From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 01:32:21 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 17:09:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Abduction - The Issue Of Reality


>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@connectmmic.net>
>Subject: Re: Abduction - The Issue Of Reality
>Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 17:17:35 -0500

>>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
>cream.

>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?

Good point, Serge. The situation is already polarized, and I've
seen too many skeptics criticize real or imagined faults of
abduction investigators, while ignoring the problems in their
own camp. But maybe I didn't need to refight that battle with
you.

>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.

It's not as bad as that. One thing I've noticed with the
abductees around Budd Hopkins is how their anxiety goes away.
People can find fault with his research methods if they like.
But I don't think any honest person who observes first hand what
goes on around him can deny him this one great success. People
come to him terribly upset, and come away no longer obsessed
with abductions, and no longer feeling that their experiences
dominate their lives. (Just the opposite, I imagine, from what
most of his skeptical critics belive.)

>>-- 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even tiny unpublished details in each others' reports.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Either abductees corroborate even tiny unpublished details in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.

As I've explained in other posts, I'm working on this question.
Meanwhile, I have to disagree here, and suggest that the
skeptics' objections do matter, however ignorant they may be.
They're rampant in mainstream abduction discussions (that is,
the ones that happen outside ufology). They need to be answered,
and one of the first points to make is that the skeptics haven't
addressed the entire alleged phenomenon.

Attacking the skeptics, though, is certainly no substitute for
research, analysis, and gathering real evidence.

>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."

Budd encourages abductees to express their anger, if they're
angry. One of his techniques is to ask what people would say if
they could speak freely to their abductors. Often the response
is very angry.


>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,

Thanks, Serge. I've written some analyses of the abduction
phenomenon. One is coming out soon in Dennis Stacy's
publication, The Anomalist. Soon I'll have a website for my UFO
writing, and you'll be able to decide for yourself where I spend
most of my energy -- attacking the skeptics or coming to grips
with the phenomenon itself.

Greg Sandow