UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Oct > Oct 4

Re: Abductions: A Funny Thing Happened...

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 09:49:44 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 17:37:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Abductions: A Funny Thing Happened...


 >From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@mindspring.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >Subject: Re: Abductions: A Funny Thing Happened...
 >Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 21:11:19 GMT


 >>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 09:12:22 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Abductions: A Funny Thing Happened...
 >>To: updates@globalserve.net

 >>>From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@mindspring.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Abductions: A Funny Thing Happened...
 >>>Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 22:38:13 GMT

 >>>Why is it that we _assume_ that one phenomenon (UFOs) has
 >>>anything to do with the other (abduction/contact experiences)?

 >>>There is a widespread willingness to consider evidence that
 >>>radar contact has been made with objects (presumably craft) not
 >>>produced on Earth.

 >>>There is a lesser, but growing, willingness to consider that
 >>>something extraordinary is happening to so-called abductees and
 >>>contactees.

 >>>Where is the willingness to soberly evaluate the evidence as to
 >>>whether one phenomena is related to the other, and, if so, how?

 >>We (Russ Estes, Bill Cone and I) have tried to do this in 'The
 >>Abduction Enigma'.

 >Maybe you could explain a little more specifically, Kevin, how
 >you and your co-authors attempted to evaluate the evidence
 >for/against the alleged link between UFOs as physical craft and
 >Alien Abduction Experiences, AAEs. As I see it, "The Abduction
 >Enigma" treated the AAE as a hallucination associated with sleep
 >paralysis or regurgitated birth memories, or as a false memory
 >imposed by unethical or incompetent therapists and researchers.

The original assumption, as has been played out first in The
October Scenario (1989), Faces Of The Visitors (1997) and
finally in The Abduction Enigma (1999) reveals an evolution in
thought. My first magazine article on abductions appeared in the
mid-1970s, and the main thrust was that the case represented a
real abduction. The Abduction Enigma is the result of the long
study, not only by me, but by Russ Estes and Bill Cone. Estes,
as he interviewed over 150 abductees (in the beginning) began to
see some things that suggested to him, that the answer to
questions might lie, not in space, but on Earth.

We nave never endorsed the idea of birth trauma as an
explanation for an abduction experience. We agreed with Lawson's
conclusion on the Garden Grove abduction was probably hoax, but
his birth trauma theory failed for a number of reasons, not the
least of which is infantile amnesia. He couldn't answer the
simple question of how the fetus knew what it looked like
because there are no reflective surfaces in the womb, and
certainly no light.

 >Once its reality status was assumed to be that of an illusion,
 >there was no need to consider whether there was an actual
 >evidence of a link between AAEs and UFOs.

But that link had already been broken by the lack of undisputed
physical evidence, a failure to produce, during our study,
anything independently, that would link UFOs to abduction other
than the testimony of those who claimed abduction, and the
realization that other answers provided the keys.

 >There _was_ considerable insightful analysis of the relationship
 >between _reports_ of abduction experiences _reports_ of Satanic
 >Abuse. It may be that differences in the theoretical
 >perspectives of abduction researchers and satanic abuse
 >researchers have led to classifying a single phenomenon into two
 >categories depending on who is doing the investigating. However,
 >the possibility that we might be able to consolidate these two
 >areas of research doesn't automatically mean that both groups of
 >researchers were investigating an illusory experience rather
 >than a real one.

Not initially, no. But once we began to examine Satanic Ritual
Abuse (SRA), we saw the same forces operating. Little in the way
of conscious memories, but a whole range of horrifying tales
told under the influences of the researchers, hypnotic
regression, and even various drugs. However, when the search for
physical and corroborative evidence began, the tales started to
fall apart. A major difference between abduction and SRA is that
there are more recanters in SRA. Yes, there are a few in
abductions.

 >Consider an analogous situation involving research into cattle
 >mutilations. For better or for worse, I live in the Bible belt
 >and we just don't see many dead cows mutilated by aliens. Bible
 >belt cows are much more likely to be mutilated by satanic
 >ritualists. (My theory is that around here the sheriff's deputy
 >who takes a report about a cattle mute calls a researcher
 >specializing in satanic rituals rather than a researcher
 >specializing in aliens harvesting genetic material.)

 >In any event, we might say differences in theoretical
 >perspectives among researchers explain why the phenomenon of
 >cattle mutilation is divided into two categories. But even if we
 >eliminated the artifical distinctions between the two field, we
 >still have to admit that both groups were investigating a real
 >phenomenon.

 >There really were dead cows.

Which is a form of physical evidence. However, isn't it true that there
is a disagreement about the cause, or causes, of that physical
evidence?

With abductions, the little bit of physical evidence that
exists, say the alien implants, produce little in the way of
corroboration. That's why we looked at that as well and were
left with nothing in the way of a scientific finding, except for
negative results.

John Velez was right when he called for a release of the "hidden
proof." If it exists, is should be brought out into the light of
day for independent and scientific examination instead of
parceled out to one or two researchers who have a vested
interest.

 >>>Is there any evidence that would selectively discriminate
 >>>between these theories:

 >>>1. That the same off-world beings that pilot the craft are also
 >>>perpetrating the abductions.

 >>>2. That abductions are Out-of-Body Experiences, Lucid Dreams or
 >>>cases of Awareness during Sleep Paralysis that are unrecognized
 >>>or incompletely recalled.

 >>You have left out sleep paralysis, vivid dreams, hoax,
 >>psychological manipulation by hypno-therapists and a couple of
 >>other explanations.

 >Did I leave out sleep paralysis or did you leave out Awareness
 >during Sleep Paralysis?

 >Sleep paralysis by itself explains nothing. Since we all
 >experience sleep paralysis 4 to 6 times each night as we cycle
 >into REM sleep, the presence of sleep paralysis does not
 >discriminate between those who report abductions and those who
 >do not.

 >What _may_ discriminate between these two groups is the presence
 >of _Awareness_ during Sleep Paralysis, ASP.

 >I don't mean to belabor the semantics of the situation, but I
 >think we should distinguish between a physiological state (sleep
 >paralysis) and a state of consciousness (Awareness of the
 >physiological state)

But the problem is little more than semantics. Without
awareness, there is no report. And remember, we suggested that
only some of the abductions were the result of sleep paralysis,
not that all of them were.

 >>>I know that there are advocates of each point of view. But if we
 >>>were to sit down to soberly sift the evidence available now, do
 >>>we find any that is simultaneously consistent with one theory
 >>>but inconsistent with the other?

 >>We find that abduction stories have existed since humans began
 >>recording their thoughts. We find parallels in pop culture. We
 >>find parallels in the tales of Satanic Ritual Abuse and tales of
 >>Multiple Personality Disorder.

 >We find that there are historical precedents for reports of
 >abduction experiences and for reports of UFOs. This establishes
 >that both phenomena are old. It doesn't say whether they are
 >related.

With which we would agree. We believe that there is no
connection between UFOs and abduction reports. We are suggesting
that abduction, in different forms have existed throughout human
history but that these reports can be explained in terms of
Earth bound traditions rather than extraterrestrial
intervention. The evidence for alien abduction is not
persuasive. When it failed to lead to the extraterrestrial, we
began to look in other directions, just as have John Mack and
David Jacobs. Both have suggested, indirectly, that the
therapist or researcher retrieves the type of experience that he
or she believes to be core of the report. We agree, suggesting
that dreams, sleep paralysis (or awareness during sleep
paralysis) among other factors are responsible.

KRandle



[ 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