UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Jul > Jul 21

Re: Why Migraines Don't Explain UFOs

From: John Rimmer <j_rimmer@library.croydon.gov.uk>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 13:17:07 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 08:38:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Why Migraines Don't Explain UFOs

Just a reminder that the P.L.A. Driftwood Organization is still
around and keeping an eye on things.

Before people get too worked up about John Harney's "Migraine
Hypothesis" I suggest they re-read the paragraph towards the end
of the article in Magonia ETH Bulletin which states:

>I am not suggesting that all, or most, close-encounter reports
>have anything to do with migraine. I have no time for catch-all
>explanations which can be force-fitted to any case that comes to
>hand. There are many rational explanations to UFO reports and I
>thing that this one should be added to the list.

Mark Cashman suggests that if Harney's proposal has any validity
we should "expect the migraine literature to be replete with
complex, structured visual hallucinations". I am not familar with
the migraine literature - I do not know indeed if there is a
great deal of it. Certainly Sacks' book is the only popular
account accessible to the layman. However, just how much of the
UFO literature is actually "replete" with structured craft? There
certainly are plently of such accounts, but there are probably
more which sound like the "freewheeling states of hallucinotis,
illusion or dreaming" that Sacks talks about.

I find it difficult to believe that Cashman has not come across
UFO close encounter reports where the percipients have heard
humming and buzzing noises. I agree that the silent "Oz Factor"
is a feature of many accounts, but in many others percipients are
first alerted that something odd is going on by "whirring
sounds", "a noise like a like a swarm of bees", etc, etc.

Harney puts forward migraine as a possible causative factor which
should be considered when other mundane explanations do not fit
the bill, it is *not* proposed as an explanation for *all* close
encounter narratives. Those familiar with the case might like to
consider that it could have been a causative factor in Elsie
Oakensen's experiences.

In the meantime I suggest that Mark Cashman and others read
Sacks' book before taking this argument further.

John Rimmer
Magonia Online, www.magonia.demon.co.uk