UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Oct > Oct 17

Re: Questions for Abductees

From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 10:58:16 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 02:46:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Questions for Abductees

The Duke of Mendoza presents his compliments and apologizes for
this belated response to, among other things...

>From: clark@canby.mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark]
>Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 11:32:01 PDT
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: Questions for abductees

...but His Grace's horse went lame recently and needed much
attention (and he hopes Zeiler, Rudiak & Partners, Conspiracy
Brokers & Commissioners for Oaths of Ufological Loyalty, will
be thrown into a frenzy of significance-seeking on learning
that the hack in question is big, black, and called "Secret");
a number of people "in trade" have rather vulgarly suggested he
might need money in return for services urgently to be
rendered, but swiftly rendered they were; Lady Amarintha has
been unwell; and there has been a spot of bother among the
field agents, who want bigger allowances for false moustaches
and are too lazy to grow their own. It has been a packed and
stimulating fortnight, but this is not the Mendoza Diocesean
News - especially as His Grace had recently to hang the
Cardinal, who was edging toward the ducal kosher kitchenware
with a phial of Lourdes water in his left hand - so let's get
on with it, shall we?


In response to

>From: Peregrine Mendoza, 101653,2205@compuserve.com
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Date: Wed, 01 Oct, 1997, 02:59
>Re: Questions for abductees

Jerome wrote:

>Does anybody, including yourself, know the meaning of the
>phrase "the folklore that calls itself "abduction research"?
>All of us, including the undersigned (as you kindly reminded
>me recently), are capable of writing (and thinking) in haste,
>and I daresay you are doing so here. There is folklore about
>abductions, but the experience of abduction is not "folklore,"

Yes, I did formulate that phrase in haste. It is a species of
shorthand, and I will explain it here in due course.

My friend, I'd be the last to say that the *experience* (what
seems to happen on the spot at the time) of abduction is
folklore. Nor do I see how it could be. In consequence this
strange idea doesn't appear in my post. It would be wrong to
presume that everyone knows it, but for years now I have been
consistent in published writings and on this List in insisting
that I have no argument with the apparent reality of the
abduction experience. That doesn't mean I think abductions are
real. Nor does it mean that folklore does not enter into,
color, shape, or parallel that experience. But it does mean I
won't reflexively call someone who honestly, and *without
benefit of hypnosis*, reports "being abducted", a liar, or a
hoaxer, or a dupe of investigators, or psychologically or
emotionally damaged.

(The supposed polarity between "it really happened" and
"abductees are nuts" is entirely false - there are plenty of
other alternatives - and is really an expression of the
power/sexual politics that lurk, insufficiently examined,
within the abductionists' unstated agendas. This thought also
raises the question as to how much of the trauma said to be
suffered by abductees has been instilled in them by the
investigators' approach [see the appalling hash-up made by
Lawrie Williams over in the nearby thread] and their naive &
amateurish ideas about hypnosis, and how much is really based
in distressing experience. Hypothesis or wager: 95% of
"abduction trauma" is iatrogenic.)

It also means I recognize that there are shades of abduction
experience. Not everyone who has been hypnotized by a dedicated
(predisposed, prejudiced, whatever) abductionist is duped by
them, for example. Their experiences too may include something
genuinely anomalous, or at any rate not amenable to pat

For instance. Both John Velez and Clarke Hathaway, esteemed
posters to this List, can relate both weird conscious
experiences *and* hypnotic recall of weird experiences. I have
spent hours (days) in their company, and on the phone and in e-
mails, punting these experiences and possible interpretations
of them back and forth. From my point of view, some of this is
"real" experience - genuine to them, that is, as subjectively
perceived. Some of it I believe is contrived, especially what
emerged under hypnosis. None of it, for me, necessarily
involves real physical aliens. John, Clarke and I respect each
other's points of view and the integrity with which we present
our different perspectives.

So. I don't have a problem with the abduction experience. I do
with its objective reality, even leaving out the risks entailed
in using hypnosis. I don't even have a problem with people who
*prefer* to think they've been abducted by actual live squirmy
aliens than to consider that some psychological factor is at
work, if they feel happy with that and it really does make them
happy. Whatever blows yer dress up, as they say, my friend.

Is this now quite clear? (This must be the 99th time I have
stated this position, BTW, and one of those occasions was in
the excellent "Fortean Times", which I know Jerome reads. Do
you not, my friend?)

