UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Jan > Jan 30

Re: 1999 UFO Alien Abduction Conference Announced

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 04:23:30 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 18:48:58 -0500
Subject: Re: 1999 UFO Alien Abduction Conference Announced

>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
>Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 09:51:08 EST
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Re: 1999 UFO Alien Abduction Conference Announced

>>Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 13:58:24 -0500
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
>>Subject: Re: 1999 UFO Alien Abduction Conference Announced

>>>From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
>>>Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 09:28:07 +0000
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>Subject: 1999 UFO Alien Abduction Conference Announced


>>>If Kevin Randle were to fly himself in, would he be welcome to
>>>address the conference? Certainly there should be a little time

<snipped for brevity)

Kevin wrote:

>In many of those conferences the agenda is out there for
>everyone to see. If Richard Boylan is the conference organizer,
>then it is clear to everyone that nothing considered "negative"
>will be presented. All New Age philosophy will be endorsed and
>all evidences of scientific thought will be rejected.

Geez Kevin, you mentioned the "unmentionable one." EBK must have
been drowsy when this one came across his screen. The mere
mention of Heir Doktors name _usually_ ellicits a loud
"hrrrumph" from him. <G>

[Looked long, harrumphed, looked harrumphed and posted--ebk]

>The IF conference seemed to one that was going to be
>scientifically oriented. I thought it would be a good arena in
>which to introduce some thoughts about the abductions with an
>eye to helping some of those who believe they might have been
>abducted and who are looking for some answers.

We both know that there aren't very many reliable "answers"
available. I (and I don't think any of the invited speakers)
would ever presume to have or provide "answers" especially to
many of the larger questions. "Helping folks" or providing
information is what the website was set up to do. That isn't
what the conference is about, or geared for. Besides, in a
conference setting, trying to 'help' or to give answers (without
dealing with individuals and their specifics) would be a tough
act to pull off, and IMHO would be tantamount to 'recruiting' or
in some cases polluting/preconditioning the listeners. Contrary
to popular belief, in our work with individuals we avoid -any-
of that like the plague.

>It is not a negative view but a simple statement to suggest
>that, in my opinion, a little balance could be used.

That was strong language you used in that post Kevin. When you
tell folks to expect a one sided presentation it would be hard
_not to_ take it as a negative slam. Maybe I'm just to close to
it (conference) and I read more into your remarks than you may
have intended, but it came off (to me) as a slam on the
conference and the speakers.

>The list of
>the speakers (and here I may again irritate Jerry Clark) seemed
>to have all come down on a single side in the debate. I have
>read each of the books produced by the participants and can
>guess at the direction they will take. I thought a cautionary
>hand might round out the picture. That was really all that I

If you had couched it in those terms in your original you never
would have heard from me (or probably Jerry either!) You'll have
to admit that the above paragraph is much more benign than the
'tone' of your original.

>As for knocking you all over the internet, isn't that something
>of an exaggeration? I personally posted my message twice, both
>times to closed discussion lists. I have not posted it to any of
>the open news groups, and in fact, haven't looked at any of
>those in several months.

Aw Kevin, now you're being coy. You've been around long enough
to know that anything that is posted by someone as well known as
yourself, will get reposted ad nausium all over the place. And
in no time flat! They don't call it the World Wide Web for
nothing partner. In 24 hours a post from UpDates could have made
it around the world at least three times. Yeah, it reaches a lot
of eyes. And you know that. "Exaggeration?" I don't think so.

>I also knew, when I posted the comments, that they would invoke
>a number of nasty responses (not that I would consider that
>written by John Velez nasty) and they have.

No nastiness was intended by me Kevin. Although my 'first draft'
is not the one that made it to the list. <lol> I'm glad it
didn't. Those 'first reactions' can be murder if you hit the
'send' button too quickly. <G>

>It is clear that many don't want to see anything that suggests
>an alternative answer to any aspect of the abduction phenomena.

Get a snack Kevin, this is a lengthy response. <G>

I don't know if your use of the word "many" is accurate or a
fair characterization. I have been waiting for years for any
"other" plausable explanation. In point of fact, I'd rather
think that I'm nuts! At least that way I can simply eat my
Prozac (or gorilla bicuits, or whatever they're prescribing
nowadays) than live my life with this. I could simply go and get
help and help myself. It is my experience in working with others
that that attitude is widely shared by abductees. (Most folks)
would much rather believe they're nuts than believe abduction.
But then I'm not crazy or imagining things. Many others feel the
same way. Before I ever went to Hopkins I had my self evaluated
psychologically. I'm not crazy or dysfunctional so, (for me)
purely 'psychological' explanations just don't hold much water.

