Abduction Digest, Number 46 Monday, February 3rd 1992 (C) Copyright 1992 Paranet Information Service. All Rights Reserved. Today's Topics: Abduction Research Apology Criticisms Abductions Abduction case FPP Apology Apology Re: abductions Re: Criticisms Criticisms Apology ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sheldon.Wernikoff@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Sheldon Wernikoff) Subject: Abduction Research Date: 30 Jan 92 02:39:02 GMT In a message to Sheldon Wernikoff <26-Jan-92 12:26> Bill Chalker wrote: BC> 1. professional & qualified psychologist BC> 2. extensive experience in practical therapuetic use in BC> hypnosis BC> 3. no strong opinions either way on the UFO subject. BC> 4. open mind BC> 5. a willingness to use Richard Haines 3 stage technique and BC> protocol as a guide Wonderful criteria Bill. I agree that it is especially important that the therapist have no definite pro or con proclivity, but after years of investigations, how does one maintain their impartial stance? In my opinion, therapists who focus *solely* on the abduction question are, in some instances, doing their patients a potential injustice. Edith Fiore, Ph.D. is a case in point. She has always specialized in a strict paranormal approach, moving from the vogue of past life regressions in the '70s to the abduction scenarios of the '90s. It is important, and difficult, to preserve a measure of detachment from the issue at hand. Take care, Sheldon -- Sheldon Wernikoff - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Sheldon.Wernikoff@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sheldon.Wernikoff@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Sheldon Wernikoff) Subject: Apology Date: 30 Jan 92 02:40:03 GMT In a message to Sheldon Wernikoff <29-Jan-92 00:41> John Burke wrote: JB> I thought that your points were well taken, expressing JB> legitimate concern about something Dr. Jacobs will surely be JB> expected to explain once he starts "making the circuit" upon JB> the release of his new book. I found nothing hostile about your JB> questions. JB> If some of us want to take sides, fine. Trying to JB> squelch the opposition is another matter. John, your reassuring comments mean a great deal to me. Thanks for responding. Take care, Sheldon -- Sheldon Wernikoff - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Sheldon.Wernikoff@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David.Jacobs@f21.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (David Jacobs) Subject: Criticisms Date: 31 Jan 92 07:19:57 GMT Although the last thing that I wanted to do was to provoke a dispute among the Paranet respondents, I think that the very nature of the material creates strong feelings pro and con. Sheldon, I did not think that you were attacking me. I have become accostumed to heavy-hitting attacks from all quarters. This is not to say that I can satisfactorily answer them all, but in this field the attack is the norm and I did not feel as though you were doing anything other than expressing surprise. Doug, I would like to thank you for mounting a defense. Budd Hopkins and I feel quite embattled these days. There are only a few of us who take the position that we do and therefore we are pretty much fair game for any and all. As you know it is complex enough to defend the UFO phenomenon in general against attacks, let alone having to defend the abduction phenomenon, which is as "far out" as one can get these days. Our position that the abductees are describing an external, objective reality and are therefore victims is one that virtually everyone can find weaknesses in. Just the problems involved with hypnosis are enough to put the stopper on believability. Once you get past hypnosis then you rapidly become involved with the extremes of the bizarre. Therefore any defense that comes my way I gratefully accept. When my book comes out next month I fully expect to be pretty much savaged by almost everyone. In spite of this, I feel that I, and Budd, and John Mack at Harvard, and John Carpenter in St. Louis, and others who share a common opinion will, in the end, prove to be correct. Via SPITFIRE Bulletin Board System - Version 3.1 -- David Jacobs - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: David.Jacobs@f21.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Keith Basterfield) Subject: Abductions Date: 31 Jan 92 03:09:00 GMT David, Thank you very much for the warm welcome and your comments about Australian abduction research. Abduction research is certainly an area fraught with dangers for the young players. As you say there are cases where abductions are recalled without the use of hypnosis. Locally there are most definitely instances of physicality. In the "Carol Williams" event where she recalled an event at age 15 which occurred in a shared bedroom, her bedroom companion, another woman was certainly able to confirm the initial stages of the event. In "Susan"'s case, I managed to locate her sister who confirmed the observation of a ball of light floating into the bedroom, which Susan says was ahead of the abduction party. In "Julian"s case both he and his wife have conscious recall of apparent abduction events. The Maureen Puddy 1972/73 