Abduction Digest, Number 27 Saturday, October 5th 1991 Today's Topics: Jacobs Jacobs abductions Re: abductions Re: abductions Re: abductions Re: abductions Re: Abductions Abductions Re: Abductions abductions abductions abductions Abductions Alan Godfrey Case FPP Research ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Keith Basterfield) Subject: Jacobs Date: 28 Sep 91 00:06:00 GMT Can anyone tell me when David Jacobs new book is coming out and the areas it will cover? Thanks. -- Keith Basterfield - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark.Rodeghier@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Mark Rodeghier) Subject: Jacobs Date: 27 Sep 91 23:27:00 GMT * In a message originally to All, Keith Basterfield said: >Can anyone tell me when David Jacobs new book is coming out and >the areas it will cover? Thanks. > Hello, Keith: First off, Jerry Clark certainly enjoyed his visit in Australia with you, Bill, Jenny and others. He's spent some time on the phone filling me in on what he gleaned from his discussions. As for Jacobs book, it should be out in early 1992. I haven't seen it but have heard about it from Swords and Jerry, who saw previous drafts. It is entitled (or was the last I heard) "The Secret Life of UFO Abductees." I don't have details on its exact content. If I learn any more I'll certainly pass it along. Regards, Mark. -- Mark Rodeghier - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Mark.Rodeghier@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks) Subject: abductions Date: 27 Sep 91 19:13:00 GMT > discuss UFOs intelligently, we MUST divide the question into two > separate but related issues: 1) Do UFOs exist? 2) Are UFOs alien > spacecraft? There really is no reason to discuss the second issue > without first establishing the answer to the first. The answer to #1 is > obviously yes. Although UFOs obviously exist, as Vallee has pointed out, there really isn't much evidence that could prove that they're alien spacecraft. They seem less hardware and more "somthing else." So, anyway, I think we really need to seperate things even further....UFOs, the spacecraft question, and the ET question. One common problem is the perception that if you "buy" the existence of UFOs, you also "buy" the theory that they're alien spacecraft piloted by live aliens. That nuance isn't made very clear in most published material. Here in North America it's pretty much taken for granted that UFOs are spacecraft, but I think that reflects our hardware high-tech society more than any real evidence. So, granted that UFOs really exist, the question becomes, "Are they hardware or not-so-hard ware?" Can't do much on where they come from without first figuring out what they are. And we really can't do much on their occupants either, other than indulge in pure speculation. jbh -- John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sue.Widemark@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Sue Widemark) Subject: Re: abductions Date: 1 Oct 91 07:29:00 GMT JD>ON what basis do you state that most witnesses are inebriated or JD>seeking attention. It's been that way in all the books I have read and I've been reading books on UFOs for 30 years now... Have read most of the 'classics' as well as some of the modern works. JD>I will say however that JD>one might wonder if the failure of religion to solve the complex JD>problems of today might lead otherwise religious people to look JD>for something more meaningful and something that works, i.e., JD>UFOnaughts. Why would a UFOnaught be more meaningful than God? ET's are more understandable than God and people are more comfortable with them. Religion solves the complex problems of today (which are really not much different from the complex problems of yesterday) just fine but like Epson Salts, it doesn't work if you don't use it! (last statement paraphrased from the 'Big Book' by Bill W. founder of AA who blamed his alcoholism on his atheistic belief set which he changed upon getting into AA, and consequently also, recovered from alcoholism - his arguments for the falacies of atheism are, unlike Thomas Acquinas and other scholars, very practical and very interesting to read). JD>I also don't see any JD>evidence that mankind is regressing back to paganism althought JD>I don't see much connection of that with UFO's one way or the JD>other. In doing a comparative study of the UFO myths with pagan myths of earlier civilizations, one can find quite a few striking similarities. Gods like Apollo who fly through the air, are men but somewhat super men, would not appeal to technological moderns, however, gods like ETs, flying in space ships who possess pretty much the same statue and powers attributed to Apollo and other like pagan gods, would appeal. The prototype of such a god, humanlike but superior with superior powers but not beyond the realm of physical enjoyments like sex, appears in countless religions which predate monotheism. That's the odd thing about Judiaism and Christianity - the 'god' of