No one_ (as yet) has postulated anything that I (and many
others) can consider as a viable "alternative" expanation for
what has been happening to me, (us) and mine, (our loved ones.)

I'm not one of those that is basing their conclusions on
nebulous, or half recalled material. I _have had_ _close up_
encounters with silent, glowing, hovering discs. Hours of
"missing time," visits to emergency rooms where I am asked by
E.N.T. specialists about the "surgery" I have had in my head, or
my abdomen, (I have never had any surgery in my head or my gut!)
Then there is the physical evidence that I have witnessed first
hand among my family members time and again. That's an awful lot
to dismiss as "media influence" or temporary psychosis or

I was there, I saw, I felt, I remembered. It happened. The
moment someone can give me a (sensible) alternative explanation
for any of the above, I'm open man. So far, no soap. No _one
thing_ I have heard from anyone addresses -all- of the above.

What does make sense because it -fully- explains/fits
_everything_ I have experienced over a lifetime is this;

UFOs (yep, I've seen em) manned by nonhuman beings, (yep, seen
them too) are taking people, (yep, I've been taken) and
performing "medical-like" proceedures, (been dere done dat)
among "other things" for reasons unknown. The encounters can
leave physical traces, ie; marks, scars, ground traces, and even
active bleeding afterwards. (been dere done dat!)

So you see, simplistic psychological or media explanations don't
take into account the physical aspects. Media influence although
it may be valid for someone born in the last couple of decades
doesn't apply to me because I'm a fifty year old fart and when I
was a kid my parents were poor and we didn't have a TV or go to
movies much through my first 6 or 7 years of life. Yet I have
-clear- childhood memories (that I have carried with me all my
life) about 'little skeletons' that used to take me out of the
house and up to the sky. My mother caught me slamming myself
repeatedly into a wall when I was four or five because I was
attempting to walk through it. I _knew_ it was possible because
I had done it with 'them.' We're talking 1953 Kevin. Show me
"Greys" or "floating through walls/floors/cielings" or any
number of other things that I have failed to mention in any
"media" of the time. Remember, we didn't own a TV and the only
movies I saw as small child were Disney flicks. (Davey Crockett
and Dumbo etc.) No "Greys" in any of those. One other thing,
have you noticed that the "alternative explanations" are _all_
mutually exclusive? And no (one) of them explains _all_ of the
aspects of what is being (commonly) reported.

>When, in North Carolina, I suggested only that we must
>do better than suggest "there are no traditional sci-fi gods
>and devils" that correspond to the abduction phenomena,

There certainly are now. I agree. But it doesn't go far enough
Kevin. It doesn't address fully conscious multiple witness UFO
encounters/sightings, the physical aspects of abductions or any
of the other reported phenomena. None of the alternates offered
to date have addressed the 'whole.' Just parts. Bits and pieces.

Also, (and this is a big bone of contention with me)

None of them _ever_ take into account that (some folks) may
simply be telling the truth to the best of their ability.

That's why some folks get a little pissed. It's like being
called a fool or a liar.  Facts are facts, and the truth
(whether you are able to prove it right away or not,) is still
the truth. I don't know if you can understand where I'm coming
from Kevin. I'm not selling anything. I can only go with what I
clearly and consciously recall, and I can only try to report it
in as unembellished a way as I can.

>there were those who heard me attacking abductees.

Hey man, don't feel bad. I'm an abductee and I've been called a
skeptic! (By other abductees! <G>) And only because I believe
that anyone going public should be 'willing' to substantiate
their claims as best they can. (By being willing to submit to
psychological/polygraph/medical or other forms of verification.)
Private individuals have no such obligations. I get beaten to
death for that little 'opinion.'

>All I was saying was that we
>could, if we looked, find various elements of the abduction
>phenomena in science fiction and pop culture, and that we had
>better find ways of dealing with that information rather than
>simply dismissing it.

There's really only one way to "deal with it" Give "it" credence
over the reports of the experiencers. Doesn't make much sense
when looked at in that light does it. It _may be_ valid in
(some) cases. But, it only serves to minimize what is being
honestly reported by many credible individuals. Price is too
high just to prove that (a few) are/may be influenced by media.

>I would, of course, have
>preferred to make the argument myself, but that is not to be.

My high school basketball coach used to say; "Buck up boys,
there's always next year! <VBG>

Greg is a fair guy Kevin. Submit some questions for the 'panel.'
I'm _sure_ Greg will use what he can during the discussion. I
certainly have no objections to your having some input. Your
work and reputation have earned you the right to be heard. We
aren't out to deny you that. (Contrary to your original remarks
about us and the conference.) <G>

Regards, and hopefully still on friendly terms,

John Velez
"Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."

[ 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