case was investigated in depth by two lots of Australian researchers. Firstly by Garry Little and Bill Stapleton and secondly by Paul Norman and Judith Magee. Magee wrote up the case in the English "Flying Saucer Review" Vol 18 no 6 Nov/Dec 1972 and FSR Vol 24 no 3 Nov 1978. It is referenced as case 209 in Bullard's "Measure of a Mystery." On one occasion in an involved sequence of sightings, Puddy was in a car with Norman and Magee, lapsed into a "trance" and whilst physically still present with them, started to relate being inside a round room, entity there, etc. She became frightened and came out of the "trance." She stated she could not recall what had happened whilst she was "unconscious." It bears all the hallmarks of an apparent abduction but the woman was at all times firmly physically in the preence of two top Australian ufo researchers. I believe Jenny Randles referred to a UK abduction case involving gaynor Sunderland where an abduction was reported whilst the young girl was seen to be sleeping in her bed, by her mother. Locally, I believe we have yet to have an abduction reported where independent witnesses see the abduction occurring or where someone is definitely seen to be physically absent during the event. However, bear in mind when I collated a catalogue of Australian abductions in April 1991 we had only uncovered 43 such events. I notice Bill said he had come across some 30 cases. Anyway, a pleasure chatting to you and others, and I trust we will have many more enjoyable and informative chats. -- Keith Basterfield - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Keith Basterfield) Subject: Abduction case Date: 31 Jan 92 04:48:00 GMT I shall wait with interest to hear from the person concerned. Thanks. -- Keith Basterfield - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Keith Basterfield) Subject: FPP Date: 31 Jan 92 05:26:00 GMT John H Chalmers recently asked me for a reading list from mainstream psych journals. It may be of interest to others. 1. Wilson, S.C. & Barber, T.X. (1981). Vivid Fantasy and Hallucinatory Abilities in the Life Histories of Excellent Hypnotic Subjects, in Klinger, E. (ed). Imagery: Vol 2. New York. Plenum. 2. Wilson, S.C. & Barber, T.X. (1982). The Fantasy-Prone Personality: Implications for Understanding Imagery, Hypnosis and Parapsychological Phenomena. PSI Research 1(3):94-116. 3. Wilson, S.C. & Barber, T.X. (1983). The Fantasy-Prone Personality:Implications for Understanding Imagery, Hypnosis and Parasychological Phenomena. Chapter 12 in Sheitch, A. (ed). Imagery:Current Theory, Research and Applications. New York. Wiley. 4. Myers, S.A. & Austrin, H. R. (1985). Distal Eidetic Technology:Further Characteristics of the Fantasy-Prone Personality. Journal of Mental Imagery 9(3):57-66. 5. Lynn, S. J. & Rhue, J. W. (1986). The Fantasy-Prone Person:Hypnosis, Imagination and Creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51(2):404-408. 6. Richardson, A. (1986). A Follow-up of Nine Typographic Eidetikers. Psychologia:An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient 29(3):165-175. 7. Rhue, J. W. & Lynn, S.J. (1987). Fantasy-Proneness:Developmental Antecedents. Journal of Personality 55(1): 121-137. 8. Lynn, S.J. & Rhue, J. W. (1988). Fantasy-Proneness. American Psychologist 43(1):35-44. 9. Rhue, J. W. & Lynn, S.J. (1989). Fantasy-Proness, Hypnotizability and Absorption: A Re-examination. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 37(2):100-106. 10 Fellows, B. & Wright, V. (1989). Fantasy-Proneness: Data and Observations on the British Use of the Inventory of Childhood memories and Imaginings. British Journal of Experimental and clinical Hypnosis 6(1):57-59. Unfortunately I find that many UFO researchers have failed to read some of the above material before relegating the FPP hypothesis as a potential explanation for some abduction cases to the trash can. In abductions there is a thread of "alien babies" being removed from pregnant women. Barber and Wilson relate how two of their FPP hypnotic subjects fully believed they were pregnant and went for abortions only to find no evidence of pregnancy. If these women had been investigated by UFO researchers and not by psychologists chances are the "missing baby" file would have had two more cases logged. Very few people are aware of this research, and these findings cannot be overstated. You can have amazing facts without necessarily introducing alien intervention. -- Keith Basterfield - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke) Subject: Apology Date: 29 Jan 92 07:41:00 GMT > In a message to Sheldon Wernikoff <21-Jan-92 20:14> > Doug Rogers wrote: > > DR> The crux of my complaint to you has to do with your > DR> persistance in voicing your unsuported opinions in areas > DR> where you have no > DR> expertise, especially in the face of those who have proven > DR> to have expertise. I'm especially talking at this point > DR> about your > DR> posts to Dr. Jacobs. I am a practicing counselor in addition > DR> to being a professor of mass communications. Let me > DR> assure you, > DR> Dr. Jacobs is posting a rock solid, defensible line in this > DR> work. He has too great a reputation to do otherwise. Yet, > DR> you take up bandwidth