UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Jan > Jan 31

Re: Abduction - The Issue Of Reality

From: Rebecca <xiannekei@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 09:04:10 -0800 (PST)
Fwd Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 21:28:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Abduction - The Issue Of Reality


>From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Abduction - The Issue Of Reality
>Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 20:23:52 -0500

>>>Where abductions are concerned, the skeptics are even more
>>>guilty of that than believers. Note: this is NOT a comment on
>>>Kevin, who's thoughtful about everything he does.

>>I consider myself a skeptic and that doesn't mean I'm a
>>nonbeliever. By contrasting skeptics being more guilty than
>>believers, you are suggesting I'm a nonbeliever.

>Rebecca, I was hardly talking about you. I was talking about
>published writers in both camps.

Thanks for clarifying that.

[...]

>>>If anyone knows of an abduction skeptic who mentions this
>>>pro-abduction argument, even scathingly, I'd love to know about
>>>it.

>>Should skeptic claim that this is a fact? Should he/she say "it
>>is claimed..." or what?

>I myself wouldn't claim this as a fact, so I'd hardly ask
>skeptics to. I'd simply ask them to note that it's claimed, just
>as you suggest. Then they ought to state what they'd think if
>abduction researchers were able to prove that this was actually
>so.

Or perhaps they could just say it is claimed but it hasn't been
proven. No reason to suggest what it might mean if it were true
because it, IMO, opinion is just too generic of a term.

>>I'm just guessing here, but perhaps Brookesmith mentions
>>something similar in his abduction book? Doesn't he interview
>>Betty Hill who says something about abductees getting together
>>at group meeting and comparing notes?

>Peter posted something here to that effect, using (I think) the
>text of an article he published elsewhere. I think it might have
>been an outtake from his book. At the time, I thought -- and
>should have posted here -- that Betty Hill is hardly an expert
>on the current abduction phenomenon, despite her historical
>importance. Much of what she said, I thought, was more or less
>off the top of her head. I'm not sure why Peter thought it was
>worth publishing, unless he was just having fun saying, "See,
>even a famous abudctee thinks abduction research has problems."
>Quoting Betty Hill on current abduction stuff is a little like
>quoting Little Richard on the current state of rock & roll.
>He'll have a lively opinion, but nobody would take it seriously.

I think Betty Hill's interview was interesting and I'm glad
Peter mentioned it. I happen to think that Betty's opinions are
important as she was at the forefront of the abduction
phenomenon. She has seen things change, just as Little Richard
has seen rock & roll change. These are disposable people who can
be just thrown away because their experiences happened a long
time ago. However, their opinions should be put in the proper
context and I don't think Peter was holding Betty out to be an
expert.

>>I need to organize my thoughts a little more clearly on this,
>>but the days of abductees claiming to have no prior knowledge of
>>abductions stories are over, IMO. And if my opinion is correct,
>>it would appear to me that it would be very difficult to
>>establish tiny details from abductee accounts if one wanted to
>>study that particular aspect.

>It's virtually impossible to prove an abductee never heard the
>tiny details somewhere. You can always decide that Budd Hopkins
>or David Jacobs or John Carpenter might have told someone.

That's a possibility as well, but I'd give them more credit than
that. I think it more likely that the "tiny details" could be
coincidence, or unintentional suggestions from other abductees.

>On the other hand, I've seen abductees come into the abduction
>world knowing less than you'd think. More than once I've had an
>abductee friend call in a panic, after having read in an
>abduction book something he or she never dreamed someone else
>knew about. In one case, the abductee had gone through hypnosis
>with Budd, and hadn't believed a word she'd come out with. Then
>she picked up The Threat, and -- not even caring yet about the
>apocalyptic message -- just went into shock reading a couple of
>random details that were exactly like what she said when
>hypnotized. She'd been to a support group meeting or two, and at
>least one party with abductees, and had every chance, you'd
>think, to learn many details of abduction stories. But she
>hadn't, partly because abductees, being in most respects normal
>people, don't spend every waking hour talking obsessively about
>their abduction memories.

Greg, I had a full-blown panic attack upon hearing the symptoms
of abduction from a presentation Budd gave in Houston. I learned
those symptoms could be symptoms of many, many things. In my
case, I think they were just that.

>Crucial focus for those evaluating abduction research -- the
>very early days of abduction investigation, when hardly anyone
>knew the familiar story, and it's harder to claim that abductees
>were influenced by the media or other abductees.

I think this will be very difficult, but not impossible. It will
take the cooperation of several abduction researchers.

>Important area for current investigation (I'm working on this):
>Dave Jacobs' claim that abductees always put certain seemingly
>random -- and obscure -- details in the same order. Dave has all
>his hypnotic sessions transcribed, and so his claim, if it's
>correct, ought to be possible for him to document.

I'd be curious about how many details were different.
Good luck with your work.

Rebecca



[ 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