Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Abduction Digest Number 46
Abduction Digest, Number 46
Monday, February 3rd 1992
(C) Copyright 1992 Paranet Information Service. All Rights Reserved.
Today's Topics:
Abduction Research
Apology
Criticisms
Abductions
Abduction case
FPP
Apology
Apology
Re: abductions
Re: Criticisms
Criticisms
Apology
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sheldon.Wernikoff@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Sheldon Wernikoff)
Subject: Abduction Research
Date: 30 Jan 92 02:39:02 GMT
In a message to Sheldon Wernikoff <26-Jan-92 12:26>
Bill Chalker wrote:
BC> 1. professional & qualified psychologist
BC> 2. extensive experience in practical therapuetic use in
BC> hypnosis
BC> 3. no strong opinions either way on the UFO subject.
BC> 4. open mind
BC> 5. a willingness to use Richard Haines 3 stage technique and
BC> protocol as a guide
Wonderful criteria Bill. I agree that it is especially important
that the therapist have no definite pro or con proclivity, but
after years of investigations, how does one maintain their
impartial stance?
In my opinion, therapists who focus *solely* on the abduction
question are, in some instances, doing their patients a potential
injustice. Edith Fiore, Ph.D. is a case in point. She has always
specialized in a strict paranormal approach, moving from the vogue
of past life regressions in the '70s to the abduction scenarios of
the '90s. It is important, and difficult, to preserve a measure of
detachment from the issue at hand.
Take care,
Sheldon
--
Sheldon Wernikoff - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Sheldon.Wernikoff@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sheldon.Wernikoff@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Sheldon Wernikoff)
Subject: Apology
Date: 30 Jan 92 02:40:03 GMT
In a message to Sheldon Wernikoff <29-Jan-92 00:41>
John Burke wrote:
JB> I thought that your points were well taken, expressing
JB> legitimate concern about something Dr. Jacobs will surely be
JB> expected to explain once he starts "making the circuit" upon
JB> the release of his new book. I found nothing hostile about your
JB> questions.
JB> If some of us want to take sides, fine. Trying to
JB> squelch the opposition is another matter.
John, your reassuring comments mean a great deal to me. Thanks for
responding.
Take care,
Sheldon
--
Sheldon Wernikoff - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Sheldon.Wernikoff@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David.Jacobs@f21.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (David Jacobs)
Subject: Criticisms
Date: 31 Jan 92 07:19:57 GMT
Although the last thing that I wanted to do was to provoke a dispute among
the Paranet respondents, I think that the very nature of the material creates
strong feelings pro and con. Sheldon, I did not think that you were attacking
me. I have become accostumed to heavy-hitting attacks from all quarters. This
is not to say that I can satisfactorily answer them all, but in this field the
attack is the norm and I did not
feel as though you were doing anything other than expressing surprise. Doug,
I would like to thank you for mounting a defense. Budd Hopkins and I feel quite
embattled these days. There are only a few of us who take the position that
we do and therefore we are pretty much fair game for any and all. As you know
it is complex enough to defend the UFO phenomenon in general against attacks,
let alone having to defend the abduction phenomenon, which is as "far out" as
one can get these days. Our position that the abductees are describing an
external, objective reality and are therefore victims is one that virtually
everyone can find weaknesses in. Just the problems involved with hypnosis are
enough to put the stopper on believability. Once you get past hypnosis then
you rapidly become involved with the extremes of the bizarre. Therefore any
defense that comes my way I gratefully accept.
When my book comes out next month I fully expect to be pretty much savaged
by almost everyone. In spite of this, I feel that I, and Budd, and John Mack
at Harvard, and John Carpenter in St. Louis, and others who share a common
opinion will, in the end, prove to be correct.
Via SPITFIRE Bulletin Board System - Version 3.1
--
David Jacobs - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: David.Jacobs@f21.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Keith Basterfield)
Subject: Abductions
Date: 31 Jan 92 03:09:00 GMT
David, Thank you very much for the warm welcome and your comments
about Australian abduction research. Abduction research is certainly
an area fraught with dangers for the young players.