those religions is strikingly different from any other invented gods of mankind and also, this 'god' is somewhat alien to man, not really a figure that man feels comfortable with i.e. totally non human, beyond physical pleasures like sex, doesn't want worship - only wants man to love Him and other men and doesn't have a body. Is everywhere etc. Bishop Sheen points out the differentness of this Yahweh God figure as being a rather impressive argument for the possibility that man did NOT make up THIS God (too alien and too unlike all the other 'gods') which leads us to suspect that many Something did contact the Jews (who wrote down the accounts of this Something who called itself 'I am who is' in the bible). -- Sue Widemark - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Sue.Widemark@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sue.Widemark@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Sue Widemark) Subject: Re: abductions Date: 1 Oct 91 07:42:00 GMT JS>I don't know where you've been looking, but evidence (not PROOF JS>- EVIDENCE) exists that demonstrates the existence of a phenomenon. JS>The phenomenon involves flying objects that have thus far not JS>been identified, even by our best scientists. I have examined much evidence and not found anything really convincing. A few unexplained instances but that, in itself, does not necessarily mean UFOs. If you wish, I can upload some of the books I have read - lots - from the Ruppelt book to the modern Streiber books. Have been interested in UFOs since the age of 10 when the idea fascinated me. JS>For now, issue #1 is on the JS>table. I can, and will, show you videotapes of objects that A) JS>evade explanation by ordinary means, B) exhibit aerodynamic properties JS>we are not yet capable of, and C) SEEM to exhibit intelligent JS>guidance. Once that's established, are you willing to explore JS>further, or are you going to tell me what they told me on the JS>SCIENCE echo - basically, "SO WHAT?" I will listen with interest to anything you care to share with me. I did specially order that book you told me to get which you felt very convincing - I felt it more of the same stuff I had read over and over - not real creditable witnesses, ETs overly interested in sex (which they wouldn't be - sex is only exciting to us humans) and very vague data. However, the idea STILL fascinates me. I would love to discover some REAL evidence of visitations - guess that's why I keep reading and investigating. JS>Its kinda funny, when Jim Delton first logged onto ParaNet 5 years JS>ago, he left a message almost exactly like yours. He has since JS>changed his stance somewhat, basically because we were able to JS>show him the evidence he needed - I've been studying and reading for the past 30 years. (I list 20 books in my book journal - just a fraction of the books I have read in the last 30 years). -- Sue Widemark - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Sue.Widemark@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tyson.Mitchiner@p0.f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Tyson Mitchiner) Subject: Re: abductions Date: 28 Sep 91 09:00:00 GMT JS> But that's issue #2. For now, issue #1 is on the table. I can, and JS> will, show you videotapes of objects that A) evade explanation by JS> ordinary means, B) exhibit aerodynamic properties we are not yet JS> capable of, and C) SEEM to exhibit intelligent guidance. Once that's Is there enough of those videotapes to release a documentary pointing out that something unidentified exists, and to ask for a serious scientific inquiry? I mean, if there was such a collection of those videotaped objects grouped together and presented, and somehow gets on national TV, I don't see how people would ignore such evidence that would lead one to ask, "What ARE these objects?". I do not mean saying "Oh, these are alien spacecraft!", but "What are those objects?". Tyson From an explorer......... -- Tyson Mitchiner - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Tyson.Mitchiner@p0.f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Doug.Rogers@p0.f1.n606.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Rogers) Subject: Re: abductions Date: 29 Sep 91 18:24:22 GMT Sue, You certainly seem to make a large number of assertions here, and, like all rational investigators, I'm interested in where these assertions are based. For example: > of view that the Hills were truly abducted), one discovers > things which subtract from the creditability of the Hills > testimony. > Such as? > Abductees often show a characteristic > often found in schizophrenia, the "I was chosen to" attitude. > > Would you not agree, using this criteria, that the same might be said of the savior of the christian faith, his desiples, and last but not least, one certain Paul, whose dreams opened the faith for the Gentiles? > > Our methods of reproduction are really rather ordinary > and sexual arousal is something only exciting to the human > animal - the alien might not even pick up that sex