UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Oct > Oct 9

Re: Solved Abduction cases?

From: clark@canby.mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark]
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 10:02:02 PDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 21:46:23 -0400
Subject: Re: Solved Abduction cases?

> Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 22:08:27 -0500 (CDT)
> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
> From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net>
> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Solved Abduction cases?

> >From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
> >To: "'UFO UpDates - Toronto'" <updates@globalserve.net>
> >Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: Solved Abduction cases?
> >Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 10:04:42 -0400

> >Supposedly they make women cuddle hybrid babies. They invent
> >games to make children practice telekinesis. They create r
> >elationships, bringing abductees together (Linda and Richard,
> >remember?). They deliver environmental messages, which even
> >if they're not genuine might involve a study of our reactions. They
> >do the procedure David Jacobs labelled "mindscan," fastening their
> >big black eyes on ours, and somehow entering our minds.

> >Again, Dennis...you don't have to believe any of this goes on. But
> >it's all in the abduction literature, and outlines a scenario in
> >which the aliens cultivate relationships with us. They may also
> >be using all the advanced technology you decide they ought to
> >have -- while reverting to elementary procedures to make sure
> >we know what's going on.

> >Time to retire that tired old Vallee argument.

> >Greg Sandow

> Greg:

> Who could forget Linda and Richard? The trouble with Tribbles and
> the latter, though, is that, aliens and Linda aside, no one else
> has ever peered deep into his eyes.

> As for "it's all in the abduction literature"...I would say
> that's precisely the problem, as opposed to any sort of
> "solution." Corso is in the UFO literature, too, but that in no
> way makes him any more believable, even by as much as one little
> iota.

> The fact of the matter is that if you go back and read Eddie
> Bullard's classic study of the then (circa 1987) existing UFO
> abduction literature, you'll find that it's undergone some not so
> subtle and significant mutations in the decade since his analysis
> was published. The most obvious of these is the fact that, in
> 1987, _there was no such thing as a hybrid baby,_ not one, out of
> the some 300 cases in the literature that Bullard looked at. In
> addition, one of the eight stages that Bullard identified, the
> Tour (of the ship), focused mainly on technological aspects, such
> as the "bridge" or the power plant. That's now been replaced by
> the so-called "Nursery." In addition, Bullard's "Examination"
> stage of the time had little or nothing sexual about it, and we
> all know what that's been replaced by, don't we? The types
> (species?) of aliens allegedly involved have exploded
> exponentially as well. And while I'd have to go back and check my
> Bullard to be absolutely sure, I suspect the much bruited but
> never confirmed "implant" falls into the same category.

> So where did the abrupt -- in less than a decade -- changes come
> from, the aliens themselves, or a complex interaction between the
> experiencer and the investigator, with much unbridled hypnosis
> thrown in for good measure? In other words, do we see a real
> change in the alien program (progrom?), or do we see influences
> that were rife throughout society at the same time, ie, child
> abuse, abortion anxiety, political correctness over sexual abuse,
> missing children, concerns over global warming, etc., merely
> reflected, or made manifest in the abduction literature, as any
> sociologist worth his salt would no doubt argue?

> The majority of these new elements were introduced into the
> literature by first Hopkins and then Jacobs. John Mack, for
> instance, took essentially some of their same case pool and came
> up with an entirely different "literature," one which included
> past lives lived as aliens or hybrid aliens. At Roswell this past
> July, Mack said something to the effect that "15 minutes spent in
> the presence of the aliens was worth 15 years of meditation." Leo
> Sprinkle and John Salter (now going under the name of John Hunter
> Grey, if memory serves) seem to think that being abducted is
> pretty groovy, too. It's also in the abduction literature that
> "one in forty of us" has been abducted. Also in the abduction
> literature: Strieber, Jordan, Boylan, Haley, Wilson, Turner,
> Hill, Walton, Collings, Jamerson, and so on.

> So what does "abduction literature" _mean_ -- in any meaningful
> sense, that is? Do you want me to believe all of it, and then try
> to make sense of it? Or am I allowed to say, "No, I'm sorry, but
> both you (the abductee) and you (the nominal investigator) are
> going to have to come up with something more convincing in the
> way of circumstantial evidence before I believe any of it"?