As you say there are cases where abductions are recalled without the
use of hypnosis. Locally there are most definitely instances of
physicality. In the "Carol Williams" event where she recalled an event
at age 15 which occurred in a shared bedroom, her bedroom companion,
another woman was certainly able to confirm the initial stages of the
event. In "Susan"'s case, I managed to locate her sister who confirmed
the observation of a ball of light floating into the bedroom, which
Susan says was ahead of the abduction party. In "Julian"s case both he
and his wife have conscious recall of apparent abduction events.
The Maureen Puddy 1972/73 case was investigated in depth by two lots
of Australian researchers. Firstly by Garry Little and Bill Stapleton
and secondly by Paul Norman and Judith Magee. Magee wrote up the case
in the English "Flying Saucer Review" Vol 18 no 6 Nov/Dec 1972 and FSR
Vol 24 no 3 Nov 1978. It is referenced as case 209 in Bullard's
"Measure of a Mystery."
On one occasion in an involved sequence of sightings, Puddy was in a
car with Norman and Magee, lapsed into a "trance" and whilst
physically still present with them, started to relate being inside a
round room, entity there, etc. She became frightened and came out of
the "trance." She stated she could not recall what had happened whilst
she was "unconscious." It bears all the hallmarks of an apparent
abduction but the woman was at all times firmly physically in the
preence of two top Australian ufo researchers.
I believe Jenny Randles referred to a UK abduction case involving
gaynor Sunderland where an abduction was reported whilst the young
girl was seen to be sleeping in her bed, by her mother.
Locally, I believe we have yet to have an abduction reported where
independent witnesses see the abduction occurring or where someone is
definitely seen to be physically absent during the event. However,
bear in mind when I collated a catalogue of Australian abductions in
April 1991 we had only uncovered 43 such events. I notice Bill said he
had come across some 30 cases.
Anyway, a pleasure chatting to you and others, and I trust we will
have many more enjoyable and informative chats.
--
Keith Basterfield - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Keith Basterfield)
Subject: Abduction case
Date: 31 Jan 92 04:48:00 GMT
I shall wait with interest to hear from the person concerned. Thanks.
--
Keith Basterfield - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Keith Basterfield)
Subject: FPP
Date: 31 Jan 92 05:26:00 GMT
John H Chalmers recently asked me for a reading list from mainstream
psych journals. It may be of interest to others.
1. Wilson, S.C. & Barber, T.X. (1981). Vivid Fantasy and
Hallucinatory Abilities in the Life Histories of Excellent Hypnotic
Subjects, in Klinger, E. (ed). Imagery: Vol 2. New York. Plenum. 2.
Wilson, S.C. & Barber, T.X. (1982). The Fantasy-Prone Personality:
Implications for Understanding Imagery, Hypnosis and
Parapsychological Phenomena. PSI Research 1(3):94-116. 3. Wilson,
S.C. & Barber, T.X. (1983). The Fantasy-Prone
Personality:Implications for Understanding Imagery, Hypnosis and
Parasychological Phenomena. Chapter 12 in Sheitch, A. (ed).
Imagery:Current Theory, Research and Applications. New York. Wiley.
4. Myers, S.A. & Austrin, H. R. (1985). Distal Eidetic
Technology:Further Characteristics of the Fantasy-Prone Personality.
Journal of Mental Imagery 9(3):57-66. 5. Lynn, S. J. & Rhue, J. W.
(1986). The Fantasy-Prone Person:Hypnosis, Imagination and
Creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
51(2):404-408. 6. Richardson, A. (1986). A Follow-up of Nine
Typographic Eidetikers. Psychologia:An International Journal of
Psychology in the Orient 29(3):165-175. 7. Rhue, J. W. & Lynn, S.J.
(1987). Fantasy-Proneness:Developmental Antecedents. Journal of
Personality 55(1): 121-137. 8. Lynn, S.J. & Rhue, J. W. (1988).
Fantasy-Proneness. American Psychologist 43(1):35-44. 9. Rhue, J. W.
& Lynn, S.J. (1989). Fantasy-Proness, Hypnotizability and Absorption:
A Re-examination. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Hypnosis 37(2):100-106. 10 Fellows, B. & Wright, V. (1989).
Fantasy-Proneness: Data and Observations on the British Use of the
Inventory of Childhood memories and Imaginings. British Journal of
Experimental and clinical Hypnosis 6(1):57-59.
