, are you willing to
explore further, or are you going to tell me what they told me on the SCIENCE
echo - basically, "SO WHAT?"
Its kinda funny, when Jim Delton first logged onto ParaNet 5 years ago, he left
a message almost exactly like yours. He has since changed his stance somewhat,
basically because we were able to show him the evidence he needed - pictures
that WEREN'T fuzzy, witnesses that WEREN'T cuckoo, etc. A question now occurs
to me: are you REALLY PREPARED to change your stance on this issue? Even when
the evidence dictates, its not always easy to do....
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
****************A**B**D**U**C**T**I**O**N****D**I**G**E**S**T*******************
Submissions UUCP {ncar,isis,csn}!scicom!abduct
Submissions DOMAIN abduct@scicom.alphacdc.com
Admin Address abduct-request@shemtaia.weeg.uiowa.edu
****************A**B**D**U**C**T**I**O**N****D**I**G**E**S**T*******************
