UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Feb > Feb 10

Re: Review Of Sight Unseen - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic.nul>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:42:00 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 15:13:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Review Of Sight Unseen - Velez

>From: Greg Sandow <greg.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:39:43 -0500
>Subject: Re: Review Of Sight Unseen - Sandow

>>From: Nick Pope <nick.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 20:10:52 -0000
>>Subject: Re: Review Of Sight Unseen

>>>Has he ever found at least 3 independent abductees (ideally, from 3
>>>different investigators) who describe at least 4 identical complex

>Yes, though all from abductees he's worked with. I don't know if
>other abduction investigators have reported the same symbols.

Hi Greg, All

You wrote:

>I've seen these symbols, and found them pretty staggering.

They 'staggered' you as an independent observer, as an experiencer
they brought me to my knees. (See below)

>I agree with Nick Pope (hi, Nick!) that we'd be better off if we
>could exclude any possibility of collusion. If, for instance,
>abductees in different parts of the world, working with
>investigators who don't know each other, reported the same
>symbols, I'd agree that the case would be stronger.

I'm genuinely surprised that this hasn't been attempted yet.
Actually, Nick Pope and yourself being as you are, in the good
graces of many of the major abduction researchers, are in a
position to actualize such a study. Of all the individuals I can
think of, both of you are in the best position to be able to
secure the trust and cooperation of the front line researchers.
Think about it.

>But now let me say why, as anecdotal evidence, these symbols
>struck (as I said) pretty staggering. I first heard of them,
>separately, from two abductees who worked with Budd. These
>people knew each other, but weren't specially friendly. I'm not
>aware that they ever saw each other outside of Budd's very, very
>occasional support group meetings.

 From reading this post I know that one of the 'abductees' you
are talking about is me. (It's ok to use my name Greg. You and
EBK are probably the only human beings alive that I trust to
'use my name' responsibly.) If the other abductee is R-Mary (?)
then I can tell you that a. I had not met her _before_ I drew
the symbols for Budd, and b. we never exchanged 'symbols'. In
fact, I didn't know until I actually saw some of the signatures
on the samples 'who' had produced them. At that point, they were
all strangers to me with the exception of 'Christine M.' And I
had never exchanged 'symbols' with her either.

I didn't know I knew any 'symbols' until it came up quite
spontaneously during a hypnosis session. As I was reliving an
abduction experience, I started telling Budd that 'they' were
showing me some 'writing' on a large, curved screen.

>Both told me very similar stories. They'd remembered seeing
>these symbols (actually, in one case, I believe one of the
>abductees said she'd drawn them every since she was a child, and
>suspected they might have something to do with what she believed
>were her abductions). They told Budd about the symbols. Budd
>asked them to draw them. When they'd finished, he didn't say
>anything. Instead, he left the room, and came back with a
>notebook in which were many other drawings abductees had made.
>Both of these abductees were amazed, not to say overwhelmed. One
>(a man) began crying. It was only at that point, he told me,
>that he began to believe that his supposed abductions might
>actually have been real.

Thanks for trying to protect me, Greg. Don't worry about
preserving my macho image. 'Weeping Willy' was me. That's what I
was talking about earlier, seeing the similarity and in some
cases _identical_ symbols (in my admittedly cursory perusal of
the many pages of symbols I was able to match up -three- of the
ones I had drawn with symbols that appeared on some of the other
pages) literally brought me to my knees and reduced me to tears.

If what was happening was not 'real' then how on earth could
these strangers have produced identical symbols to the ones I
had just drawn for Budd? It blew my mind. I'm not psychic and
some of those other samples had been drawn years before I had
drawn mine. The individuals were all (with the exception of
Chris) complete strangers to me. There was just no way that it
could be 'coincidence.' For the first time in Budd's
investigation of my case, _I_ began to believe that it could all
possibly be true. In fact, the reason it shattered me the way it
did was because deep down inside I knew the only way this could
happen was if each of us had seen those symbols precisely where
we recalled seeing them... on board UFOs.

>(Though as we've discussed, we have to trust his honesty
>here, and we can't be absolutely sure the abductees didn't
>show the symbols to each other.)

