Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Abduction Digest Number 68
Abduction Digest, Number 68
Monday, July 20th 1992
(C) Copyright 1992 Paranet Information Service. All Rights Reserved.
Today's Topics:
The MIT Conference
Who is an abductee?
Ambiguities
Bonding
Omega Project
Legitimacy
Screening
The MIT Conference
Received
Screening
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Anson.Kennedy@p0.f25.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Anson Kennedy)
Subject: The MIT Conference
Date: 15 Jul 92 04:45:00 GMT
I am not sure if you get the Paranet Skeptics Conference (I hope you do, I'm
the moderator :-)
Anyway, I have started a thread there about the recent conference at MIT.
Specifically, I am concerned about the confidentiality agreement all
participants were required to sign.
If you could pop on over and lend your (firsthand) thoughts on the matter, I'd
appreciate it.
Thanks.
-- Anson
--
Anson Kennedy - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Anson.Kennedy@p0.f25.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pony.Godic@f6.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Pony Godic)
Subject: Who is an abductee?
Date: 14 Jul 92 23:41:00 GMT
> It is also important to be very careful about how one does
> the screening. One must be careful not to throw the baby out
> with the bathwater. Inexperienced researchers have said that
> good abduction cases
> were a hoax because various aspects of the case were found to
> be contradictory or the witness was not as helpful as the
> investigator desired. What is even more important, is that the
> abduction phenomenon is extremely widespread and its hints and
> clues can be easily overlooked by even the most experienced UFO
> investigators. My best guess is that thousands of abduction
> events are couched behind UFO sightings and have been filed
> away in the cabinets of hundreds of UFO researchers over the
> years.
David,
Thank you for your reply in its entirety, it was of considerable interest to
me. However, I do remain concerned over how often there's actually a baby in
the bathwater. Clearly I am not an abductee, but I think, considering I
sometimes wake up in the night like I've been switched on, plus the fact that I
have long dreamed about UFOs (classic wish fullfilment dreams. The UFO is
always a neon blue with neon pink windows. The one time I recall going on
board , the aliens were bipedal ant-like creatures.) I could very easily
convince myself that I am an abductee. Again, I stress that I have seen cases
so compelling in every way that I am definitely not saying abductions don't
happen. I just question the very rubbery indicators. Also, I worry that people
like me, and I think the majority of people have had small and interesting
things happen to them, may pick something out from background experiences such
as I outlined and decide that this one thing is not imaginatively generated.
For example, it's definitely not an everyday event, nevertheless, it's not
extraordinary for me to see things that aren't there, particularly to wake and
see people standing by the bed at night. I went through a small series of
bedroom visitors about ten years ago. One night I woke and saw a nun in a
discoloured grey-blue heshan type of habit, which covered her face, standing up
by Vladimir's head. She reminded me of a situation in a TV show I saw once,
not a person. Then on another night, around the same time, I saw a man with a
lantern down by the door. He was like the aliens in "This Island Earth" and
his lantern reminded me of the Hermit in the Tarot. Then, around the same
time, I turned over in bed one night and saw Vladimir up in the air and, while
I was thinking why's he up there, he started very slowly and steadily floating
down towards the bed at which point I realized he was still in bed. The body
above merged with the body below. I was enormously tempted to think I'd really
seen Vladimir's astral body returning to his physical body, but, despite its
content, this hallucination was no different to any of the others. So,
objectively, I realized it was generated from the same source - my imagination.
The point of relating this is that the general public have been exposed to an
enormous amount of abduction data. For example, someone who has an imagination
that's inclined to escape out into the outside world like mine, could absorb a
mini series like "Intruders" and, a few months later, generate an abduction
type experience that seemed so plausible to them, becuase of what they've been
seeing and hearing, that they'd believe that this event was reality. This is
why I wonder how often there's a baby in the bathwater.
Cheers, Pony
--
Pony Godic - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Pony.Godic@f6.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Vladimir Godic)
Subject: Ambiguities
Date: 15 Jul 92 01:25:00 GMT
> Vladmir, I hope that we are finally moving to concensus. To
> clear up your puzzlement, I had assumed that if you adhered to
> the Rodeghier definition of abductees, then it would
> automatically mean that you agreed with propostion that anybody
> who claims to be an abductee is therefore an abductee. That is
> what the Rodgehier definition allows. If you do not feel that
> this is the case, then you and I are in agreement that the
> Rodeghier definition should be amended. I hope this clears it
> up for you.
Again, interesting footwork. You attempt to place me in a position from which
I agree with you no matter what I say. Well I don't. I find it disturbing to
see how easily you draw unfounded conclusion.