I do have a problem with people, who ought to know better, who
think I'm so dumb as to confuse abduction "research" with the
"abduction" experience, and who then start to create a folklore
of their own about me on the back of it. And not just because
it distracts from the bullshit about myself I try so hard to
put about, to keep the paranoids off the scent. It has its own
special irkiness. Wait and see. My friend.

Back at the ranch, Jerome continues:

>as you yourself imply when you suggest that "abnormal
>psychology" is the be-all and end-all of the question.
>You are too intellectually sophisticated, I should think, to
>use "folklore" and "nonsense" as if the two were
>interchangeable, for another thing.

In a post quoted and referenced below, Paul Devereux wrote in
response to this of Jerome's:

>Jerry is trying to fabricate friction.

I beg leave to spy a literal here. The word should be
"fiction". Bucking for the Nebula award, or what, Jerry? You
lose, my friend.

I don't imply any of what you suggest, my friend, and I don't
know why or how you infer it. I merely said, my friend, that
looking for manifestations of "abnormal psychology" is a good
place to start. I said nothing about endings. Such an
investigation could end almost anywhere. Here's one of those
boring repititions at which, my friend, I am becoming so adept:

>And one place to start is the annals of so-unhelpfully-called
>"abnormal psychology"... At any rate try to eliminate every
>other possible explanation before plumping for the least

Do we really have to go through the Top 47 Reasons why the ETH
and the Gray alien fall off the twig with a flick of Occam's
razor, here? Bear in mind, my friend, we are not talking
possibility, but probability, reductionism and simplicity:
pretty basic tools for scientists, logicians and philosophers.
Introduce extra-terrestrials into your hypothesis and you le-t`
a whole regiment of additional hypotheses squeeze into it
through the door behind them, and still more if they eschew use
of the conventional entrances and float through the wall or

Of course you are correct, Jerry, my friend, in suggesting I'm
sophisticated. So much so I even comb my hair, on Saturday
nights. But there again, my friend, I didn't suggest folklore
is nonsense. Far from it: I've always believed it's a cultural
mirror. The nonsense is of your own making, and it is coming
out of your ears and running down your arms and getting into
your keyboard, where it has no place to be.

And this--

>All you are saying, I guess, is
>that you don't like people to research abductions and come to
>conclusions about them you don't like.

-- is unsubstantiated claptrap, my friend, not supported by
anything I've said, written or even thought, and suggests that
what I like or don't like in the realm of ideas overrides my
powers of logical thought and self-criticism. Okay: you have
the let out: "I guess". You guessed wrong. I don't think you're
going to take a coconut home from the fair tonight, my friend.
Nanny would have said: Go and wash your mouth out.

What I don't like: soi-disant "researchers" who hypnotize
(abuse) small children, shoddy logic (false syllogisms, the
excluded middle and the Roper Poll), wilful ignorance about
everything and anything, people who claim to be "scientific"
who couldn't tell a particle accelerator from a portrait of
Lavoisier, unctuous moralizers who speculate publicly about the
provenance of minors (and the minors' mothers who allow this
crap to be published), "researchers" who lie about "alien-
induced" pregnancies, pompous fiction disguised as informed
criticism, the concept of "co-creativity", bullshit, self-
righteous self-deluders, people with hair on the palms of their
hands, people who call Occam's razor "silly", the extra-
terrestrial hypothesis, intellectual abdication masquerading as
agnosticism and, unlike God, "alcoholics, all-nite DJs,
eight-track tapes, and thieves", as the old song has it.
(Whooo wrote that one, then, Melanie?) And I'll give you a
minimum of four logical reasons, besides their overriding
intrinsic illogicality or immorality, why I don't like each
one, including even the hairy-palm=E8d ones in case you are one
of those clowns (clones?) who chronically mistake facetiousness 
for attempts to be witty.

>It is foolish, in any event, to seek to medicalize all
>anomalous experience,

But there again I don't, my friend. Not that I can see, and nor
do you explain, my friend, *why* it is "foolish" to *seek* to
"medicalize" anomalous experiences (even "all" of them). Some
of these experiences may possibly be amenable to medical
explanations. Others won't, maybe. You gotta start somewhere,
though the seeking may be in vain. Occam's razor still applies.

Meanwhile, my friend, please don't put words in my mouth or pin
silly notices to my back -- a particularly daft move when I can
see you do it. What we have here, my friend, is some of that
vacant rhetoric against which you are rightly wont to rail.

>and I really don't see what "abnormal
>psychology" has to tell us about the more puzzling abduction
>cases. Some marginal ones, perhaps.