Unfortunately I find that many UFO researchers have failed to read some of
the above material before relegating the FPP hypothesis as a potential
explanation for some abduction cases to the trash can. In abductions
there is a thread of "alien babies" being removed from pregnant
women. Barber and Wilson relate how two of their FPP hypnotic
subjects fully believed they were pregnant and went for abortions
only to find no evidence of pregnancy. If these women had been
investigated by UFO researchers and not by psychologists chances are
the "missing baby" file would have had two more cases logged. Very few
people are aware of this research, and these findings cannot be
overstated. You can have amazing facts without necessarily
introducing alien intervention.
--
Keith Basterfield - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke)
Subject: Apology
Date: 29 Jan 92 07:41:00 GMT
> In a message to Sheldon Wernikoff <21-Jan-92 20:14>
> Doug Rogers wrote:
>
> DR> The crux of my complaint to you has to do with your
> DR> persistance in voicing your unsuported opinions in areas
> DR> where you have no
> DR> expertise, especially in the face of those who have proven
> DR> to have expertise. I'm especially talking at this point
> DR> about your
> DR> posts to Dr. Jacobs. I am a practicing counselor in addition
> DR> to being a professor of mass communications. Let me
> DR> assure you,
> DR> Dr. Jacobs is posting a rock solid, defensible line in this
> DR> work. He has too great a reputation to do otherwise. Yet,
> DR> you take up bandwidth asking him questions that attack
> DR> the way he
> DR> treats his patients and does his research.
Sheldon:
I thought that your points were well taken, expressing legitimate
concern about something Dr. Jacobs will surely be expected to explain once he
starts "making the circuit" upon the release of his new book. I found nothing
hostile about your questions.
There is a distasteful odor of "believerism" around when people are
discouraged from having the chutzpah to question the "Authorities" in this
field about their methodologies.
I am similarly disturbed about the outrage expressed in _UFO_
magazine over Jerry Clark's treatment of Jaques Vallee. I found "The Sage of
Canby" to be much more restrained in his recent article than he was in his
earlier critique of _Confrontations_. Even *if* those two guys hate each
other, their debate is an important one for the rest of us who share an
interest in these topics. If some of us want to take sides, fine. Trying to
squelch the opposition is another matter.
-- John
--
John Burke - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Keith Basterfield)
Subject: Apology
Date: 31 Jan 92 05:51:00 GMT
I would like to say that I have found Sheldon's observations, comments and
questions of great value in all areas of Paranet. This is not an
arena for "believers" but an open forum for discussion, debate,
disagreement and sharing of information. This is why I have been only
too willing to spend time sharing my Australian findings with all.
I'm happy to be corrected, debated, queried etc. If I can't discuss
it with people who have some knowledge on the subject, and practice
my thoughts and arguments here, then I will fail to convince and
interest health professionals and media people that they should take
abduction research seriously. Let's move on, and continue to discuss
research, theories etc and question everything and everyone (be they
THE EXPERT or not-we can all contribute.) Enough said, back to
research.
--
Keith Basterfield - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Danny.Brandenburg@p1.f0.n606.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Danny Brandenburg)
Subject: Re: abductions
Date: 31 Jan 92 01:56:10 GMT
>Quite a bit can be produced - but the area host has made a request to go
>back to the to subject at hand and I agree with him... that thread got
I Agreed! There are other places to discuss that matter. I too have a
a Wildcat! board with a large religious discussion area. You too, of course,
are more than welcome to call and join in conversation.
>P.S. and I would like to see evidence on the subject of abductions...
>do you have any to share?
Actually, I do not have any evidence to share on abductions. I must
admit, I remain skeptical on the entire area of UFO abductions. The hardest
evidence I can find is that which has been gathered through hypnosis. First
we must prove hypnosis before it can be reguarded as good evidence. Also,
through hypnosis, people can EASILY be given suggestions on what they either
could or should have seen.
There is no doubt in my mind that in most, in most abduction claims, the
person abducted truly believes that they were abducted. However, belief and
reality are to different things. Perhaps abductions are a reality but I
need to find stronger evidence than what has been presented thus far to be
convinced.
--
Danny Brandenburg - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Danny.Brandenburg@p1.f0.n606.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Doug.Rogers@p0.f1.n606.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Rogers)
Subject: Re: Criticisms
Date: 2 Feb 92 21:25:02 GMT
> feel as though you were doing anything other than expressing
> surprise. Doug, I would like to thank you for mounting
> a defense. Budd Hopkins and I feel quite embattled these
> days. There are only a few of us who take the position
You are most welcome, David.
