From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 16:12:36 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 09:44:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Abduction - The Issue Of Reality

>Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 22:49:34 -0500
>From: Peter Brookesmith Mendoza <DarkSecretPB@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: Abduction - The Issue Of Reality
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>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

Hola Mendoza, hola a todos,

I originally inquired:

>>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.

<snip>

Peter responded:

>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

I can't speak for the others.

Maybe I should have been clearer Peter. (Sorry, not such a much
of a writer! <G>) I recalled that event _consciously!_ It
happened in 1976. I made a drawing of the symbol and the glyphs
the next morning after the "encounter." I still have the
original. It wasn't until 17 years later (1993) when Budd and I
were looking into that event using hypnosis that I finally
learned how it had started and how it had ended. I recalled the
"middle part" of the experience clearly since day one. I just
never knew how it began or ended. We were using hypnosis to fill
in some informational gaps. The event itself has always been
intact in my memory. (Not to mention haunting/disturbing)

That is true of every other hypnosis session I have ever done.
(5 sessions _total_ over a 1 1/2 year period) Each session was
focused on a very specific (and fully conscious) recollection.
Again, all they served to do was to 'fill in' rather (small)
gaps in my original recollection. You and others always make it
sound as if the majority (if not the whole) of our accounts are
derived from hypnosis. It just isn't a fair or accurate
representation.

I'm not defending hypnosis. I really haven't given much credence
to any material that I have obtained that way. I have simply
filed it away for future reference. Nor will I defend or argue
for the efficacy of hynosis to recover lost or hidden memory.
The 'jury' is still out on that one. But once again, I have not
gotten a straight answer because you based your response in a
false premise. I -did not- recover this material via hypnosis.
(Although it was explored 17 years after the fact using the
technique) The 'characters/glyphs' that I drew for Budd were the
same in 1993 as the ones I drew that morning in1976!) In this
case, the "egg" came _before_ the "chicken!" <VBG>

Your other explanation is very Jungian! (IF) there is a
"collective unconscious" wherein resides "archetypal symbols
common to all men/women" then it would be a -good candidate- for
explaining why we all reproduced the same symbols/glyphs. But
then, I think we would be treading on 'metaphysical ground' that
is just as "mysterious/unknown" as the one we are already
exploring! <G> We'd end up using the work of A. Crowley and
Aldous Huxley or even the paintings of Mondrian or Jackson
Pollack for reference material! <Hee-Haw> Also, if this is
"common" or "archetypal" material, why isn't it present in the
"cultural/artistic" offerings available either in a gallery or
archaeology museum? If it was truly 'common' we'd all be
familiar with the glyphs from new or ancient drawings/art
produced by men and women who go out of their way sometimes to
find and reproduce (from within themselves) such material. The
conscious and the subconscious are the breeding grounds of art.
Yet I had never seen anything like this 'writing' before the
event in 1976. And, I'm pretty sure that (we) haven't discovered
-for the first time in human history- a set of "archetypal
symbols" that arte 'common' to all. I was just curiousif you had
an alternative explantion as to how 7 or 8 disparate individuals
could produce the same 'writing.'

Thanx for 'giving it a whack' Peter. It still remains a mystery
to me. But I do consider it (along with many other things-most
of which are physical in nature, and clearly/consciously
recalled) a confirmation of the 'reality' of the original
experiences. I suppose there is truth to the statement that one
has to experience certain things for themselves before it can
enter the realm of the 'real' or the 'possible' for them. Who
knows, one night while chasing the foals you may encounter
something which will defy explanation for you too. (And may you
have the waders on when you do! I know that there are times when
I wish I had a pair on over here! <G>)

Warm regards,

John Velez



________________________________________________
                                jvif@spacelab.net
INTRUDERS FOUNDATION/ABDUCTION INFORMATION CENTER
                            http://www.if-aic.com
"Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
________________________________________________