UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Feb > Feb 7

Re: Review Of Sight Unseen - Gonzalez

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 Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com