UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Feb > Feb 2

Re: Abduction - The Issue Of Reality

From: Peter Brookesmith Mendoza <DarkSecretPB@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 15:33:56 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 15:51:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Abduction - The Issue Of Reality


With the compliments of the Duke of Mendoza:


>Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 16:12:36 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
>Subject: Re: Abduction - The Issue Of Reality

First, John, sorry I misconstrued the sequence of events in your
"alien script" episode. However the brain here is more in
Perkins diesel mode than RR supercharged Merlin, and I for one
am not clear even now what you consciously remembered and what
was recalled under hypnosis. I'd be delighted if you'd
elaborate, and no doubt others would find the story intriguing
too.

Especially interesting would be to know what you were doing
before the event, and whether there was a missing time episode...
in other words, what you did and didn't consciously recall and
how there was a gap that bore investigation under hypnosis.

Oh, and did you keep, and do you still have, your original
sketch of the glyphs from 1976, to compare with what you
produced from the hypnotic session?

John also remarked:

>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.

Nor is that above! There are many, many cases of alleged
abduction that are hypnotically "retrieved" on the basis of no
more than a chunk of "missing time", for example. You've told me
of two of your own experiences in which aliens figured only
under hypnosis - 1979, 62nd St, and the motel-room "Castilian
speakers" one. My account of the former makes plain the
difference between what is consciously recalled and what's
emerged from hypnosis.

The usual figure bandied about is that one in three abduction
accounts are offered from conscious recollection. I suspect this
figure--or factoid--derives ultimately from Bullard's 1987
catalogue created for "Measure of a Mystery". I wager that a
similar herculean labor today would find the proportion has
shifted in favor of hypnotically acquired accounts--my dollar to
your dollar, I'm a cheerful loser--and that the shift begins
after 1988, post "Intruders" and post "Communion".

Plainly hypnosis can't take _all_ the blame for abduction
accounts, and I've absolutely never claimed it can. Indeed the
real challenge to anyone who'd argue that abduction stories are
not literally true is to explain the ones that are consciously
recalled. Which is not an impossible task, if a large one.

Nonetheless. When the most vocal, and certainly most
widely-read, proponents of the reality of abduction--Hopkins,
Mack, Jacobs, Sprinkle, B_y!?n, Fowler--_all_ use hypnosis
freely, and claim that it's indispensible, and base their most
celebratedly outlandish cases on it, and furthermore produce a
lot of spurious logic and transparent sophistry to avoid dealing
with the objection that its potential pitfalls far outweigh its
potential merits, and furthermore _don't_ tell us sometimes
highly salient facts about their subjects that would put the
hypnotic material in a very different light than the one they
shine on it, then they deserve all the kicking they get.

Four of the above-named are demonstrably intellectually
dishonest at worst and self-deceiving at best. If some clown now
complains from their cave or wormhole that skeptics can be less
than perfect too, that is as it may be; but it does not donate
any integrity, objectivity or self-knowledge to the mountebanks.
Rant over. Deep breath.

John then went on to comment on my, er, Jungian notion--not--of
symbols that arise in trance (-like) states:

>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.

Er--may I suggest more thorough research? Note, I did say trance
or trance-like states, and I didn't have Jung's collective
unconscious in mind - just common brain wiring. Not everyone is
familiar with those states, and our society seems particularly
averse to encouraging them. (Some would go from there to suggest
that this lack of familiarity is one reason such experiences are
now transmuted into abduction accounts, but I don't want to
debate that here.) Other societies have been more generous
toward their immanent dream-makers. The San people of the
Kalahari ("Bushmen" to unreconstructed colonialists like me) are
one instance that come to mind of people verifiably
incorporating trance material into their art. There are others,
lost to my memory off hand, and there is a mass of
"archaeological" material that certainly bears a relation to
those "alien glyphs" I've seen, and that very probably derives
from trance material, given what we know about their producers'
parallel interest in hallucinogens, etc.

As I said, my idea is testable: you _very carefully_ hypnotize a
control group and see what comes out. Personally I wish I had
seen more samples of the "alien script" for myself, to judge just
how similar they are. Even more interesting would be to discover
that someone besides Hopkins had had subjects produce scripts
just like those in his collection. It would be a cat among
pigeons to find that e.g. Dr 8o!la_ also had a whole three dozen
alien scripts all alike but totally dissimilar from the Hopkins
Collection. Aaaaiiiieee!

>Who
>knows, one night while chasing the foals you may encounter
>something which will defy explanation for you too.

Well, I've always said they're welcome to come and try. No skin
off my nose. And it would certainly add to my knowledge of the
subject. I hope aliens don't annoy horses, though, or at least
that they don't bruise easily! (And even more I hope that the
damn' horse doesn't hoof me instead of them, sod it.)

best wishes
Pasternak D. Mushroom
Third Eye





[ 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