Well, nor do I, unless you, my friend, specify what you think
*are* the "more puzzling" cases and the "marginal" ones. And I
may even agree with you, my friend, once I know what particular
cases you have in mind. There again I may not. In one sense,
after all, all abductions cases are equally puzzling. So in
their way are all Marian visions. I wonder if you would object
so emotionally as to misread and misrepresent what I said if
I'd suggested there may be a psychological explanation for
those? Do you think Marian visions are less likely to be real
than alien abductions? Many of the same miraculous powers are
alleged in such cases, after all.

>For a splendid critique of
>the limitations of the ab-psych approach, see Stuart Appelle's
>"The Abduction Experience: A Critical Evaluation of Theory and
>Evidence," JUFOS 6 (1995/1996), pp. 29-78, or David J.
>Hufford's The Terror That Comes in the Night (University of
>Pennsylvania Press, 1982).

As noted by others, my friend, in other threads, Appelle very
ably and impartially summarizes the pros and cons of virtually
all approaches to interpreting abduction accounts (more than
experiences). All, he makes clear, have their limitations. He
says that and I agree. Gosh: collapse of stout party. He
doesn't single out abnormal psychology as particularly lacking
any more than I pretend it solves all-your-abductees'-problems.
To deal with Appelle's own limitations - such as not addressing
what may or may not constitute an "abduction experience" per se
- would take a book, and I don't have the time to spare to
tackle that for less than a decent advance on royalties. But
Appelle's piece is certainly worth reading (intelligent enough
to disagree with, as Dr Leavis used to say), not least because
the standard abductionist account begins to look a good deal
more shaky than those damned fakirs Hopkins, Jacobs and Mack
(and a few others less notorious) would have you believe.
Nonetheless, the paper has its biases and quirks. To that
extent, it partakes of the human world.

It is an infuriating historical fact that David Hufford's book
has long been unobtainable through the trade in the UK (if
indeed it ever was), and I haven't read it. I have read a
related article by Hufford that you, Jerry, once kindly sent
me, and very interesting it was too. All I can say for now is
that "abnormal" and much more to the point *cognitive*
psychology has come *rather a long way* in the last 15 years
toward getting a handle on these experiences. From reading the
late lamented "Bulletin of Anomalous Experience" I don't get
the impression Hufford has kept up with this - but I stand
gladly ready to be corrected on that.

>Declaring "abnormal psychology" every time we hear something
>we don't like is the functional equivalent of shouting "shut
>up." Emotionally satisfying, no doubt, but not intellectually

Y'know, Jerome, my friend, for an intelligent man, and one with
impeccable taste in music, you doooo saaay some quite
phenomenally stupid things every now and then. And, in its way,
this one's obnoxious to boot. Now I could indulge in a little
idle speculation of my own here. I might, for example, my
friend, wonder aloud if this does not embody its own straw
point of view: perhaps, I might mischievously muse, mmm,
perhaps it gives vent to emotions struggling to lurk beneath a
false and rather ill-attached wig of rational criticism, and is
itself trying to shout "shut up". But, dear me, I wouldn't be
so rude. Instead I'll politely enquire how the f--- you, my
friend, dare to presume to know what I "no doubt" find
emotionally satisfying.

But I'll give you a little clue. Putting the mockers on ufology
isn't a patch on troilism in a barrel full of oily herrings, on
a drizzly Thursday afternoon. Better for the ventricles, too,
according to my mum, who does the sandwiches and champagne, now
that she's over 80. She doesn't believe in gun control, either.


Okay, I know you're all dying to hear this bit. Quick reprise,
from the top, twoooo, three: Jerome writes:

>Does anybody, including yourself, know the meaning of the
>phrase "the folklore that calls itself "abduction research"?

Apparently someone does:

>From: DevereuxP@aol.com
>Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 20:17:49 -0400 (EDT)
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Solved abduction cases?

>...The Duke was clearly
>referring to how abduction research, especially in North
>America, has attracted its own themes, sub-themes, beliefs
>(many simply assumed), protagonists, etc. All the stuff of

To be sure, Paul can translate (interpret) my shorthand better
than most because the poor bugger has had to listen to so much
of the longhand, often at an hour when he would rather be
pleasuring the wife than keep up with my drinking. And perhaps
for that reason he's also using shorthand of a kind.

Jerome he say:

>Labeling "abduction research," whatever else can be said
>against or for it, "folklore" is to mischaracterize the nature
>of both, or to find meanings for these words not immediately
>apparent to the rest of us.

