UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Feb > Feb 11

Re: Review Of Sight Unseen - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic.nul>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:37:09 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:40:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Review Of Sight Unseen - Velez

>From: Josh Goldstein <lovolution.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 01:21:05 -0800
>Subject: Re: Review Of Sight Unseen

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


Hi Josh, All,

You wrote:

>Jung Institute may  also be able to interpret the symbols
>psychologically. They can tell whether they contain what are
>known as archetypal symbols. I am not implying anything
>regarding the actual source of the symbols but I think they
>deserve a multi discipline examination.

The last time I spoke to Stuart Appelle he indicated that they
intended to put the samples through a multi-disciplinary
analysis. Among the experts he wanted to submit the samples to
were psychologists, although I cannot tell you how many, if any,
were going to be Jungians who would be observing the material
from that unique perspective. You'd have to ask him about that.
It's a good idea though.

>Certain baselines would
>need to be defined, such as how many people remembered these
>symbols directly or under hypnosis, etc.

What difference would it make as long as what is being recalled
is strikingly/compellingly similar or identical? Another more
important thing that needs to be determined is; if randomly
chosen individuals were asked to 'invent' an alphabet from
imagination, would they produce something similar or identical
to what the abductees have produced. Although it is important, I
think knowing if 'anybody' can come up with those symbols would
be a much stronger 'base-line' than a break-down of how many
recalled the 'alien alphabet' consciously, without the aid of

The kind of inquiry I just suggested would reveal if your
Jungian 'collective unconscious' idea has any merit. It just may
be that when you ask anybody to 'invent' an alphabet from
imagination, you get something similar to what the abductees

We need to know if that is the case. _That_ would be a good
'base-line' to move out from. Once the uniqueness of the symbols
is established, further studies can be entered into with
confidence that they are not just running up and down blind

>What do you think of this idea? Do you know whether Budd has
>taken that approach or whether he would be willing to do so?
>Would you be willing to develop it?

Greg Sandow got Budd to submit some samples to Stuart Appelle at
Cornell University for study. That much has already been
accomplished and no 'small feat' that was! The only reason the
study was never performed has to do with JUFOS being in dire
financial straits more than any thing else. Now that the
publication is back up and running and a venue exists for peer
review of the findings, I see no reason why it cannot be put
back on the agenda.

Greg, can you contact Stuart and inquire about the possibility
of reviving the abductee symbol analysis? It would be great to
hear what some experts have to say about them. Speaking as one
of the contributing subjects, my curiosity is piqued.

Good thoughts, Josh. I hope your suggestion is taken into
consideration and that at least one or two Jungians are included
in the list of experts to be consulted.


John Velez
ET Scribe <G> ;)

[ 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