UpDate: Re: Abductee Files/Our Children - Brookesmith
From: Jenny Randles <email@example.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 16:35:55 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 23:04:05 -0400
Subject: UpDate: Re: Abductee Files/Our Children - Brookesmith
>Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 19:14:54 -0400
>From: Brookesmith Duke of Mendoza <DarkSecretPB@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Abductee Files/Our Children
>Sender: The Duke of Mendoza <DarkSecretPB@compuserve.com>
>Compliments of the Duke, feeling quite encouraged here.
>(I think I'll stop when I'm ready, and it ain't yet.)
>>Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 09:01:35 +0100
>>From: John Rimmer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>Subject: Re: Abductee Files/Our Children
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <email@example.com>
>>>Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 23:10:44 -0400
>>>From: Greg Sandow <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>>Subject: Re: Abductee Files/Our Children - Rimmer
>>>To: 'UFO UpDates - Toronto' <email@example.com>
>I myself think it would be helpful if abduction believers and
>defenders could offer anyone any sure-fire facts about
>abductions in the first place. All that we know about any
>specific claimed "abduction" is that someone went to someone
>else and told them a story, and in some cases a whole pile of
>stories. Beyond that, what?
>Very often, the questions skeptics ask about "abductions" are
>based on the internal (in)consistencies of such people's
>stories. >Given the lack of indisputable facts about "abductions", we
>might do our children the favor of sticking to the few facts we
>do know, and not encouraging them to fantasize unhappily over
This has been an interesting (and important) discussion,
including the sidetrack into whether science can ever explain
abductions or whether we have to put God and spiritual
dimensions above and beyond the remit of science.
Inevitably, we are all going to have different views on this and
to some extent this will depend upon our personal experiences
(or lack of them) and whatever interpretation we place upon
these. But in the end it all comes down to two things.
1: An experience is occurring with extraordinary properties
2: Its confirmation as subjective reality is vastly more well
defined than the (frankly disappointing) level of confirmation
as physical reality.
From this start point there are essentially three routes to take:
You can argue that
(a) The phenomenon is only subjectively real (that is it is
visionary in nature and may well require psycho-social
explanations). This explains much of the data and only requires
you to find resolutions for the limited physical evidence (eg
ther scars). This is the position most so called sceptics adopt
- but is actually the proper scientific path because it involves
the minimal rearrangement of evidence and hypotheses. Being the
proper scientific answer - however - is not the same thing as
being the truth.
(b) The phenomenon is objectively real but manifests in such a
way as to self cancel all tangible evidence. The super ET
theory. Unfortunately this popular impression is impossible to
prove (or disprove) because it presupposes a lack of evidence on
the grounds that the aliens remove it from our discovery. The
only viable way to assess this idea - IMO - is to check its
internal consistency. That - to me - is where the problems
start. Because you are constantly coming up against major
hurdles. Like - how can aliens with the amazing ability to
ensure no DNA traces are left behind (eg under the fingernails
of abductees) (although has anyone actually ever done fingernail
scraping tests on abductees seeking the alien DNA that surely
has to be there in microscopic amounts if these people really
are being physically kidnapped?) Yet, despite this
fastidiousness and tenacity to prevent discovery and proof their
memory wipe techniques can be overcome by (in real cases that I
have witnessed) one hypnosis session from a part time dentist or
a 20 year old Ufologist who read D.I.Y. Hypnosis in a book.
Problems like this are enough to make me realise this solution -
whilst of course not impossible - is fraught with difficulty.
And the problems of this sort are far more extensive than those
faced by the 'no physical reality' adherents from (a) - above -
who have practically no physical evidence to explain away
(Indeed this is why that answer is the choice of scientific
preference - all to do with evidence and logic and nothing much
to do with bias or scepticism).