What does the shorthand phrase "the folklore that calls itself
'abduction research'" mean, then, in terms immediately apparent
to the rest of us?

It means that the folklore about abductions is inextricably
intertwined with what passes for abduction research as
practised by the most visible proponents of the view that
abductions are physically real events.

In practice, out there in the real world, this means that
quasi-information, factoids, rumor, innuendo, shenanigans,
facts, foaftales, channeled material, the entire corpus of work
on abductions printed, broadcast, drunkenly blurted in taverns
and cathouses and whispered at Tupperware parties and induction
parades, solemnly propounded at UFO conferences, mocked by the
military, recycled by the X-files and the like, is floating
around like a gigantic nebulous tumbleweed festooned with
fantastic juicy fruits that are being multiplied and being fed
from every minute of the day.

That is what folklore is. It is like depersonalized, unfaced,
dramatized gossip. It has a life and logic of its own, although
they are not inaccessible to intelligent enquiry and a bit of
lateral thinking, and it doesn't pause in Canby, MN, to ask for
Jerome K. Jerome Clark's approval. It is what it is. And it
doesn't care. Folklore is here and now and living in Bombay and
Manhattan and Scunthorpe. It isn't just old tales that nobody
tells any more (and ergo has retired from the folklore

No one in "the West" can escape this particular folkloric
"theme" any more. It's been growing at cancerous rates since
1987, when "Communion" was published, but it was around long
before then. The other day in Aberteifi I bought a tobacco tin
with a Gray's face painted on the lid. A few weeks before that
the 14-year-old daughter of one of my business partners
solemnly told me over dinner how she'd been abducted, blow for
blow the whole standard story, and nearly tipped her gravad lax
on the carpet with giggling at the end. A wind-up, of course
(plus she thinks I'm funny anyway. Someone has to). This is
anecdotal, of course. Now go do some proper Roper omnibus
research and see, after the X-Files and all, how widespread
this knowledge is. (Why doesn't FUFOR do this kind of thing? I

What this in turn means is that someone who has a strange
experience, perhaps the product of an altered state of
consciousness, will *tend* to try to make sense of this -
"order the flux of experience" - by comparing it with the
template of the abduction foklore. Because that is the nearest
handle they have on it. And they start to wonder...

Those that get to an "abduction researcher" then encounter a
mage, guru, priest or (in some cases) shaman-like individual
who has his or her own special handle on the folklore, having
been privy to the refined form of it that passes around among
"researchers", aka the invisible theological college (see Jim
Schnabel's "Dark White" for some instances of how one
"rsearcher" will seed another with motifs). There then occurs
an "interaction" between subject and "researcher", which
modifies both their perceptions of the "scenario", i.e. the
folklore. That - or those - then go out onto the grapevine
(tumbleweed), and start their own stems, branches and tendrils
of stories, half-stories, fragments of scenes, etc. This process
is transparently at work in Lawrie Williams's "case" of 4 Oct 97.
How much of the abduction "data" has been acquired with this kind
of corrupt and corrupting technique? How will we ever know?

That is what I mean by "abduction research" being folklore. It
isn't folklore all of the time and not all abduction research
is folklore. But the one partakes of the other, symbiotically.

You don't agree? Look, I'm not trying to persuade you this is
true, in this session. I'm just explaining the line of thinking
here. None of it requires any overhaul of the commonly accepted
senses of either "abduction research" or folklore, either.

In replying to Paul (on Mon, 06 Oct 1997, in the "Solved
Abduction cases?" thread), Jerome also wrote:

>...you rephrase the
>argument -- you'd have to, for the sake of coherence -- to
>recycle the usual jumble of claims, long effectively refuted
>by the one academically trained folklorist participating in
>the discussion, Eddie Bullard...

Given the density of my shorthand, anyone would have to
rephrase it who could translate it.

And a point of information, Mr President: whatever is meant by
"the usual jumble of claims" (nice shorthand, Jerry), Dr
Bullard isn't the "one academically trained folklorist
participating in the discussion". You're reading something by
another one right here (University of York, UK, 1969-75).
Besides Dr Bullard, there is Prof Peter Rojcewicz, while given
their erudition Bill Ellis might be counted an honorary
ufologist while Hilary Evans and Peter Rogerson could be
considered honorary folklorists.

