UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Nov > Nov 22

Re: Abductions & Ufology

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic.nul>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:53:49 -0500
Archived: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 08:10:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology


>From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs.nul>
>To: UFO Updates <UFOUpdates.nul>
>Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 06:54:13 -0700
>Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology

>I guess I better step into this mine field because I mostly, but
>not completely, agree with Jan Aldrich regarding the Abduction
>scenario.

>Like Jan, I don't exactly know what to do with the abduction
>scenarios within Ufology either, but it appears to be a part of
>Ufology. However, like Jan, I don't think it is the centerpiece
>of Ufology as it is being presented today. Of course I
>completely reject crop circles as being part of Ufology too.

>I do pay attention to this facet of Ufology, but have just as
>many problems with it as other areas. There are several cases
>that trouble me, athough I certainly believe the sincerity
>expressed by a few abductees, but that doesn't count for much as
>far as empirical evidence is concerned. The cases that make me
>take notice and a closer look are not the abductions from the
>bedroom, but those that occur when a person(s) observe a UFO at
>close quarters while still conscious and active, then abducted
>and taken into the UFO.

>Like Jan, my mind is open, but so far I have to agree with him.
>Very little of the current abduction scenario seem to fit the
>framework of Ufology. Some cases certainly, but not as many as
>the statistics being forwarded really suggest.

>Not really a defense of Jan's position, but for what it's worth,
>I know Jan personally. We've spend a lot of time together in
>research and socializing. He's a pretty pragmatic guy. Honest to
>a fault and even though we've had some pretty hot discussions as
>to our own outlooks on Ufology over the years, he's one of the
>good guys in Ufology who wears a white hat and challenges all of
>us to think and rethink.

>Hang in there, Jan. You're not alone.


Hi Wendy, Jan, Greg, All,

Groan... Et tu Wendy? Et tu?

As you mention above; there are cases involving people who are
wide awake and who will get caught pants-down in the middle of
their day by unexpectedly finding themselves in the middle of an
uncomfortably close-up encounter with a UFO.

Freeze frame!

If I stop there and leave off any mention of contact with the
UFOs occupants/crew, apparently everybody would be able to live
with it. At least in terms of accepting it and investigating it
as a "UFO" sighting case.

But Lawdy help us if a door opens up and something non- human
floats out. And Jeebus help us if there should be any
interaction between the witness and the occupants.

It appears that, if any of the aforementioned should transpire,
the report crosses an invisible border in the minds of some
research people that takes it out of the realm of 'proper' UFO
investigations and into a "Twilight Zone" of 'other' phenomena
they'd like to relegate it to.

I don't even understand your intellectual argument. Why draw an
artificial line in the sand? Why establish a fake 'border' that
prohibits reports of UFO occupant sightings or interactions from
being considered a part of UFO phenomena. That is what
abductions are; interactions with the occupants of UFOs that are
on the ground or in close proximity if in the air.

A UFO is a UFO is a UFO.

Budd made a cute remark the other night about how it took 30
years for researchers to even consider that UFOs had an
"inside."  :)   How much harder it must be for some to imagine
that the object of their studies may represent somebody else's
technology, and that there may be pilots and crews on-board
those anomalous aerial objects. Even that may be intellectually
attainable/acceptable for some. But apparently, for some, a line
is drawn the moment any mention is made of interactions with the
UFOs' occupants.

It is _self-evident_ (to me anyway) that "UFO abduction" is a
part of the "UFO" phenomenon. As such it deserves _equal
footing_ in terms of investigative effort. Even more so because
it affects human beings. More often than not, adversely.

For my money, abduction reports _should_be_ front and center and
precisely because 'people' are directly affected. It affects
them in a way that does _not_ happen with witnesses of 'UFO
sightings' (at a distance.) It boils down to asking ourselves
where our priorities should lie.

Human beings or machines? (If UFOs are 'machines.')

It is clear which side of that fence I come down on. What you
need to ask yourself is; what side do _you_ come down on. I
can't believe you guys are trying to divorce UFO sightings from
UFO contact/abduction cases. What really boggles my mind is that
you don't see there is a direct cause and effect relationship
between the two that _demands_ they be investigated side by
side.

To steal a line from Dave Furlotte: "But that's just _my_ take
on it."  :)

* For Jan:

Just to set your mind at ease in case you were wondering, my dad
an my uncles never tried to play 'hide the salami' with me when
I was a child. The only person to touch 'Juanito', when I was
four, was my cousin Carmen who was five. We were checking out
the differences in our plumbing and it got a little touchy-
feely. But nothing overtly 'sexual' ever happened. Normal kiddie
curiosity.

There was an incident of sexual abuse in the family involving
one of my female cousins and her father. But nothing like that
(thank God) has ever happened to me. Or my (late) brother,
James.


Regards,

John Velez
Getting banged from both sides... aliens and humans!  ;)


[ 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