From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 11:56:26 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 11:02:14 -0400
Subject: UpDate: Re: Spacenapping - Randles


 >Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 14:24:15 -0400
 >From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@mindspring.com>
 >Subject: Re: Spacenapping - Polanik
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>UpDate: Spacenapping
 >>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
 >>Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 14:02:27 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>In my experience of UK abduction research I have encountered a
 >>number of cases where there is no question that an abduction
 >>like experience was reported by the witness whilst they had not
 >>physically travelled anywhere.

 >In all but a minuscule number of cases of reported alien
 >abduction, the evidence is consistent with _both_ the usual,
 >objective ETH _and_ more unusual theories that treat the
 >experience as being at least partially subjective:

 >If we were to look, we would find a handful of cases where
 >witnesses observed what was presumed to be the physical body of
 >the experiencer during the time of the experience. In most of
 >these cases the result is as described by Randles:

 >Nevertheless, it only takes one case of physical abduction to
 >prove that ET fails to observe the Prime Directive. So cases
 >where witnesses reported seeing the abduction as it happened,
 >the Brooklyn Bridge abduction (if that's what it was) and the
 >Travis Walton case, would support the ETH.

 >It might be interesting for Listerines to consciously sift thru
 >the experiences they've had and the cases they know about to
 >find evidence that points one way but not the other. And to see
 >which way the evidence points.

 >Is anyone up for actually weighing the evidence?

 >
Hi,

I agree absolutely. Although I would always caution against
making any firm conclusions on the basis of single (or even two
or three) cases in the UFO field, this area of abduction
research (along with the very little pursued systematic search
for alien DNA at the site of an alleged event - in the same way
as police routinely sift for forensic clues) are surely the keys
to resolving this absolutely critical debate about the physical
reality of spacenapping.

It would be very useful to know of any cases that list members
believe do support the ground rule we have to set - that an
uninvolved witness actually saw the abductee being physically
taken away into what appears to be an alien craft.

It is often easy to read a case this way when the rule does not
apply. The Dandenong Mountains case (which I do consider
impressive) doesn't seem to qualify as all the participants were
directly involved in the abduction - so this in effect becomes
just a very good multiple witness case.

In the Alan Godfrey abduction the observers who saw the UFO saw
only a light and not anything resembling an alien craft. Nor did
they witness the literal kidnap from his patrol car of the
abductee.

Even the Travis Walton case cited is not really such a case -
for here the observers (who may be debatable as being
independent anyhow) only saw Travis 'zapped' by a light beam. To
my recall they did not see him liberally being spacenapped. So
their story might support the physical reality of a UFO - but,
as I have noted, that's not what we have to establish. We need
proof one step beyond that level.

Establishing that an event of some sort happened within physical
reality (i.e. it was not a dream or hallucination) is, in my
view, already possible. There is a physical component to CE 4
cases - I am sure.

But we need evidence that the physical component was an alien
craft that bodily spacenapped the abductee into itself. That
evidence has to be from a completely uninvolved chance observer
who saw this happen as surely someone, somewhere on occasion
would.

Why? Because we have parallel evidence of this sort where chance
observers say the abductee DID NOT get spacenapped and only
believed that they did (presumably because they had such a
powerful vision of this abduction).

As such to determine the choice between vision, vision triggered
by some physically energy field that can be witnessed by passers
by, and literal alien kidnap into a spaceship, we have to
produce data that strongly supports the final possibility (only)
and in the sort of numbers that support either of the first two.

Right now, so far as I can see, there are about 30 good cases I
can easily bring to mind that support the first two arguments
but fall short of any support for the latter - and just one (the
Manhattan Transfer) that supports the latter to the virtual
exclusion of the other two.

Surely there are others out there somewhere?

Best wishes,

Jenny Randles