That there are so few "in" ufology is a pity, because others in
ufology thus have little acquaintance with their discipline and
criteria whereby to judge their abilities and wherewithal *as*
folklorists. (The same goes for physicists, and probably photo
analysts.) But there are plenty of folklorists, just as there
are theologians, sociologists and anthropologists, who take an
interest in ufology without entering the field as such (in the
UK, Dr Jennifer Westwood, for instance, or Prof Steve Sayers),
so you don't hear of them. (If you think I am hinting that
ufologists as a class don't know much outside ufology, you'd be

It may also be of interest to those of you not up in the
academic folklore literature to know that Doc Bullard tends to
wobble into an inexplicable condition of skepticism when
publishing there, and then to undergo strange spasms of
credulity when publishing in the ufological journals. Perhaps
he undergoes an altered state of consciousness in between. I
shall have to ask my mum.

Actually, cross my heart and hope to die, when it comes to
folklore, I don't go for academically trained anything, really.
Anyone intelligent can read up the literature in the course of
a few years and understand the system and the jargon and learn
to identify the fools and charlatans. True, it does help to
have friends in the trade to swap ideas with. But I would as
happily trust Jerome's knowledge, understanding and
interpretation of traditional American music as any of the big
cheeses in the field (whoever they are these days) - though he
may be a bit weak when it comes to Phrygian versus Dorian
modes, or bemused by pentatonics. There again, maybe he
wouldn't. And so much the better for him. This *is* slightly
more than a loose excuse to say I think Ed Bullard is wrong in
almost everything he's said about the relationship between
folklore and ufolore.

In his reply to Paul, Jerome (both cited above) also said:

>A few abduction cases strike me as impressive
>and truly puzzling, and more plausibly (albeit tentatively and
>undogmatically) interpreted as interactions with nonhuman
>intelligences than as hallucinations generated by immersion in
>obscure folklore texts.

The key phrase in this context is "hallucinations generated by
immersion in obscure folklore texts". I should like to know
where *anyone* has *ever* claimed that an abduction experience
is that, or where it's ever been claimed that an obscure
folklore text could generate an hallucination. If it can, so
can Mrs Beeton's cookbook or a copy of the Beano. Boiled up
with eye of newt, wart of toad, etc, presumably. Someone seems
to be mad here. Can it be Jerome?

Folklore that hasn't retired is not texts anyway. It's bar,
pillow, lunchbreak, CB and chatshow talk among many other
things. It steals things from popular culture and gives things
back in return. It certainly isn't just about gnomes and people
who turn into geese when they die. Jerome seems not to
understand this very basic point: that there is something
called "folklore" flourishing today, and ufolore is no more
immune to its influence than I am to Tyra Banks's perfume.

Possibly Jerome's very strange idea arises as a result of not
quite being able to follow what Jacques Vallee was on about
once. (Join the club! Can *anyone* figure out what ufology's
answer to Frederico Fellini was really trying to tell us?)
Unfortunately, to pull this peculiar idea apart takes PAGES.
It's also treating "folklore" in a special sense, not the one I
intended in my original shorthand. I've addressed the
relationship between traditional (i.e. dead) folklore and
abduction lore in my book on abductions due out in spring '98,
and I'm preparing a version of the argument for John Velez's
AIC website. There is quite a lot on abductions as *myth* in
Paul Devereux's and my "UFOs and Ufology" (pub UK November, US
?Feb), which is also quite illuminating. Mmm, I suppose I would
say that, though, wouldn't I.

But until they appear, I'm afraid, and beyond what I've already
offered here, you're going to have to take it on trust that
your average informed folklorist does not think that
"abductions" are the simple cause-and-effect result of reading
fairy stories or singing "Thomas the Rhymer" upstairs at the
Ewe and Welly on a Friday night. You don't need to know any
traditional folklore for your "abduction" to connect directly
with folkloric themes. Nor can I explain why Jerome thinks it
is (or seems to) - assuming he is saying what he means here, of



Back at the end of August, Rob Bull enquired:

>From: "R.Bull" <RAB@cadcentre.co.uk> [Rob Bull]
>To: "'UFO UpDates'" <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Questions for abductees
>Date: Mon, 29 Sep 97 15:41:00 BST

>I'm not sure I accept the literal reality of abduction
>accounts, but are there 'standard questions' I should
>be asking this lady to determine if her experience is
>consistent with a classic abduction report?

That attracted a lot of squawking from various quarters as well
as some quite useful advice. What follows expands on something
I wrote to Rob privately.