> The problem with the abduction "literature" is, mainly, that it's
> just that -- literature, stories, anecdotes, tales told by who
> knows who, full of sound and fury, sex and circumstance, pomp and
> paranoia, but in the end signifying nothing, nothing that any of
> us can lay hands on, anyway.

> As for the real abduction literature, my advice would be to wait
> for Don DeLillo's next novel. Maybe he'll give it the treatment
> we've all been waiting for -- and no doubt richly deserve.

> Dennis


I admire your apparent certainty that all's right with the world,
that we don't have to worry about the abduction phenomenon
because it's all messy and the putative aliens don't act as you
would have them act, that the novels of Don DeLillo have more to
tell us than actual case studies, which presumably include those of
Ray Fowler (Allagash), Walt Webb (Hill and Buff Ledge), and other
conscientious investigators.  Hey, call me weird, but I think these
guys, not to mention Eddie Bullard, are the ones I prefer to call on
when I'm trying to make sense of what's going on in abduction
country..  You might also turn to a paper I've had several occasions
recently to mention here: Stuart Appelle's devastating critique of
"conventional" explanations for abduction phenomena.  Not that
I want to turn your attention, don't get me wrong, from DeLillo,
admittedly the world's foremost expert on everything.

Science has neglected the UFO phenomenon as well as its
prodigal stepchild, the abduction phenomenon.  Thus most of the
research, inevitably, is left to nonprofessionals, of widely varying
ability, common sense, or thoughtfulness.  Yet curiously, as Bullard
has shown (The Sympathetic Ear, published by FUFOR in 1995),
investigators seem, by any measurable standard, not to affect the
content of abduction narratives much.  In other words, Bullard
validates formally what investigators have always insisted: that popular
debunking mythology aside, it's pretty hard to lead abductees.

If one accepts as at least provisionally possible that some
abduction reports are of real events, there is no a priori reason to
reject the notion of a changing, evolving phenomenon.  It may not
even be changing or evolving quite so rapidly as we think.  After all,
John Keel was noting anomalous pregnancies as long ago as the
1960s (as I was surprised to learn when rereading The Mothman
Prophecies awhile ago).  Moreover, I am continually struck, as I
read old (pre-1960) UFO cases, at the occurrence of details which
after Hopkins would have been full of resonance.  Witnesses would
report an odd sense of confusion or dislocation during a sighting.
One example: In 1958 a man wrote NICAP about a 1942 sighting in
Mississippi; he could not provide a fully coherent account because at
one point things got vague and he couldn't understand how things
got from point A to point D.  I've read enough of these cases (most
recently, if memory serves, in Loren Gross' new monograph on the
November 1957 wave) that I suspect it has been only in recent
years that we've learned what questions to ask.  Yet, Dennis, you
seem perfectly happy to condemn, without qualification, all who would
ask those questions.  Not good, my friend.

Anyway, I'm giving some thought to compiling a catalog of pre-1960
cases in which phenomena we would now think suggestive of
abduction figure.  Maybe we'd learn something.

I also think we'd have a better handle on what we're dealing with if
we were able to discard the noise.  Rodeghier, Goodpaster, and
Blatterbauer (JUFOS 3, 1991) make a good case that two entirely
different populations of abductees exist: those who show up as
psychologically "normal" and those who show signs of mental
disturbance.  Here we have all sorts of opportunities to test
hypotheses.  Here's one testable hypothesis: The first group are
more likely to report abduction experiences for which there is some
degree of independent evidence, including multiple participants,
the second group significantly less so.

What is happening, clearly, is that as abductions attain a high
profile in popular culture, paranoids and other disturbed people
use them as focuses of fantasy, just as during the Cold War
such folk fantasized that Russian spies were persecuting them.
That didn't mean, of course, that no Russian spies existed, just
as that there weren't nearly so many as reports had it.

Yes, abduction research is a messy business, full of complexity,
ambiguity, and even absurdity, and there is a lot more intriguing
possibility than hard evidence.  Nothing in it, however, remotely
justifies Dennis' wholesale dismissal.  It is depressing to read
something like this from someone I like and respect -- and who
ought to know a whole hell of a lot better.  Put down your
DeLillo novel, my friend, and start paying attention.

Jerry Clark

Search for other documents from or mentioning: clark | dstacy | gsandow

[ 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