UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Oct > Oct 27

Re: Questions for Abductees

From: wlmss@peg.apc.org [Lawrie Williams]
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 23:50:34 +1000 (GMT+1000)
Fwd Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 21:38:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Questions for Abductees

> Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 22:10:15 -0500
> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
> From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Questions for Abductees

I see since this arrived several more accusatory rants have arrived.
Never before in the history of ufology have so many become so
excited about so little.

> I know that you only tried to do your best and that no harm was
> ever intended by you, to the contrary, it is clear that you were
> trying to help.

Condescension, soon to be followed by flames.

> But,...at some point in the game the peer review

This is not peer review. This is hounding since you reiterate points
I spent hours dealing with. You may agree with me or agree to disagree
with me, but either way do me a favour and make up your mind.

> that you have recieved on this list (and such a unanimous one
> from so many people on both sides of the fence) that it has got
> to reach you.

I don't consider about six people out of hundreds to be unanimous.
One of the others at least cannot grasp the basic difference between
"could" (my term) and "would" (his interpolation).

I guess it is the same sort of statistics you apply to abductees. One
loses the plot so you determine in your wisdom that we all should be
told lies. i.e. guilty of insanity unless we can prove our sanity.

> Judging from your defensive response to my post that hasn't happened yet

Mud sticks if one does not reply. You rattle out a stream of falsehoods
and accusations in ten minutes, but it takes all day for me to refute
them rationally and now you have just rattled off the same stuff again!
with 4 or 5 of you at it, it creates an impression of a furore. As if.

I assume you and your friends will continue to take turns posting
misinformation and false accusations until I either submit or leave
the list. Is that your goal?

Since I intend to do neither, can we arrive at a compromise? I shall
promise to never make a posting to this list again but to join the
intelligent majority and lurk. And you and your kind can then tell
us all about how ufoes and people are allowed to interact. I'll even
admit to deep regret that I tried to offer the list a different view,
one based on experience, insight and strong moral values that have
proven, regrettably, to not be in alignment with their UFO dogma.

>...I'll just remind you that`the road to Hell is paved with good intentions!'

Like your good intentions in making false accusations? I did not
mind replying the first time, but having to do it all over again is
absurd. Maybe I should put it all in a FAQ?  Problem is, based on
your recent performance, you would not read it anyway!

pb>>Nobody knows (except, it seems, you) what happened to them. Instead of
>>trying to find out what did occur,

I did not intensively question them nor let others do so. I have seen
the way people pester abductees overseas. That was driven home only
today, seeing another taunting missive from Barbara Becker demanding
that Ed Walters be further harassed. My own experience on this list
is proof positive of how it happens. I just thank the gods I have
not tried to copyright any photographs.

As for finding out what did occur, I am spending some of these nights
in a dark and windy situation, unarmed and alone, waiting to see for
myself. And there are no armchairs out there, just discomfort and some
risk. Another reason why I find your continuing comments so deeply
insulting.  And its just great to know what is being said about me
while I am trying to find out what did occur in the most reliable
way conceivible.

And it has delivered results!  But as I am still trying to extricate
myself from the current iterative morass of innuendo, false assumptinos
and moral judgements, don't anyone hold their breath waiting for any
report. I take pride in my honesty and moral integrity and more
importantly, I know too well how much time some people can waste.
I'll say this now with complete confidence: paranormal effects
*do* follow ufo visitations!

>                                 you make one monstrous assumption and
>>then tell this kid that she can expect to be rogered and made pregnant
>>by an alien. Terrific.

jv> Not terrific, horrific!

An horrific way to twist a clinical report of a clinical incident,
a terrific example of assumption, bias and a stereotyped reaction.
That kind of innuendo should be strongly condemned. John supports it!

pb>> So, never having met her, on what basis can you *possibly* judge
>> her reaction to the alleged events or to your thoroughly stupid,
>> unjustified and (let's think the best here) irresponsible prediction?
>> How did you communicate? By phone? Fax? E-mail? Tell, please do.

> Peter said it first and makes the point as clearly as anyone
> could so I won't reiterate it Lawrie but I think the point is a
> valid one.

The idea that abductees are not fit to be fully informed because
an opinion might set off a psychosis is an outright insult to all
abductees. So reporting an abduction is a possible sign of mental
illness?  Wow!  Abductees should steer well clear of mainstream
medicine if this value system is anything to go by. I have indeed
learnt something vital from this interaction. Before this incident
I thought some mainstream "professionals" had their heads screwed
on. John Velez has proved me completely wrong.

pb>> The only connexion between you and Sir Cedric in this parable is
>>   your prattishness and your incapacity to judge a situation from
>>   anything but your own point of view. Do you get the point?

jv> Do you Lawrie?

I certainly do, John. The lesson is that I honestly reported a brief
conversation, then chose to defend my action, and then spent days
and days of my life crafting thoughtful responses to people like you
who just return time and time again to make the same accusations.

I am persistently asked this question. It was known to the inquisitors
as "Putting the Question." It was put until the accused broke and
said what they were required to say. Do *you* get the point?

> The things we say to those who are in a vulnerable state (especially
> in the case of inexperienced young ones) can have life altering
> effects. What you did (with all the good intentions in the world)
> was to hand that girl a lit stick of emotional and psychological
> dynamite! The fuse could go at any time. Because she seems OK now
> doesn't mean she won't be tomorrow when you have been long gone from
> the scene. She may have an adverse reaction (at any time) Do you
> understand the possible negative implications of your actions?

Feel free to post some verifiable statistics to back this up.
In the meantime, ask yourself how professional you are when you
come out with rhetoric like that above. And at least you are
a cut about Peter B, with his reliance on personal attacks.

Of course your statistics still only represents a sample of cases
that come to the attention of professionals and will be only
tenuously connected with our situation over here. That is if you
even have any stats. So far all I have heard is opinions, the same
opinions with different personal innuendo each time. Latest out
of the email box: I am liable to be sued. How Pythonesque this is.

Take note also my son's comments, posted separately.

>>Nobody can say I am not even-handed in the people I upset.

JV> I'll give you that one Perigrine! <G>

Actually it was me, Lawrie who said that.  The one who seeks to focus
on the issues, not on ad hominim, corny games with surnames &tc.

PB >> ever think of that?). When a mob of such generally opposed persons
>> jump on you with both feet, does it not cross your mind - never a
>> long journey, it would seem - that you might be just a teensy, eensy,
>> weeny bit mistaken? Apparently not.

JV> Actually she's accomplished a bit of a minor miracle. She
> actually has you, me, Roger, Jerry, (and countless others) to

Use your fingers, you will find you have enough with plenty to spare.

> agree on one thing unanimously! It's actually quite a novelty to
> find us all wearing the same colors. But it's for a good cause
> and I respect all of you for speaking out. I only hope that....

Easy to explain. Therapists who make a living exploiting, er helping
abductees have been going on for years about the wicked amateurs
who mess with abductees heads and destroy vital data with unskilled
hypnotic sessions. This group has been reviled by skeptics and
by those who want scientific respectability. Abductees seem to have
been saying that there are not that many shysters out there and that
our real memories stay fresh even decades later. But that is ignored.
It is just too useful a myth for all concerned. The professionals
get to put the competition out of business. The skeptics have a
basis for discrediting abductees. Disturbed abductees have someone
else to blame for their confusion. It is known as a unifying
stereotype. Until I was recently mistaken for one of these
unauthorized therapists and subjected to these hysterical claims,
I believed the myth. Not any more!

Oh, I am a male, by the way.

> Lawrie listens for the sake of any future "conversations" she may
> conduct with someone who suspects that they are being abducted.
> Especially a minor! For legal reasons alone she should have
> declined involvement.

Hollywood causes the trauma John. On a big scale. They mess with
people's heads by the BILLIONS. This stream of accusations and
personal attacks on me is absolute hypocrisy. And I still can
see no end in sight.

Consider that maybe cultural values are different over here. We have
a mix of anglo-celtic with a lot of austronesian and some southern
european. We don't have fundementalists teaching our young ones lies
about demons and hellfire. Only rarely are kids over here subjected to
christian ritual abuse, a major problem in the USA. The Kelly case is
the only abreaction I have heard of in Oz although I am sure there
are more in the urban areas. She was more embarrassed afterwards than
traumatized, and by her own admission she was a christian.

Christian fundamentalism causes far more trauma John. They mess with
people's heads by the TENS of MILLIONS. They get little children and
*promise* them eternal torture if they fail to comply. Their icon is
a man under extreme torture and it is displayed in public. They put
programs on TV in which they portray mythology as if it is factual.
They go hunting for people in deep emotional trouble and then they
pressure them to join their cults. There is where the real damage is
being done. Get real John.

I am saying you have no idea of how other cultures deal with these
kinds of incidents. Your ad hominim attacks represent the "Ugly
American" and "Pommy dickhead" syndromes at their worst. You presume
to tell a mature and trusted Australian (first abducted 44 years ago!)
what he should or should not say to other Australians on the shallow
pretext that you know better!

pb>>Somewhere or the other Plato has Socrates say to an acolyte:
>> "Go, tell no one, and drown thyself."

jv> I don't know about hari-kari but I do hope that Lawrie learns
> from all of this.

Yes, that we here in North Queensland can share no more and instead
let "experts" like John & Peter (different sides, same coin) tell us
what we are allowed to tell our kids.

pb> What you are up to now is potentially dangerous, deeply stupid, and
> without an iota of concern for the consequences to the subject
> in question. You show how truly half-witted your ideas are by the way
> you *defend* them and dozy actions.

jv> Blunt, but it's justified. Needs to be said in as perfunctory a
> fashion as possible. Testify Mendoza! <G>

The informal support system that exists in our liberal but stable
community should excite envy in New York rather than condemnation.
We listen to one another. We are honest with one another.

This recent spate of postings and most especially Peter's sexual
innuendo has completely discredited whatever credibility he had.
How come the moralists on the list are not up in arms about this?

Slander is never pleasant and can never be ignored, especially when
it is as intense as I have received. At least John has strived to
be reasonable. But I see Peter has turned his attack on the girls
themselves. Anything for a thrill and a giggle I suppose.

With the permission of the list I'd like to print out all the
discussion we have had and pass it on to the kids concerned. They
deserve a good laugh at the star-chamber farce that this has become.
And if anyone is to be sued for sexual innuendo or intemperate
personal comments, I wonder who it is likely to be?

>>How old are you, by the way?

Forty-eight. Old enough to know in consierable detail what you
will never, ever, know.

Lawrie Williams________________dusting off his trusty old printer

Search for other documents from or mentioning: wlmss | jvif

[ 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