By asking questions "appropriate to an abductee" - whatever
those enquiries may be - you presume you have an "experiencer"
in the first place and, furthermore, of an "abduction". If all
you've got to start with are a bedroom apparition and some
wounds, it's not impossible that those are all you may end up
with. Neither necessarily implies an "abduction", which is to
say, both have plenty of alternative, relatively prosaic
explanations, and the two clues may not be related to one
another. "When it rains, the pavement gets wet; but it does not
follow that because the pavement is wet, it has been raining."

The dread trinity of Hopkins, Jacobs & Mack are just the most
visible practitioners the worst kinds of interrogation
technique. Mack (as only he can) manages to make a virtue of
this and calls his horrible stew of hyping witnesses, leading
questions and New-Age irrationality a "co-creative" process.
Edith Fiore was almost as bad. The interesting thing about her
results is that they've been sidelined by the mainstream, I
suspect because they don't fit the received mould. Which raises
interesting questions for discussion elsewhere as to why one set
of data should be more or less acceptable to the vulgar mind than
another set despite their equivalence on a scale of weirdness and

Rank amateurism - just not knowing *how* to ask questions - helped
generate some early classics. Leo Sprinkle's "pendulum" technique
with Herb Schirmer was patently suggestive, and the buffs *never*
cite the extremely negative conclusions of the psychological
profiling that Condon's shrinks ran on Schirmer. Kevin Randle, who
helped James Harder investigate Patty "Price" Roach in the early
70s, has now concluded that the "case" was the product of Harder's
leading questions and priming the witness. Jerome Clark, Leo
Sprinkle & Allen Hynek's investigation of Sandy Larson was a farce
in terms of suggestive set, setting and technique: at one point
all three of them were firing ill-considered (read: leading)
questions at Larson; even before she had finished answering one,
another would jump in, often with something unrelated. Sprinkle
"taught" Clark hypnotic technique in an afternoon, and then left
him to it. In the UK, Tony Dodd takes any old tall story at face
value and refuses to reveal who his hypnotists are (it apparently
never having occurred to him that the method has such risks that
the precautionary principle should rule it out), but then he
thinks that fieldmice have their eyes pecked out by aliens and not
magpies and hawks. Perhaps aliens are closely related to the
Bedouin & regard animal eyes as a delicacy. Now there's a double
factoid to play with.

It strikes me that Bullard's conclusion that (in Jerome's words)
"investigators seem, by any measurable standard, not to affect the
content of abduction narratives much. In other words, ...it's
pretty hard to lead abductees" is meaningless unless one can
establish what those "abductees" knew before they approached the
investigator, *why* they sought those particular investigators
out, and what interrogative techniques were used *in every case*.
The Transcription Project now under way may throw some light on
these matters (though I note that with his usual comprehension of
the spirit of science Budd Hopkins has not released his files to
the Project: enquiring minds enquire why not, and observe that any
scientist who did such a thing with his/her data would soon find
him/herself lucky to be employed as a crossing sweeper).

The reason I suggested starting with "abnormal psychology" was
to use that as the stepping-off point for a process of
elimination, not because it necessarily contains the solution
to every case. It's conceivable that you could end up with no
other alternative than that an actual abduction did take place,
but I suspect you would need to eliminate a huge list of
alternatives before you landed up on that far distant shore.

As to what questions actually to ask... I'd be inclined to take
advice from a barrister, from a shrink, from a doctor, from
someone trained in *medical* hypnosis, maybe even a police
detective - to mention but a few kinds of expert in various
kinds (and intentions) of questioning. Having dumped hypnosis
as an acceptable investigative tool, BUFORA could spend its
time, funds and energy in a lot worse ways than doing just that
(and much more) - creating a truly objective investigative
technique that any intelligent investigator - and the
investigators had *better* be intelligent - could use after
some rigorous basic training, and that didn't regard "proving"
that an abduction had occurred as its be-all and end-all.

However, if BUFORA's going to do that, it also needs a
nationwide back-up team of counsellors, quacks, shrinks and the
like to deal with the fall-out, and all of those people would
need to be adequately briefed. Those "experts" should also be
briefing the ufologists in return. When they discover there's a
world outside ufology the brave ones may want to find
themselves another title.

One draws a curtain of modesty over American organizations' and
individuals' approach to all this.

Yours &c
Plywood D. Mahogany
Fascia Lifter

Search for other documents from or mentioning: 101653.2205 | clark | 2205 | devereuxp | rab

[ 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