UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2001 > Nov > Nov 8

Re: Psychological Trauma - Sandow

From: Greg Sandow <greg@gregsandow.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 11:35:22 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 08:47:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Psychological Trauma - Sandow


 >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 10:07:04 EST
 >Subject: Re: Psychological Trauma
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >Actually, it is the same side of the coin. If they are leading
 >their abductees, clients, subjects, experiencers, then we have
 >the first step into the allignment of them with those conducting
 >the research. I thought I had mentioned that CDB Bryan's
 >interview with Mack (page 270-71 hardback) in which Mack said,
 >"And there's another interesting dimension to this... which Budd
 >Hopkins and Dave Jacobs and I argue about all the time, which is
 >that I'm struck by the fact there seems to be a kind of matching
 >of the investigator with the experiencer. So what may be the
 >archetypal structure of an abduction to Dave Jacobs may not be
 >the uniform experience of, say, Joe Nyman or John Mack or
 >someone else. And the experiencers seem to pick out the
 >investigator who will fit their experience."


Is Mack talking about the alleged facts reported by the
abductees, or about the overall interpretation of the abduction?
What does he mean by "archetypal structure of an abduction"?

As I've already pointed out, Budd and John Mack - along with
abductees they've both worked with - agree that the details of
the reported experiences tend to be similar in both camps. What
differs is the interpretation. (More precisely, similar
experiences are reported in both camps.

I don't have Bryan's book with me as I write this, so I can't
check the reference. But this quote - at least as Kevin
reproduces it here - shows one problem that can arise when you
write about abductions without spending a lot of time talking to
the people you're studying. You might, no matter how careful you
try to be, put your own spin on something you read. You might
come to wrong conclusions, which could easily be corrected by
the people you're writing about.

Here's an additional problem. How do we know what experiences
Budd's and John Mack's abductees report? Both Budd and John have
written books, so that's one source of this information. But
it's not an adequate source for serious study. John, for
instance, may accept reports from abductees who say that they
have secret lives as aliens. So he puts things like that in his
books. Budd doesn't accept those reports, so he doesn't put them
in. But that doesn't mean he doesn't get them. I've long
thought, and have often said, that this is a failing in both
Budd's and Dave Jacobs's books. They don't show enough of the
raw material they work with.

That, though, is another issue. I'll repeat my main point -
that we can't learn what abductees actually report simply by
reading books by John Mack, Dave Jacobs, and Budd Hopkins. John
gets many reports of unpleasant medical procedures that he
doesn't print. Budd and Dave get many reports of new-age stuff
that they don't print. They don't try to hide this, at least in
my experience. They acknowledge it very freely. So some of the
differences you find in their writing are differences of
interpretation - what they believe in abductee reports, or what
they think is important. They're not necessarily differences in
what the abductees report.


 >And there are two points to be made here. One, this implies, to
 >some extent, leading the witness, and two, it implies that the
 >views of the researcher are given to the subject.

 >On page 25 of 'The Threat' (hardback), Jacobs discusses his
 >sessions with Pam, which, I think, makes the point once again.
 >Jacobs wrote, "I had over thirty sessions with Pam, and during
 >that time she has come to have a less romantic idea about what
 >has been happening to her. She was initially disappointed that
 >what she remembered under hypnosis were not the pleasant
 >experiences she had imagined, but she now accepts the reality of
 >what has been happening to her. She realized that neither
 >guardian angles nor the Pleiades have anything to do with her
 >experiences, and that she cannot manipulate time and reality."

 >In other words, Pam arrived at Jacobs' door believing that her
 >experiences were pleasant and might reflect her interaction with
 >what she saw as a guardian angel. After undergoing hypnosis with
 >Jacobs, she now realizes the threat and that the experiences
 >were not pleasant. She wasn't visited by New Age philosophers of
 >John Mack or cold, calculating scientists of Budd Hopkins, but
 >the alien invaders of David Jacobs... she came with one set of
 >beliefs and left with a different set which, matches, more
 >closely, the beliefs of David Jacobs.

But this doesn't prove that Dave was leading her. What happens
in this account is very common in other situations, where nobody
questions it. For instance, suppose a woman whose husband abuses
her goes into therapy. It's very common for abused women to
defend their abusers. "He really loves me." "He means well; he
just gets angry sometimes." "It's my own fault. I don't treat
him well enough."

Then, in the course of therapy or counselling, these women may
dramatically change their views. "That bastard abused me. I did
nothing to deserve that. Nobody deserves to be treated that
way." You could say that they're adopting their therapists'
views here, but because the therapists' view seems sensible -
and, above all, grounded in the facts - nobody objects.

Why is it different when Dave talks to an abductee about
abductions? The truth is that we don't know whether it's
different or not. Some of us just assume it is. Maybe the
abductee ("Pam" in this case) had obvious conflicts sticking out
all over her story - maybe she gave obvious indications that she
felt hurt, used, and angry, with these feelings coexisting next
to her belief that it was all for her own good. Maybe Dave just
brought the conflict to her attention, and let her draw her own
conclusions. That would be standard therapeutic practice in other
situations (not, of course, that Dave pretends to be a
therapist). I've seen Budd do exactly this with abductees he
works with.

I'm not saying we can prove Dave doesn't lead his abductees. I'm
only saying that the passage Kevin quotes doesn't prove that he
does lead them.


Greg Sandow





[ 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