From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm.nul> Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 17:25:48 +0100 Fwd Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 07:55:15 -0500 Subject: Re: Review Of Sight Unseen - Gonzalez >From: Nick Pope <nick.nul> >To: <ufoupdates.nul> >Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 00:56:58 -0000 >Subject: Re: Review Of Sight Unseen >I'm not sure that Budd Hopkins has claimed to have a sure-fire >way of checking the veracity of witnesses. What I have heard him >say previously is that he has some techniques to smoke out >witnesses who are confabulating, or making up stories that they >think he wants to hear. <snip> All this would be perfect if he somehow had calibrated his techniques. Unfortunately, even when I asked publicly, I have never read any example of an "IFO abduction", if you get what I mean. I do not trust any UFO investigator who, at least, had not discovered after investigation that 50% of his UFO cases are IFO. Curiosuly, not a single US abduction researcher has ever publicly recognized to have found a trivial explanation for an abduction he had spent time investigating. Let me contrast that with the Spanish situation: Here in Spain, we had 3 world-wide known abductions (all of them substantially through Antonio Ribera=B4s articles in FSR). First, we got "Julio F.". Unfortunately, after the initial investigation and regressive hypnosis (by non other that Mr. Jordan Pe=F1a, UMMO's hoaxer) nobody has been able to contact the witness who allegedly died a few years later. Third, we have the "strange case of the Jinn and the dolmen", including even several close-up photos of the alleged alien abductors. Nobody has been able to reinvestigate the case. And second, we have "Prospera Munoz". One serious investigator (Mr. Jose Ruesga) had followed her case for many years, becoming even a personal friend of the lady. His conclusion about the case is clear: some kind of unconscious confabulation due to a stressful familiar situation. I am sure that if US researchers would public acknowledge and explain that they were sometimes fooled by one of their alleged abductees, their case would certainly get stronger, not the contrary. We all have heard about Dr. Mack's case, and I have read about a similar incident with Leo Sprinkle, but even in those cases, those investigators did not discovered the truth just by themselves. On the contrary, they were forced to admit the truth and limited themselves to ackowledge the situation, without further explanations. >I acknowledge that this is frustrating for other researchers. A >similar debate rages over symbols reported by some abductees. >Budd has a large database of such symbols and is often urged to >publish the data. But he deliberately withholds this information >so that he can use it as a way of cross-checking witness >testimony. It would clearly be very interesting if different >abductees reported having seen the same symbols, provided Budd >could be sure that there had been no collusion. The moment the >data are in the public domain, this technique would be invalid. Well, one thing is to withhold data as a way of cross-checking, and other quite different, to sit on it for many years, without ever saying anything. After more than 25 years of investigations, surely he should be able to answer a simple question: Has he ever found at least 3 independent abductees (ideally, from 3 different investigators) who describe at least 4 identical complex symbols? There are literally thousands of pages of alleged alien writings, many of them publicly known, so I am not asking too much.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp