UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Oct > Oct 28

Re: Questions for Abductees

From: Michael Wayne Malone <wayne@fly.HiWAAY.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 07:05:03 -0600 (CST)
Fwd Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 14:11:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Questions for Abductees

> From: wlmss@peg.apc.org [Lawrie Williams]
> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 23:50:34 +1000 (GMT+1000)
> To: updates@globalserve.net
> Subject: 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.

So little?  How can you call complete disregard for scientific
integrity "so little?"  Could you please take the time before you
vanquish this List into the realm of lurkerdom that?

> > 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.

What would have been peer review?  Unconditional acceptance of
your methodology?  Since you posted what you've termed a
scientific posting of a conversation no one has stepped forward
to publicly support your methodology.  Instead, at least 6 people
of wildly differing views have condemned the method you employed
in that "conversation."  The most vocal skeptics and abduction
researchers of this list have universally condemned your method.
At least two occasional posters have questioned the validity of
your method.  And the most opened minded of the group balked at
your method.  Yet you and you alone are right and the rest of
creation is barking up a tree.

> > 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).

Again, I ask where your supporters are?

And as to this hair splitting with the word "could."  Giving your
subject (via an intermediary) the worst possible scenario that is
completely unsupported by anything other than anecdote is, by
definition, reckless and foolhardy.  Did you, in fairness, also
tell your subject that there is no physical proof of the
abduction experience nor physical proof of ET visitation?  Did
you tell your subject that the event "could" have been a common
sleep paralysis vision that has been traced through history?
These explanations are at least as possible as your "could" of
phantom pregnancies and alien abductions.

> 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.

Would you be so kind as to provide the source where any of your
opponents have suggested that "abductees" are mentally insane?
Or is that YOUR close minded interpretation of our concern for
the mental health of your subject from the unreasoned and
uncaring response you sent?

> 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?

My goal is to improve the level of research that is leveled at
ufos.  For lack of a better term, to improve ufology.  I will, to
use your words, hound any quack or shyster who continues to
pollute the waters of researchers seeking truth.

And I use truth in the scientific meaning, not the subjective
meaning you tend to banter about.

> 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.

Experience, insight and strong moral values have nothing to do
with truth. That was one of the lessons of our recent parable.
Cedric used his insight, experience and morals to arrive at
entirely the wrong conclusion.

UFO dogma has nothing to do with my position.  Truth does.

> 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!

You've bandied about the term "false accusations" quite a bit,
care to be more specific?

> 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.

Not having "intensively question"ed your subject and not allowing
others to do so smacks of something other than scientific
conversations and seeking the truth.

So how about we look at the "facts" of this case.

1) You've admitted to having never met the subject.
2) You've admitted to having not put the subjects anecdote to scrutiny.
3) You've admitted to having passed along information to the
   subject as to what "could" happen without regard to the
   likelihood of that same happening.
4) You've claimed this all in the name of science.
5) When challenged, you've accused others of closemindedness and dogma.
6) You've claimed to have "truth" but have not offered "proof."

That doesn't look like scientific endeavor to me, doesn't look
like open minded and thorough research, and it proves you correct
in at least one point.  I am not your peer, I could never stoop
so low.

> 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.

Exactly what is "the most reliable way conceivable?"

> I'll say this now with complete confidence: paranormal effects
> *do* follow ufo visitations!

Your confidence is comforting, now would you care to offer you
concrete proof as to this paranormal effects of UFO visitations?

> 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!

First, if there was a bias, it was a bias for honesty and
integrity in research.  If there was a stereotyped reaction, it
was the stereotypical reaction of learned men and women watching
the uneducated act unscientific.  And that kind of "innuendo"
should be strongly supported. And a "clinical report" of a
"clinical incident" is not the casually typed report of the
experiences of a subject you have never met, never interviewed,
and influenced with unneeded and dangerous theories.  Perhaps if
you had taken a "clinical approach" to this incident you wouldn't
be in such hot water today.

> 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.

But there is nothing to indicate that you did fully inform you
abductee. Instead, the presented evidence is that you provided a
heavily biased opinion based on anecdotal evidence without
factual support to a person that you neither interviewed nor
placed under any type of scrutiny.

And there has never been a question of whether or not an abductee
can accept any amount of information.  Initially the concern was
that your research methods, since you did post your original
message as a "clinical report," were faulty.  When you changed
your story to a "conversation" between "abductees" the concern
was the reaction of a young girl to the possibility that she
would become pregnant without supporting physical proof.  And
when it became clear that you made all your assumptions without
actually questioning the subject, any claim to "professional" you
may have had wafted out the window.

Now my complaint is completely centered on the fact that you are
a man who acted unscientifically in the name of science.

> 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.

As I have already suggested, read up on Medical Student Syndrome.

> 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.

This is a classic quack dodge.  Provide me with statistics... but
if you do they will not be applicable to my situation.

> 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.

What issues?  Every time an issue is raised you claim false
allegations or change the basis of the conversation.  Which was
this report, a conversation among abductees or a clinical

> 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!

If you are not a therapist, then what were you doing giving a
"clinical report?"

You wrote as if you were a therapist, you claimed to have acted
in a method consistent with a therapist...  and you get upset
when we notice you quack like a duck?

Besides the only professional therapist that exploited abductees
lost his license, I'll remind you.  Otherwise, why don't you give
your examples.


> 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.

Except, it wasn't your kid.  It was a stranger you never met,

> 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?

You've continually referred to this sexual innuendo, but was it
not you who suggested that your "subject" would be impregnated
and then have the resultant fetus stolen?

> 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.

What slander?  Be specific please...

> 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?

As always, my postings are in the public domain.

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

Intemperate indeed.


Search for other documents from or mentioning: wayne | wlmss

[ 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