> I could not help but notice that you appear to be rather
> centered on the idea that there would be such a thing as
> leading UFO researchers. You have made the leap into the idea
> that this is a self-serving statement on my part. To the best
> of my knowledge when the definition of abductions was conceived
> it was not done in consultation with Dick Haines, John
> Carpenter, John E. Mack, Budd Hopkins, or Dave Jacobs. I
> understand that Rodeghier had a perfect right to say anything
> that he wanted to in print. I also think that he could have
> avoided quite a lot of imprecision and problems if he had
> consulted with those individuals, and others.
>
More interesting psychological footwork. Why the unrelenting assault on
Mark Rodeghier?
> I certainly agree with your sentiments about sharing data
> and publishing in refereed journals. In the United States
> there are only two refereed journals that publish pro-abduction
> material, THE JOURNAL OF UFO STUDIES and THE JOURNAL OF
> SCIENTIFIC EXPLORATION. Every once in a while a psychological
> journal will publish an article showing how UFOs or abductions
> are related to some other phenomenon, but for the main the
> normal channels of scientific information sharing are closed off
> to UFO reseachers. The same is true in the book publishing
> world. You might be aware of the fact that my first book, THE
> UFO CONTROVERSY IN AMERICA, remains the only authored book on
> UFOs that takes a pro-UFO stance ever to be published by a
> refereed press--and that was in 1975! I originally gave my
> manuscript for SECRET LIFE to Temple University Press--a very
> good press. They had it for three months and never even
> bothered to look at it. So the situation for abduuction and
> UFO articles in refereed journals and presses remains fairly
> dismal. But, I am sure that you will join with me in hoping
> that the quality of our work will increase and that the arbitrary
> decisions of the refereed journals and
> presses will become more liberal so that we can meet in the
> middle and have a wider spread of scientific information.
>
> Finally, although I agree that a certain amount of
> information can be derived from conscious recollections of
> abduction material, I feel that being deprived of the very
> powerful weapon of hypnosis which is so uniquely suited for
> this type of work, places you are at a distinct disadvantage.
> Until Australian researchers learn to work around this problem,
> and there are ways to do this, or until medical professionals
> not only get interested in the situation but also learn enough
> about doing research in it to be competent at it, abduction
> research will be enormously more difficult in an area that is
> already extremely difficult.
I don't think hypnosis is a fits all tool with which to investigate abductions,
especially when it's not done by professionals. I'm not saying it's not
without application, but I would far rather it were used as a last resort when
all other options have been exhausted. From what I've seen, abductions are
often mixed with a history of paranormal phenomena, abusive childhoods and
other factors that are excluded when evaluating the abduction itself. I'm not
saying that a person with psychic ability or from an abusive background can't
also be abducted, but it seems to me that when strongly present, the abduction
experience must at least be evaluated with regards to whether such things have
coloured the interpretation or, even contributed to the experience, possibly
even generated it. From what I've seen, there's a tendency to eliminate such
background static in favour of a single clear picture - i.e. the abduction
only. It would seem to me that there's a tendency by some to define the
abduction experience in accordance with their own viewpoint. This blinkers them
to the extent that any other experiences not conforming to this viewpoint are
eliminated from the evaluation process. Unfortunately, such a working position
results in these individuals displaying intolerance to anyone who adopts a
different approach. I suspect they feel very threatened by such people as
Mark Rodeghier and others.
--
Vladimir Godic - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David.Jacobs@f21.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (David Jacobs)
Subject: Bonding
Date: 13 Jul 92 07:59:19 GMT
I am gratified that you picked up on the importance of the bonding
procedures that are administered to abductees. I feel fairly certain that
these procedures, and others, are responsible for a lot of the feelings of
benevolence and positivness that some abductees feel. I have also been
examining the role of sexual feelings elicited in these procedures and they
might also play a role. Unfortunately, I am also aware of some procedures in
which the hypnotist can lead the subject into falsely feeling quite good about
their situation thereby preventing an adequate coming-to-terms with the
phenomenon, in a therapeutic sense. I think that it all points to how
complicated the abduction phenomenon is, not only in exactly what happens,
but also in how the events are recovered.
Via SPITFIRE Bulletin Board System - Version 3.2
--
David Jacobs - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: David.Jacobs@f21.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David.Jacobs@f21.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (David Jacobs)
Subject: Omega Project
Date: 15 Jul 92 07:22:19 GMT
I have not read Ring's book and it may be different than his article. All
I can say is that the study that he conducted for the article was so terribly
flawed that it demonstrated very little and proved nothing. The basis of his
article was a thinly disquised idea that NDE and UFO abductions had the same
origin. Not only is this idea somewhat nonsensical on the face of it, but the
population that he used to do his study was fatally flawed and the indices he
used for his measurements were also not very convincing, to say the least.
Please read my article for more details.