is something Last time I checked, sexual arrousal was common to most of the higher animals on this planet. I don't find it in the least odd that a study of the fauna of the earth (including us) would not include this. > extraordinarily scintillating to humans - why should they > since this attitude seems rather unreasonable (i.e. our > almost worshipping attitude about sex) in the overall scheme > of things. Would this happen to reflect some negative attitude of your own? > Descriptions of examinations are often confusing and described > as if these aliens, possessing a far greater technology > than ours, are rather primitive in the methods of examination. >From this, I assume that the contents of a modern operating room would make sense to you if you suddenly woke up and found yourself there without remembering the trip? > I have studied UFO's for years and have not, to this day, > seen any HARD evidence that any have even landed. Pictures > are always fuzzy, witnesses are often inebriated or fame > seeking or lack in stability in one way or another. Odd I'd be interested in seeing a statistical breakdown of the percentages of cases wherein investigators have given credence to drunken sightings. As one trained in psychology, I find your last comment extremely interesting. How do you come to the conclusion that people who see the unexplainable are "lacking in stability?" > My theory of UFOs is that it's a modern incarnation of > the Greek and Roman gods and godesses - the aliens often > bear great resemblance to these ancient mythological figures > who were super human but very actively sexual beings etc. I believe I would again like to see a statistical breakdown if you wish to make this assertion. Do the "Nordics" REALLY outnumber the "Greys" and the others by a significant percentage? How many sources have you consulted to arrive at this assertion? > It's interesting that one seldom finds people into Christianity and 'into' > UFO's at the same time. I feel that further upholds my > theory - Christians being satisfied religiously speaking, > need not search for 'gods' from the sky. > It is my personal opinion that the above paragraph summizes your REAL agenda in making this post. Why do you feel that people who are "into Christianity" are more stable than those who are not? I can make a large number of arguments to show that there are many facets of that faith that DESTABILIZE the personality. I'm not here to bash Christians, but for someone to make an assertion that is false on the face as you have done cannot go unchallenged. > I leave this message, not as a criticism, but in hopes > that many will respond to me and present evidence either > in favor or against my above stated theory. I wish to > learn more from those who might teach me. I trust the above comments will get you started. I'm interested in seeing hard, statistical answers to back up your generalities. I'm also interested in anything in your background that would lend cedability to your opinions. It may seem that I am attacking you personally. I am not. The attack is on unsubstantiated generalities which you put forth as givens. I attack your methods, and your reasons for making the post, not you as a person. The above posts are made by me personally, and not in my role as echo coordinator. Doug Rogers -- Doug Rogers - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Doug.Rogers@p0.f1.n606.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Re: Abductions Date: 2 Oct 91 14:30:00 GMT > ON what basis do you state that most witnesses are inebriated or seeking > attention. From my reading it is exactly the opposite - most witnesses > are "normal" people who as often or not don't want to tell anyone what > they saw for fear of ridicule. As to the religious aspects, again, I > have seen nothing that would even provide a basis for formulating a > theory of any substance in regard to the religiosity of witnesses. I > will say however that one might wonder if the failure of religion to > solve the complex problems of today might lead otherwise religious > people to look for something more meaningful and something that works, > i.e., UFOnaughts. I also don't see any evidence that mankind is > regressing back to paganism althought I don't see much connection of > that with UFO's one way or the other. What elements would be required to formulate a theory? Mike -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Abductions Date: 2 Oct 91 14:36:00 GMT > So, granted that UFOs really exist, the question becomes, "Are they > hardware or not-so-hard ware?" Can't do much on where they come from > without first figuring out what they are. And we really can't do much on > their occupants either, other than indulge in pure speculation. Given yours and Jim's breakdown, the question now becomes, "What do we do to determine the various properties that the phenomenon represents?" Obviously, Vallee feels that they do possess a property that exceeds what we feel to be our physical bounds, but they have left