UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Oct > Oct 10

Re: Solved Abduction cases?

From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> [Dennis Stacy]
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 17:18:37 -0500 (CDT)
Fwd Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 23:05:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Solved Abduction cases?

>From: clark@canby.mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark]
>Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 10:02:02 PDT
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: Solved Abduction cases?


>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.

Another one of my points you apparently missed re: the rapid
"evolution" of the abduction scenario. Are there hybrid babies
and implants in the Allagash, Hill and Buff Ledge cases?

>In other words, Bullard validates formally what investigators have always
>insisted: that popular debunking mythology aside, it's pretty hard to lead

I like Eddie, too. The question here is what does "pretty hard"
mean? If you want to see a blatant example of leading, you have
only to re-read John Mack. At one point, one of his witnesses
won't go up a ramp during a hypnosis session, so he tells her to
imagine she's a remote-controlled video camera and go up the ramp
-- which she promptly does. It's all there in black & white, my
friend, leaving the question: Is Mack part of the abduction
literature, what with his Pulitzer prize, or not? (I don't dare
ask if Bullard, an academic folklorist, is qualified to
pronounce, as opposed to comment, on the verities and vagaries of
clinical hypnosis. But at least that remark will give you
something to vent on if you don't want to address the other
issues raised.)

>I also think we'd have a better handle on what we're dealing with if
>we were able to discard the noise.

I couldn't agree with you more, Jerry, which is why I raised the
issue in my previous post: What IS the "abduction literature" to
which Greg Sandow referred? Does it include the spectrum from
Strieber to John Salter, or just the respectable (Bullard,
Appelle) material you deem respectable? Which is not to say or
imply, of course, that Mssrs. Bullard and Appelle _aren't_
respectable. But if we have to decide the issue of respectability
on a case-by-case basis, who's in charge of same? Is "Witnessed"
respectable, whereas "Alien Jigsaw" isn't? I'm  addressing
abduction literature as a whole, whereas you're seemingly making
exclusions at the start. If it's good it is, and if it ain't, it
ain't, and you get to decide what's good and what isn't.

You know as well as I do that the conclusion of the Roper Report
as adopted and promoted by both Hopkin and Jacobs is absolutely,
totally and incontrovertibly flawed and unsupported by the
evidence. Yet who could dispute the fact that it is now part of
the abduction literature, never to be eradicated, and only
occasionally to be corrected? Obliquely -- as in "One in Forty"
-- it's even popped up as the title of a book.

>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

First off, I don't think my comments were a wholesale dismissal,
my good friend. Perhaps you should go back and reread them. When
you say "nothing" here, however, you over-generalize. There are
plenty of prima facie "somethings" that would cause anyone to
wonder whether the experience is wholly and literally physical --
or something else. The abduction literature, for example, is now
replete with claims of hybrid babies that involve "missing
fetuses." To my knowledge, not _one_ case of a missing fetus has
been medically documented. The literature is similarly replete
with claims of "implants." Again, to my knowledge, not _one_
implant case has been medically documented to the extent of an
extraordinary or anomalous nature. Both are fundamental,
testable, hypotheses associated with the abduction literature
(and phenomenon) -- and both remain manifestly undemonstrated,
even though they should be considered the "easy" stuff.

Unless, of course, you want to admit Mssrs. Leir & Sims into the
literary fold.

Finally, there is the question of why abductions didn't turned up
in the medical and scientific literature _prior_ to the advent of
ufologists (or urologists, for all you spell-checker fans out
there). After all, if the phenomenon were as widespread (or only
half as widespread) as its advocates are always claiming, one
would expect that the occasional psychologist and psychiatrist
here and there (if not in the US, then in Europe) would have
encountered one, been perplexed by same, and written a case
history of it -- if only for the recognition of having been
first. Doubly true, given the tendency to claim that abductions
now stretch back over the decades and generations and typically
begin at an early age, ie, as children. By all lights, in other
words, the medical professionals should have discovered the
abduction phenomenon long before the ufologists did, arguably
before Arnold. But then that would have resulted in a whole other
literature altogether, wouldn't it?


Search for other documents from or mentioning: dstacy | clark

[ 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