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: Abduction - The Issue Of Reality

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@connectmmic.net>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 17:17:35 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 19:25:03 -0500
Subject: Re: Abduction - The Issue Of Reality

>From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: 1999 UFO Alien Abduction Conference Announced
>Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 10:43:26 -0500

>>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@connectmmic.net>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: 1999 UFO Alien Abduction Conference Announced
>>Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 23:28:17 -0500



>>But isn't that the real problem
>>with ufology in general and abductions in particular: turning
>>one's back on analysis and advocate "opinions" instead?

>Where abductions are concerned, the skeptics are even more
>guilty of that than believers.

That does not solve the problem of "failure to analyze" and
invoking believer-skeptics you are putting mustard on whip

Not trying to be offending, but you are like a bank robber
pointing at Al Capone to excuse his crimes.  Instead of
polarizing the debate over a belief-system, why not address
facts and knowledge?

Abduction is in a phase of D_j_-vu: with its "us and they/we and
them", it is becoming some kind of movement and all its true
implications are being lost in the shuffle.  Experiencers claim
ignorance and despair, and no mainstream abductologist seems to
be able to alleviate this burden.

>But typically abduction skeptics don't even mention the full
>range of possible abduction evidence

As skeptic avoiding evidence is a jerk and should be ignored.

> -- for instance, the claim
>made by some abduction investigators that abductees corroborate
>even tiny unpublished details in each others' reports. Note
>again: I'm not insisting that this claim is correct

Well, I can't take that.

I get worried when Klass and skeptics get used in an argument.
Either abductees corroborate even tiny unpublished details in
each other's reports or they don't.

Claims are as solid and as valuable as a skeptic's argument:
free like air but stinking like a fart.  Claims create urban
legends that can only perpetuate the despair of the victims of
abductions.  I know that, in this era of rubberized
relationships, "experiencer" is more palatable than "victim",
but, as "collateral damages" cannot make war less messy and less
inhumane, "experiencer" won't make the problem less problematic.

"Alleged victims" of abduction _do not_ differ from victims of
crimes: their personal feeling of security has been shattered
and they show adaptive behavior to this event.  Among other
reactions: aggressiveness, depression, gesunting.

In such a perspective, "alleged victim" is an oxymoron: a
shattered feeling of security is related to an "event", a real
freaking event.  256-shades-of-grey entities participating in
the event should not distract anyone from this.

Let's try my favorite find and replace tool and apply it to
cases of abduction: replace greys with "the bastards" and UFO or
whatever with "car" or "van" and show the case to any
investigator.  My 2 cents that you'll be answered:  "Don't
worry, we'll get those bastards in the red Chevy."

I am sure that, with all your knowledge on abductions, you can
come with better "analysis".  And you should.

With respect and understanding that this is a tough job,

Serge Salvaille

[ 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