I'm just doing my job. It doesn't matter what the echo coordinator posts, it's
always wrong from someone's point of view. As the moderator of this area, I'm
sure you are finding that out.
My comments were not intended to be public... that is why I sent them to
Sheldon privately. Since he chose to make them public, all I can do is thank
you for the appreciation. I, like you, get da*ned little of it, and any scaps
are sincerely accepted.
--
Doug Rogers - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Doug.Rogers@p0.f1.n606.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sheldon.Wernikoff@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Sheldon Wernikoff)
Subject: Criticisms
Date: 3 Feb 92 00:12:01 GMT
Hello David,
It was most heartening to learn that apparently no one other than
Doug felt I was attacking you. Your kind words of understanding
were deeply appreciated.
In this unconventional discipline called ufology, we must all
endeavor to remain unprejudiced in our convictions, and responsive
to theory modification when warranted by variations in observed
data.
I strive to maintain a fairly detached perspective in the abduction
arena, which becomes increasingly difficult as more and more
statistics become available. This is an unavoidable effect, and I
am certain you find yourself being similarly influenced.
At present, I think we can all recognize that the abduction
phenomenon is an extremely complex issue, and that NOT ALL cases
can be resolved through known psychological archetypes. This latter
category seems diminutive, but no less portentous, than cases that
do SEEM explicable though more mundane means. Whatever is happening
to these individuals, seems to be occurring on at least two levels.
Physical trace cases, and those with corroborative witnesses, are
certainly intriguing, and those most likely to illustrate an
external event. For example, the recent incident Budd has been
involved with concerning two New York police officers who witnessed
an individual being "beamed" aboard a craft. A shared fantasy
between abductee and two credible witnesses seems highly unlikely.
I find that many of the foremost researchers seem to be searching
for the consummate, end-all-doubt abduction case. As a result, many
casualties of less extraordinary seizures, are going without
investigation and therapy, simply because their cases are less
interesting. This is a most unfortunate situation, as some of these
people are desperately in need of counseling. Lamentably, you just
cannot get quality professional care in this country without
insurance or a wheelbarrow full of cash.
As Keith Basterfield stated in a recent message... "let's move on,
and continue to discuss research, theories, etc. and question
*everything* and *everyone* (be they THE EXPERT or not - we can all
contribute.)
Thanks Dave,
Sheldon
--
Sheldon Wernikoff - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Sheldon.Wernikoff@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sheldon.Wernikoff@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Sheldon Wernikoff)
Subject: Apology
Date: 3 Feb 92 00:13:02 GMT
In a message to Sheldon Wernikoff <30-Jan-92 22:51>
Keith Basterfield wrote:
KB> I would like to say that I have found Sheldon's observations,
KB> comments and questions of great value in all areas of Paranet.
You are too kind Keith. Those words of praise from a seasoned
veteran such as yourself to a neophyte like me are certainly an
aggrandizement of my abilities and knowledge.
KB> This is not an arena for "believers" but an open forum for
KB> discussion, debate, disagreement and sharing of information.
That was also my conception of the philosophy behind ParaNet.
KB> Let's move on, and continue to discuss research, theories
KB> etc and question everything and everyone (be they THE EXPERT or
KB> not-we can all contribute.) Enough said, back to research.
I agree Keith, internal bickering will only succeed in ravaging
what little credibility we have all worked so diligently to
ensconce in this field. Let us now return to our regularly
scheduled program.
Thanks for your post on the "Age" newspaper... encouraging to
learn it is a respectable publication rather than a tabloid.
Also, we can discuss the Chicago case when you receive the
information.
Take care,
Sheldon
--
Sheldon Wernikoff - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Sheldon.Wernikoff@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
********************************************************************************
For permission to reproduce or redistribute this digest, contact:
DOMAIN Michael.Corbin@paranet.org
UUCP scicom!paranet.org!Michael.Corbin
****************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
Mail to private Paranet/Fidonet addresses from the newsletters:
DOMAIN firstname.lastname@paranet.org
UUCP scicom!paranet.org!firstname.lastname
****************A**B**D**U**C**T**I**O**N****D**I**G**E**S**T*******************