phyysical traces, hence perhaps a physical property. I assert that we must be looking at scientific ways to measure and instrument the phenomenon. Unfortunately, stories and photographs don't really give much information. Mike -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Re: Abductions Date: 2 Oct 91 14:38:00 GMT Please do not use a period as a line separator. It creates havoc for the Internet mail software and causes serious problems, not to mention the amount of hair on Cyro's floor as he tries to straighten things out. Cyro needs all the hair he can get! :-) Thanks for your cooperation. Michael Corbin Director -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser) Subject: abductions Date: 2 Oct 91 18:19:00 GMT > Although UFOs obviously exist, as Vallee has pointed out, there really > isn't much evidence that could prove that they're alien spacecraft. They > seem less hardware and more "somthing else." > So, anyway, I think we really need to seperate things even > further....UFOs, the spacecraft question, and the ET question. One > common problem is the perception that if you "buy" the existence of > UFOs, you also "buy" the theory that they're alien spacecraft piloted by > live aliens. That nuance isn't made very clear in most published > material. > Here in North America it's pretty much taken for granted that UFOs are > spacecraft, but I think that reflects our hardware high-tech society > more than any real evidence. > So, granted that UFOs really exist, the question becomes, "Are they > hardware or not-so-hard ware?" Can't do much on where they come from > without first figuring out what they are. And we really can't do much on > their occupants either, other than indulge in pure speculation. Well stated, John, and I agree. I hope the "nuance" becomes clearer, but unfortunately my many dealings with skeptics shows that there is still ignorance on this issue. I am constantly forced to defend my stance that UFOs are alien spaceships, when I haven't even come close to TAKING that stance. Jim -- Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser) Subject: abductions Date: 2 Oct 91 18:34:00 GMT > JS>I don't know where you've been looking, but evidence (not PROOF > JS>- EVIDENCE) exists that demonstrates the existence of a phenomenon. > JS>The phenomenon involves flying objects that have thus far not > JS>been identified, even by our best scientists. > . > I have examined much evidence and not found anything really convincing. > A few unexplained instances but that, in itself, does not necessarily > mean UFOs. Unexplained = Unidentified = UFO. Couldn't be much more clear-cut. "UFO" is a transient term, a temporary name for that which (temporarily) has no name. It is the goal of all who study this phenomenon, skeptic and believer, to put a more permanent moniker on each UFO reported. > . > If you wish, I can upload some of the books I have read - lots - from > the Ruppelt book to the modern Streiber books. Have been interested in > UFOs since the age of 10 when the idea fascinated me. Good to hear - and yes, I would like to see your book list. > I will listen with interest to anything you care to share with me. I did > specially order that book you told me to get which you felt very > convincing - I felt it more of the same stuff I had read over and over - > not real creditable witnesses, What, in your opinion, compromised their creditability? What constitutes a "creditable witness" in your mind? Perhaps a Christian priest? Plenty of those in the database.... > ...ETs overly interested in sex (which they > wouldn't be - sex is only exciting to us humans) and many other higher forms of life, as Doug has pointed out. But that's not the issue. Could it be that they are interested in sex, not in a voyeuristic sense, but in a detached, empirical sense, much as we study the mating habits of butterflies? (I'm not exactly turned on by watching butterflies getting it on, and I doubt if many zoologists are). > and very vague data. Again, please define "vague" and what you would term "specific". If I remember correctly, the book I recommended was "Uninvited Guests" by Hall? That contains an entire appendix of specific cases with specific data that can be researched. Jim -- Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser) Subject: abductions Date: 2 Oct 91 18:40:00 GMT > JS> But that's issue #2. For now, issue #1 is on the table. I can, and > JS> will, show you videotapes of objects that A) evade explanation by > JS> ordinary means, B) exhibit aerodynamic properties we are not yet > JS> capable of, and C) SEEM to exhibit intelligent guidance. Once that's > Is there enough of those videotapes to release a documentary > pointing out that something unidentified exists, and to ask for a > serious scientific inquiry? There's maybe three or four very fascinating ones. Whether or not that constitutes enough for a documentary, I don't know. I know that they call for in-depth analysis, which could make for an interesting documentary (to me at least). > I