UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Oct > Oct 14

Re: Videotaping Those Elusive Aliens

From: Jason Gammon <BoyintheMachine.nul>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 19:48:49 EDT
Archived: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 22:19:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Videotaping Those Elusive Aliens


>From: Katharina Wilson <K_Wilson.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 14:51:38 -0500
>Subject: Videotaping Those Elusive Aliens

>In light of the CUFOS/Abductee Study discussion on the List, I
>thought I'd let those of you who are interested in what I found,
>know about this article.

>I conducted a personal research project in 1995 and wrote an
>article about the project and results titled,

>Videotaping Those Elusive Aliens. It can be read at:

>http://www.alienjigsaw.com/yk2/videotap.html

>Here are some of my personal thoughts:

>I too have been wondering about the CUFOS study since I was
>notified of it and was encouraged to participate in it. I
>declined because I felt the experiment would be somewhat
>intrusive on my personal life and that I probably would never
>hear about the results.

Katharina, I agree with your decision to decline from the study.

As far as my opinion goes, I do not recommend any abductee
participate in any so-called 'study'. The current mentality
among researchers, even those following the strictest scientific
guidelines and who are genuinely open to the possibility of the
abduction phenomena, is that of blind ignorance and naivety.

As I see it there are two main problems with the varieties of
studies thus far enacted. The first problem would be the forcing
of abductees to prove their claims and the equal-but-opposite
over reliance on abductee descriptions/explanations/motivations
behind the phenomena.

The second problem I perceive could be adequately referred to as
'The Duh Factor'. When studies fail due to this problem it is
almost always due to one simple assumption...the assumed non-
intelligence or even apathy on the part of the visitors.
Researchers need to be open-minded yet not bias. This implies
they must prepare themselves for the possibility that the
abduction phenomena is real, as well as the associated
implications. If we are dealing with an unknown intelligence it
is conceivable that such intelligence would take steps to
prevent the acquisition of knowledge about their presence and/or
the possibility that such visitors may deliberately interfere in
any investigation.

Because of 'The Duh Factor', many researchers are stuck in this
paradigm of how to carry out a scientific study that by it's
very nature is prone to sabotage by either abductee or visitor.

>There was also a 'Dust Bunny' project. As far as I know, nothing
>ever came of the analysis of the dust that abductees collected
>from their homes. If analyses were conducted, I would be
>interested in reading about them.

I believe this would fall into the first problem, mainly the
forcing of abductees to prove the validity of their claims.

Abductees should not be depended upon to produce the proof
necessary for confirmation. An abductee is an abductee and is a
participant in a study and not a member of the unbiased
researchers behind the study.

It's wonderful if a researcher put two-and-two together and
realized that abductees seem to have some strange 'dust' in
common with one another. However, I would say that it is most
likely that abductees themselves have made such claims witch
resulted in a study, instead of any initial perplexing
test/analysis results which should have been the true motivation
behind such a study.


>I did participate in an 'Alien Symbol' study or collection, but
>that also was not completed or published.\

I heard about that one and I believe it was doomed from the
start.

Without any proven sample of alien writing, any comparison
between the drawings and claims of abductees can only suggest
similarities between such claims and not any indication that an
alien origin is valid. Hope I didn't shock you on that one, per
our previous exchange.

>I participated in a PEER study (the late John E. Mack's
>organization) and those results were shared.

>I also participated in the MUFON Transcription Project by Dan
>Wright and thankfully those results were published in The 1995
>MUFON Symposium Proceedings and following issues of The MUFON
>Journal.

>I hope there will be a way to complete the analysis of the CUFOS
>Abduction Study. It is unfortunate that it appears to be an
>issue of money.

>From a personal perspective, abductees are going to be less
>likely to participate in "Abduction Studies" if we only receive
>feedback on our efforts (which no one pays us for) 50% or less
>of the time.

>K. Wilson
>http://www.alienjigsaw.com

I would say that it would be best if Abductees are not 'in the
loop' with regards to studies. Of course they may have access to
any published data.

I know this may sound harsh, but when it comes to studies,
individual abductees are not the center of the study. The center
of the study is the proving/disproving of the validity of the
phenomena.

My advice to those considering initiating studies on this or
similar phenomena would be never to underestimate 'thinking
outside the box'.

Blindly following the 'standard procedure' is likely to produce
no interesting results. One can most definitely use their
creativity and imagination to further the acquisition of data.
If researchers prepare themselves for the possibility of the
validity of the phenomena as well as the knowledge that the
visitors are intelligent and thus capable of interfering, let
alone 'sweeping their foot-tracks', then I believe it would be
quite possible to produce results which would prove to be a
scientific-foundation for the further and mainstream research of
the Ufological/Abduction field.


-Jason Gammon




Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/subscribers/


[ 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