For whatever worth my 'word' may have around here, I can swear
to you that I did not exchange 'symbols' with anyone. And that
no one shared theirs with me. I had promised Budd that I
wouldn't share them with anyone.

>He gave in, and showed me the same notebook (he said) that he'd
>shown the abductees I'd spoken to. And this was where I was
>staggered. There were 14 extensive samples, from 14 people, each
>with distinct handwriting. I've promised not to describe the
>symbols, so I won't do that here. I can tell you that they were
>distinct enough - different, that is, from any other symbols
>I've ever seen - so that I'd recognize them instantly again.
>Imagine that you'd been reading English all your life, never saw
>any other alphabet, and suddenly saw 14 samples of printing in
>Hebrew alphabet. That's how distinct and new the symbols were.

I don't know how much weight my own opinion carries considering
that I am one of the 'subjects' that contributed samples but, I
too was deeply impressed with how 'distinct' the symbols are and
how they have an alphabet-like integrity within themselves.

>Another way I've conveyed how consistent they were is this.
>Suppose they were like the dots and dashes of Morse Code. They
>weren't anything like that, in actual fact, but suppose they
>were. Every one of the 14 samples would have had nothing but
>dots and dashes - absolutely nothing else. Not even a single
>squiggle, diagonal line, circle, square, or anything else.
>Nothing but dots and dashes. That's how consistent the 14
>samples of these symbols were. They were all made up of the same
>elements (which, by the way, is one way they differed from any
>alphabet I know; they were made up of smaller parts, easy to
>notice and remember). All of them have these same elements; none
>of them had anything that wasn't built from these elements.

I just want to confirm/corroborate what Greg has stated here.

>At one point, JUFOS was interested in publishing
>a study of the symbols, but it then ceased publication for a
>while. I don't know if the project has ever gotten back on

I asked Stuart Appelle about this a couple of years ago. At the
time JUFOS was not being published, (money problems, what else
is new!) and the study had been put on a back-burner. Now that
JUFOS is back up an running, maybe we can convince him to
follow-up on the study and see if it cannot be performed now.

>That's what I know about this subject. Anyone who's seen Budd's
>notebooks, with the 35 samples of these allegedly remembered
>symbols, each in a different handwriting, would have to be
>impressed. Even die-hard debunkers (the kind who think
>abductees, generally speaking, need psychiatric help, despite
>numerous studies to the contrary) would have to grant that if
>this is a hoax, it's a fairly monumental one. Unless, of course,
>somebody thinks that Budd is hoaxing it.

Although there are always exceptions to every rule, -most- would
be deeply impressed with those samples. As for Budd "hoaxing
it," I know he didn't "hoax" mine. I didn't "hoax" them either.

>Which, come to think of it, I suppose somebody might think,
>given that on this list we've just had somebody confidently
>declare that Budd tells his abductees that they've been
>abducted. This somebody, of course, has had about as much
>contact with Budd, his abductees, and his methods as I've had
>with the Tasmanian royal family (should there be such a thing).

I can't speak for anyone else, but he never did it with me.

>Just look at Luis R. Gonzalez, and all his assumptions about
>Katharina Wilson, which Katharina - a class act, if ever I've
>seen one here - so patiently demolished.

Katharina is every bit the class act you say she is.

>And now Luis jumps - hope once more triumphing over experience
>(though he doesn't seem to have processed his experience) - all
>over the idea that poor Budd Hopkins may have been fooled by
>someone claiming to be an abductee. Ha! says Luis. Didn't those
>same people, the same ones saying Budd was fooled, also say that
>Budd has reasonable checks on whether abductees are credible.
>They're contradicting themselves!!!!!

>Except... haven't we known, in other walks of life, reputable,
>competent people who sometimes make mistakes? Budd, otherwise
>careful, could have made a mistake here. Poor UFO investigators.
>I guess they, alone of all humans, have to be completely,
>utterly infallible.

Not too many people have a gift for telling it like it is like
you do Mr. Sandow. Spot on!

Warmest regards,

John Velez, Abductee

[ 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