UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Feb > Feb 1

Re: Abduction - The Issue Of Reality

From: Peter Brookesmith Mendoza <DarkSecretPB@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 22:49:34 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 11:11:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Abduction - The Issue Of Reality


With the compliments of the Duke of Mendoza:

>Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 04:31:53 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
>Subject: Re: Abduction - The Issue Of Reality

While I'm here, I'll pick you up on a complaint you made in this
thread to someone else that no skeptical commentator seems
willing to accept that abductees were telling the truth plain
and simple (words...that effect). Not picking _on_ you, but just
to make the position clear to some of Great Obtuse out there:
this ain't quite true. Look at my book again! The point being
that the _honest_ account as told by anyone, about anything, is
not necessarily a complete or accurate account of what happened,
i.e. it is not the truth. No news to you that I don't think
you've actually been abducted by actual aliens, but that doesn't
mean you are being dishonest in relating your experience(s) or
putting that interpretation on them. Nor does it mean, either,
that my interpretation of them is true, real, the bees' knees,
etc., but it's the best I can honestly do. I had thought I had
labored this distinction at some length in the book.

I _believe_ that is the position most thoughtful skeptics would
take. Even that wicked nasty debunker, my good friend Phil
Klass, reserves his venom for abduction investigators, not
abductees. This is consistent with his position on UFO
investigators in general, as opposed to UFO witnesses in
general.

Now to John's message itself:

<various mighty snips real and implied>

>Now I would like to ask;

>Not being psychic, and never having seen anything like those
>characters before (at least not before the UFO abduction
>experience) _how_ could I have reproduced _exactly_ what was
>written by the others on those pages? Unless we all saw the same
>thing under the same circumstances. As far as I can see, it
>cannot be explained in any other plausible way. It's too freaky.
>It would just be too much of a fluke/stretch for something like
>that to be explained any other way.

>Now here's the kicker:  I saw that writing on board a UFO.
>(1976) The 'others' claim to have seen theirs in the same
>place.(on board a UFO) and at different times, and different
>locations. I considered it a _confirming_ revelation and
>compelling evidence for the 'reality' of the original
>experience.

>What do _you_ make of it? It's quite a cute conundrum.

Yes it is, and I don't pretend to have The Answer, on this or
many other aspects of "abductions" (see above). Since you asked
in this public place, I have to say here that I have a couple of
ideas - one testable, the other harder to test - that _may_ lead
to a mundane explanation, or not as the case may be (that is
called experiment, and research). But I can't explain them here
without giving away what I know about that "alien script".

This is a slightly crazy situation; life is suffused again with
a whiff of the surreal. But expect some private mail.

What I can point out, however, is that when you say "I saw that
writing on board a UFO", you mean "under hypnosis I recalled
being on a UFO and seeing that writing". And, presumably, the
others who recalled that script did so under hypnosis too.
Assuming hypnosis _is_ an altered state of consciousness, which
some dispute, then it's possible to argue that certain
archetypal patterns, some visual, some narrative, maybe some
aural and tactile for all I know, will emerge in that state. I
think the idea is testable, in principle, too.

Way back when, I think it was John Powell who suggested getting
a cryptanalyst to work on these various scripts. If they are
plentiful enough and the samples large and consistent enough it
should be possible to test for repeated patterns, such as should
appear in any symbolic writing. Of course, if the patterns
exist, one might still need the Alien Stone of Rosetta to
discover whether they are offering you new ways with fries,
cosmic wisdom, or a helpful comment on your new wave and set.

I'd also point out (to the world in general) that there is a
difference between witnessing a smash and grab raid on a shop in
the diamond district in real life, and being hypnotized to
enhance - perhaps accurately - memories of details of that
event, such as number plates on cars, and having a conscious
memory of some dodgy characters arriving in a Jaguar, but no
more - and then being hypnotized in order to find out what
happened after that. One technique focuses on stuff that is
known to have occurred, and seeks to sharpen the memory. The
other seeks to go beyond conscious memory, and possibly beyond
corroboration. (Let's say this is the sole witness, so who's to
say the broken window and missing diamonds have any connection
to that Jag? The tendency to narrative, Mr Rimmer reminded us a
while back, is the only link, and the creator of the link(s),
besides.)

Yes, there are limits to the analogy, and yes like Greg I do not
want to get into another tired debate about hypnosis. We have
probably gone through it all before and there is nothing quite
so endemic to this subject as a tendency to recycle, and go in
circles, and get nowhere, which I sometimes think is the point,
too. Nonetheless the difference between these purposes &
applications of hypnosis is crucial, and arguing from specific
forensic cases in which most of the facts are not in dispute, to
cases where virtually nothing is known _except_ from hypnosis,
don't wash.

>Ah yes, you are an honorable lad in _all_ the ways that count
>Mendoza.

Thanks. Heh heh. What do you know about the ones that don't?

best wishes
Palantype D. Marprelate
Cryptic Scribbler


[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com