mean, if there was such a collection of those videotaped objects > grouped together and presented, and somehow gets on national TV, I don't > see how people would ignore such evidence that would lead one to ask, > "What ARE these objects?". I do not mean saying "Oh, these are alien > spacecraft!", but "What are those objects?". Tyson As far as I know, all of these tapes have appeared on TV at some time or another. One of them was on the recent Ron Reagan show (I don't know too much about that one, but it LOOKS good at first glance - don't hold me to it if it turns out to be a hoax). No one on the program even commented on the tape. Same thing with Kanazawa - it was on CBS Evening News, but Connie Chung just smiled and gave the obligatory "I-don't-believe-I-just-read-the-news" look. Tracy Torme recently asked me about that tape, and expressed his frustration that no one is pointing to it as a major mystery. So who knows what people will do, even if we thrust a videotape in their face, they're likely to say, "Gee, that's a mystery all right. Now let's see what the Cardinals are up to." Jim -- Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser) Subject: Abductions Date: 2 Oct 91 21:18:00 GMT >> So, granted that UFOs really exist, the question becomes, "Are they >> hardware or not-so-hard ware?" Can't do much on where they come from >> without first figuring out what they are. And we really can't do much on >> their occupants either, other than indulge in pure speculation. > Given yours and Jim's breakdown, the question now becomes, "What do we > do to determine the various properties that the phenomenon represents?" > Obviously, Vallee feels that they do possess a property that exceeds > what we feel to be our physical bounds, but they have left phyysical > traces, hence perhaps a physical property. I assert that we must be > looking at scientific ways to measure and instrument the phenomenon. > Unfortunately, stories and photographs don't really give much > information. This seems to be what I'm up against in the SCIENCE forum. They've gone from telling me that UFOs are nonsense to telling me that, OK, UFOs exist, so what? If you can't measure them or quantify them somehow, they are of no use to science. They seem to forget that it shouldn't be up to us duffers to try and develop ways of scientifically quantifying UFOs, it should be up to those whose science degrees and federal grants we have for so long footed the bill. I like to come back to the ball lightning analogy. Suppose a bunch of witnesses come to Science saying, we've seen ball lightning. At first they get told that they're crazy (which they did). Then they get told that, well, OK, prove it. So they bring in photos. Then they get told, well, OK, we acknowledge the phenomenon, but there's nothing we can do about it until YOU do the measurements and the rest of the science. THEN we'll tell you what's happening. To Science's credit, this did NOT happen; scientists (finally!) jumped into the ball lightning fray and apparently have duplicated it under lab conditions. So why can't they do something similar with UFOs? Why should it be up to us? Jim -- Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser) Subject: Alan Godfrey Case Date: 2 Oct 91 21:26:00 GMT > The Alan Godfrey case is featured extensively in a book called the > Pennine UFO Mystery by Jenny Randles, published around 1983. Basically > early one morning Alan was patrolling in his car near Todmorden in > Yorkshire. He came across a large UFO with what he described (I am > working from memory here) as a series of windows across the middle. > When he arrived back at the Police Station he appeared to have been > away around 15minutes longer than he expected. He described a circular > dry patch (on the wet road) just below where the UFO hovered. What made the case interesting to me was that when Godfrey came to, he found himself in a pasture full of cows, where there should be none. All night the local constabulary had been receiving reports of cows wandering around. Its of interest to me because it correlates with an abduction case here in Arizona that was brought to my attention, and possibly with other cases. What IS the fascination with cows, I wonder? Jim -- Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Keith Basterfield) Subject: FPP Research Date: 4 Oct 91 03:50:00 GMT I have been asked to post details of the recent article Bob Bartholomew and I co-authored with George Howard. The article, titled: "UFO abductees and contactees:Psychopathology or fantasy proneness?" appeared in Vol 22 No 3 pp215-222 of "Professional Psychology:Research and Practice." -- Keith Basterfield - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG ****************A**B**D**U**C**T**I**O**N****D**I**G**E**S**T******************* Submissions UUCP {ncar,isis,csn}!scicom!abduct Submissions DOMAIN abduct@scicom.alphacdc.com Admin Address abduct-request@shemtaia.weeg.uiowa.edu ****************A**B**D**U**C**T**I**O**N****D**I**G**E**S**T*******************