(c) The phenomenon is beyond our ken. It has a spiritual
resolution that is simply not amenable to any scientific or
ufological data collection techniques. Of course, that's
possible. Who knows the real nature of life, reality and the
universal plan? But accepting this as the answer is to admit we
cannot go further than we do now. Its effectively a close down
sale on Ufology - every research project must go - type of
approach. Because our methods are doomed to perpetual defeat. As
such - possible as it may be - born in mind as it should be - it
has to be regarded as an irrelevance for all practical purposes,
leading the debate to the straight choice between (a) and (b)
above. Because its all our science and methodology reasonably
allows us to do.
Either, or both, or neither could be true, of course. There may
also be unexpected versions of each. Here are just two that I
i - The phenomenon is subjectively real and visionary but it is
triggered by physically real phenomena of unknown scientific
origin. Phenomena that can produce major physical phenomena (car
stops, time dislocations, bodily traumas etc), thus produce the
objective evidence we see, and invoke the subjective delusions
that much of abduction research investigates as the reality when
in fact it is only a side effect.
ii - Aliens are in contact but not actually coming to earth.
They are only capable of long range probes that treat abductees
like receiving radio telescopes. These 'psychic' people are used
to communicate, extract information about us and engage in
inter-species relationships at a deep level of our inner selves.
As such the aliens are real, the contact with them not physical,
the experience of contact subjective, but reflective in a
psycho-social sense of the 'mental rape' being conducted (hence
the extent to which these experiences are visualised and
dramatised in this way). The abduction prone personalities are
the alien receptors of our society. But they have only ever met
aliens inside their heads. Yet the ones they have met there are
From this conflicting set of data and ideas we see the confusion
that is the abduction phenomenon. Moreover, we see that this is
not a straight choice between 'loony witnesses who have over
active imaginations' and 'three races from different solar
systems fighting territorially over the earth' - as far too
often this mystery is boiled down to represent.
Indeed that the ETH, whilst not a non starter, is only a theory
amongst several and no more likely to be true than any other on
present evidence. Although it is all too often taken as true
because the experience convincingly adopts that form.
But then 500 years ago a recognizably similar experience had the
form of being trips to fairy land to meet the little people. We
may now understand that these experiences were either literally
true, subjectively true or some reality for which the fairy
theory was a mis-perception. But isn't that the point? How many
would now accept the literal 'kidnapped into fairyland'
explanation as so certain we must teach it to our children -
because that is the form that the phenomenon adopted? Few who
really thought this through I would hope.
Which brings us to the question of what responsibility we have
to children who clearly are today having abduction like
experiences. That they do I have no doubt. That they are not
being 'talked into this' I have no doubt either. This is a real
phenomenon and its alien scenario is the acceptable modern
So what ought we to do in response? Put yourself in the place of
a parent 500 years ago when your child tells you they have been
to fairy land and seen fairies on toadstools with magic powers.
Do you: agree, that's what happened dear. Fairies are real. Now
we have to get the feudal barons to spend money on meeting the
fairy folk and learning their science instead of spending their
money persecuting Robin Hood.
Argue, "No, dear, this is all in your head. There are no fairies.
This is just a dream and if you keep on thinking your dreams are
real you are going to be regarded as strange and get burned at
Or, say, "well, that's an interesting experience. You are not
alone. And don't be scared of it because it really doesn't seem to
hurt people and its happened for a long time. Tell me all about
it, we'll get it down on record and let those who are trying to
get to the bottom of this riddle try to figure out what it
means. Meantime, get on with your life and place this in its
proper context - as an interesting experience that you should
not allow to dominate who you are."
Now bear in mind that for fairy we can absolutely substitute
alien and ask the same questions of yourself.
To me it is self evident what is the appropriate course to adopt
and what approaches (the other two bar the last one) are
mortgaging the future of our children to a belief system that 50
years from now may well seem quite absurd. By then these
children will be adults ,living with whatever legacy our
dealings with them today have fostered.
That's why we cannot afford to gamble on a possibility or a
theory that might be right. Because if we are wrong it is they
who will pay the price.