UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Nov > Nov 23

Re: Abductions & Ufology

From: Amy Hebert <yellowrose129.nul>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 06:12:18 -0600
Archived: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 08:46:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Abductions & Ufology


>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:53:49 -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.

<snip>

>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.

Hi, John:

Although my research turned more to the study of man-made
technologies, I began as an abduction researcher (1992). On the
one hand, I understand where Wendy and Jan are coming from
because I pretty much agree with what they are saying. On the
other hand, I understand where you are coming from because I
have spent many, many hours listening to stories told by
individuals who believed they had been abducted.

I know some kinds of bizarre phenomena are happening with
reference to abductions but the scientist side of me demands
more evidence than is currently available. I use to think it was
pretty clear, according to what abductees were saying. Then I
began to realize how muddied the waters have become by those who
tell tales of abduction but who have probably never been
abducted at all. In addition, I have watched many famous so-
called abduction researchers and investigators, that I knew
personally, generate much of the scum that has turned the pool
of knowledge about abductions so dark and murky it's almost
impossible to see anything clearly at all.

Were it not for my experiences with claimed abductees, my mind
might be nearly closed to references to encounters with non-
human beings and similar claims. Your experiences may be all too
real to you, John, but for others, all they have to go on is
your testimony about your encounters (and photos of UFOs?). I'm
sorry, but it's just not enough to convince as many as you may
wish to convince (I think you know this). And, as you may know,
witness testimony is not enough for abduction researchers either
when it comes to providing evidence not only to this list but
also to the world in general.

I think we're all waiting for that certain 'cocktail napkin' and
nothing less will do.

Abduction research, to date, has managed only to shoot itself in
the foot. Because there was little effort made to carefully
screen the mentally unstable from those interviewed, hypnotized
and publicized, it is next to impossible to point to any
particular study and call it "scientific". I read every piece of
material I could find published about abductions over the
years(amassed quite a library) only to toss the entire lot into
boxes and storage because they are practically useless when it
comes to the research that needs to be done.

As long as abduction research remains tainted by bias and little
attention to scientific protocol, abductees and their claims
will not be taken seriously by those outside the abduction
community (which is not necessarily the same as the UFO
community as there is a separate community of only those who
claim to have been abducted). Real research must undertake the
study of a phenomenon with as much objectivity as possible.
Careful screening processes for potential witnesses need to be
established _before_ a study begins. And all preconceived
perceptions, labels, terms and titles must be left at the door.

I went into abduction research believing aliens in UFOs were
abducting people left and right. However, the more I studied
abduction phenomena, the more I came to understand how little is
known about what's really going on. We cannot assume UFOs of
any origins are always involved in abductions anymore than we
can assume aliens of any origins are involved. Just because
witnesses and abductees call them UFOs and aliens, a trained
researcher would not use the same terms nor assume UFOs and/or
aliens are definitely involved either. As my old friend the late
Dr. Turner used to say, "When an individual is abducted, they
are in a controlled environment and everything they may see and
hear is also under the abductor's control." (or something along
those words) So, what the abductee may perceive as a UFO or
alien may be something else entirely, we don't know. As
researchers, we must remain objective or we might miss something
important while perceiving in another direction.

Don't get me wrong, John, I fully recognize those who have
pioneered abduction research. But it's time for an upgrade in
the methods employed. We must reach for improvement and new
strategies or there will be no progress. Hypnosis just doesn't
cut the mustard. In fact, the use of hypnosis to gather
evidence/information has been one of the main reasons abduction
claims are often dismissed. Using hypnosis with abductees
actually backfired by reducing rather than increasing
credibility. And with everyone and his dog claiming to be an
abduction researcher or investigator, using hypnosis without
certification and publishing books merely to get published or
invited to speak at the next UFO convention, we have a field
flooded with 'experts' who spend more time talking than actually
doing any form of research. (I am not referring to Budd Hopkins
or David Jacobs although they may consider trying new techniques
in the future.)

>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.

As a researcher, I would not assume UFO occupants and UFOs are
involved no matter what the witness claims to have seen or
experienced. I've interviewed many people who claimed to have
been abducted but never saw a UFO before, during or after their
abductions. I would include the information in my study but work
at remaining objective and avoid reaching similar conclusions.
Someone or something may want us to believe they are UFOs and
UFO occupants when they are not. Many abduction researchers have
made the mistake of labeling objects as flying saucers or
"starships" and beings encountered as "aliens" when they could
have been anything from holograms to robots to something we may
not even comprehend. The point is, we don't know and should
remain open to many possibilities in the search for the truth.

<snip>

>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.

Perhaps you feel you have no choice but to believe what you
perceive, John. But if everyone believed the same way and things
were not as they seemed, how would we know the difference? Some
of us may choose to remain smack dab in the middle of the fence
in order to maintain a more balanced and objective view of the
situation. Although this may not be an option for you because
you are involved in the experiences, it's the fence-sitters that
keep us questioning and searching for answers.

What you see as a direct cause and effect relationship could be
an effect-cause relationship. In other words, you may see what
you believe or what someone wants you to believe. It may seem
simple to you but I am not so sure UFO sightings are connected
to UFO contact/abduction cases. It certainly _seems_ to be the
case but that's exactly what makes me probe deeper and ask more
questions. I'm not saying UFOs should be divorced from
abduction/contact cases. I'm saying they should be treated on a
case by case basis and more studies conducted before lumping
anything together..if at all.

It may be impossible for you, John, because you are personally
involved in the abduction phenomenon, but perhaps you could try
climbing up on the fence with us fence-sitters, for a brief
moment, and look at everything from a new perspective. Ask
yourself, if you can climb, why people need more evidence to be
convinced. What kind of evidence is needed to convince the
fence-sitters? How would you view abduction phenomena if you had
never been abducted? How would you know, beyond a shadow of a
doubt, that UFOs are involved in all or most abductions? Could
it be a trick or some form of deception? What evidence would you
have, as a fence-sitter, that UFO occupants are responsible for
all or most of the abductions? Could it be more complex than it
appears?

Won't you join us for tea? ;>


Amy Hebert


[ 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