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: Bill Weber <koran@cchat.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 00:57:58 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 11:44:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Abduction - The Issue Of Reality

>Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 08:19:44 -0800 (PST)
>From: Rebecca Keith <xiannekei@yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: Abduction - The Issue Of Reality
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>>From: Bill Weber <koran@cchat.com>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Abduction - The Issue Of Reality
>>Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 22:43:04 -0500

>>May I ask a few sincere questions here?

>>It would seem that comparison of "tiny, unpublished details"
>>would be a legitimate method for research. Why not? But the

>Bill, it would be a very significant area of research for
>someone who was skilled in picking apart the data. As the Duke
>mentioned in another response, a serious attempt was made to try
>to check this data out, but the suggestion was turned down by
>Budd. I don't believe other researchers were contacted, but I
>doubt the answer would be any different. I'm certainly not
>qualified to do that kind of research, but I do think it is a
>valid avenue of inquiry.

>But we also must think about what else we might learn from such
>a study. What about all the tiny, unpublished details that don't
>agree? I'm sure there are some of those. What would that mean?

>>above statement seem to set the bar for "significant details"
>>very high - maybe unattainably high. Of course the abductee
>>respondents shouldn't know each other, nor should they contact
>>each other, but must they have lived all their lives in absolute
>>isolation to avoid some obscure, media influence?

>No, I think that is impossible, but I do think we must take the
>influence of the media or pop culture into consideration when
>analyzing the data.

>>similarities between stories for those respondents who have
>>lived normal lives then insignificant? What characteristic of
>>abductee or ground rule for a "significant detail" would get the
>>skeptical reader past the "Weaknesses" section of the research?

>I can't answer that. I'm not embarassed to say that I am
>skeptical of abduction stories, but that doesn't mean that I
>don't believe them. All it means is I don't know what to think.

Hi, Rebecca,

Thank's for the sincere and candid response(s). I have no idea
what the results might mean, whether details were significantly
similar _or_ different. I do think it would be more than
interesting to see a serious (and large) study done on
consciously recalled details.

My only concern was that the insincere either argue about the
method only after they find they hate the conclusion, or they
tend to find their answers before they ask the questions. You
know, the same old story.

Thank's again, Rebecca, and I'm very sorry to hear of your
unfortunate experience.


[ 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