I am afraid that this is the kind of study that obscures rather than
clarifies. The main problem with Ring is that he had no real idea what the
abduction phenomenon was all about when he began his study. Not knowing what
it was comprised of allowed him to engage in rather naive ideas about it that
fit in nicely with his NDE material.
Via SPITFIRE Bulletin Board System - Version 3.2
--
David Jacobs - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: David.Jacobs@f21.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David.Jacobs@f21.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (David Jacobs)
Subject: Legitimacy
Date: 15 Jul 92 07:37:58 GMT
When I suggested to my old publishers, Indiana University Press, that I was
going to do another book on UFOs, they were delighted. They sent me a signed
contract. Then I began the abduction work and switched heavily into the
abduction topic. I sent the head of IUP a very conservative chapter very
early on which in fact was the MUFON paper called "The Consequences of
Nonexistence." (A very different form of the paper actually did appear in my
book six years later). The paper was about the psychological ramification of
the abduction phenomenon not having an objective reality. The head of IUP
immediately cancelled the contract because I had deigned to suggest that there
was the possibility that abductions might be real.
Temple UP acted in much the same way. The subject itself, no matter how
it is presented is heavily steeped in ridicule. Oh, I guess that a university
press might publish something that was couched in academic jargon and that was
heavily quantitative and so on. But that is not the book that I wanted to
write. As long as the subject exists on the fringe of respectability one can
expect that to be mirrored in the publishing industry.
Incidentally, I may be wrong, but I believe that only three books have
ever been published by an academic press on UFOs: Menzel's first book, FLYING
SAUCERS, published by Harvard UP, Sagan and Page's edited book of AAAS
papers, UFOs: A SCIENTIFIC DEBATE, published by Cornell UP, and my first book.
However, all is not bleak. About nine doctoral dissertations have been written
on UFO-related themes.
Via SPITFIRE Bulletin Board System - Version 3.2
--
David Jacobs - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: David.Jacobs@f21.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David.Jacobs@f21.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (David Jacobs)
Subject: Screening
Date: 15 Jul 92 07:46:09 GMT
I guess it is possible to screen yourself, but it would be very, very
difficult. Most people do not know what has happened to them and choose
those things that the society allows to have happened to them, like seeing a
"ghost" and so forth. It does take a trained individual who has heard these
stories many times before and who understands what might be behind them to do
the screening. But this is all part of the abduction package. Not knowing
what has happened to one is part of the clandestine activity that has
characterized the abduction and UFO phenomenon since the beginning. The
secrecy procedures are very effective. When they do not want someone to know
what has happened to him, they are quite good at covering the memory, screening
the memory, erasing the memory, and so forth. It is not a perfect science,
however, and people do in fact remember all sorts of things. But it difficult,
very difficult. I plan to write an article on secrecy shortly and perhaps
offer some new directions in thinking about it.
Via SPITFIRE Bulletin Board System - Version 3.2
--
David Jacobs - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: David.Jacobs@f21.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve.Rose@f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Steve Rose)
Subject: The MIT Conference
Date: 19 Jul 92 09:30:38 GMT
Hello Anson!
AK> I am not sure if you get the Paranet Skeptics Conference (I hope you do,
What is the exact echo area name so I can areafix it here? Thanks.
--
Steve Rose - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Steve.Rose@f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bill.Skiles@p7.f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Skiles)
Subject: Received
Date: 17 Jul 92 07:50:00 GMT
Dear David,
Received the package in the mail. Thank You. Will send it back to you
asap. BTW, I just received some literature about the IF Foundation. In it, they
said that if you write to them they will send you the location of the nearest
hypnotherapist. It stated that the staff there would help you to find one. Do
you know if this is true? Should I look into it or just continue `moving
forward' with you?
Thank you for your time. Just a dialouge with someone helps. Still having
difficulties.
Bill
--
Bill Skiles - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Bill.Skiles@p7.f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bill.Skiles@p7.f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Skiles)
Subject: Screening
Date: 18 Jul 92 10:39:00 GMT
> I guess it is possible to screen yourself, but it
> would be very, very difficult.
Let me try and say it plainly.
What advice would you give to a person that is not able to contact a
hypnotherapist or can't afford one? What tips, techniques, suggestions or
advice can you give a person to help them remember or to bring up memories.
What about self-hypnosis. What about a means to quiet some of the anxiety so
that they can get some sleep? Any thoughts?
Bill
--
Bill Skiles - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Bill.Skiles@p7.f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
*******************************************************************************
Submissions abduct@scicom.alphacdc.com
Administrative requests abduct-request@scicom.alphacdc.com
FTP archive grind.isca.uiowa.edu:/info/paranet/abduct
Permission to distribute Michael.Corbin@paranet.org
Private mail to Paranet/Fidonet users firstname.lastname@paranet.org
UUCP gateway {ncar,isis,csn}!scicom
********************End**of**the**Abduction**Newsletter************************