asking him questions that attack > DR> the way he > DR> treats his patients and does his research. Sheldon: I thought that your points were well taken, expressing legitimate concern about something Dr. Jacobs will surely be expected to explain once he starts "making the circuit" upon the release of his new book. I found nothing hostile about your questions. There is a distasteful odor of "believerism" around when people are discouraged from having the chutzpah to question the "Authorities" in this field about their methodologies. I am similarly disturbed about the outrage expressed in _UFO_ magazine over Jerry Clark's treatment of Jaques Vallee. I found "The Sage of Canby" to be much more restrained in his recent article than he was in his earlier critique of _Confrontations_. Even *if* those two guys hate each other, their debate is an important one for the rest of us who share an interest in these topics. If some of us want to take sides, fine. Trying to squelch the opposition is another matter. -- John -- John Burke - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Keith Basterfield) Subject: Apology Date: 31 Jan 92 05:51:00 GMT I would like to say that I have found Sheldon's observations, comments and questions of great value in all areas of Paranet. This is not an arena for "believers" but an open forum for discussion, debate, disagreement and sharing of information. This is why I have been only too willing to spend time sharing my Australian findings with all. I'm happy to be corrected, debated, queried etc. If I can't discuss it with people who have some knowledge on the subject, and practice my thoughts and arguments here, then I will fail to convince and interest health professionals and media people that they should take abduction research seriously. Let's move on, and continue to discuss research, theories etc and question everything and everyone (be they THE EXPERT or not-we can all contribute.) Enough said, back to research. -- Keith Basterfield - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Danny.Brandenburg@p1.f0.n606.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Danny Brandenburg) Subject: Re: abductions Date: 31 Jan 92 01:56:10 GMT >Quite a bit can be produced - but the area host has made a request to go >back to the to subject at hand and I agree with him... that thread got I Agreed! There are other places to discuss that matter. I too have a a Wildcat! board with a large religious discussion area. You too, of course, are more than welcome to call and join in conversation. >P.S. and I would like to see evidence on the subject of abductions... >do you have any to share? Actually, I do not have any evidence to share on abductions. I must admit, I remain skeptical on the entire area of UFO abductions. The hardest evidence I can find is that which has been gathered through hypnosis. First we must prove hypnosis before it can be reguarded as good evidence. Also, through hypnosis, people can EASILY be given suggestions on what they either could or should have seen. There is no doubt in my mind that in most, in most abduction claims, the person abducted truly believes that they were abducted. However, belief and reality are to different things. Perhaps abductions are a reality but I need to find stronger evidence than what has been presented thus far to be convinced. -- Danny Brandenburg - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Danny.Brandenburg@p1.f0.n606.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Doug.Rogers@p0.f1.n606.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Rogers) Subject: Re: Criticisms Date: 2 Feb 92 21:25:02 GMT > feel as though you were doing anything other than expressing > surprise. Doug, I would like to thank you for mounting > a defense. Budd Hopkins and I feel quite embattled these > days. There are only a few of us who take the position You are most welcome, David. I'm just doing my job. It doesn't matter what the echo coordinator posts, it's always wrong from someone's point of view. As the moderator of this area, I'm sure you are finding that out. My comments were not intended to be public... that is why I sent them to Sheldon privately. Since he chose to make them public, all I can do is thank you for the appreciation. I, like you, get da*ned little of it, and any scaps are sincerely accepted. -- Doug Rogers - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Doug.Rogers@p0.f1.n606.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sheldon.Wernikoff@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Sheldon Wernikoff) Subject: Criticisms Date: 3 Feb 92 00:12:01 GMT Hello David, It was most heartening to learn that apparently no one other than Doug felt I was attacking you. Your kind words of understanding were deeply appreciated. In this unconventional discipline called ufology, we must all endeavor to remain unprejudiced in our convictions, and responsive to theory modification when warranted by variations in observed data. I strive to maintain a fairly detached perspective in the abduction arena, which becomes increasingly difficult as more and more statistics become available. This is an unavoidable effect, and I am certain you find yourself being similarly influenced. At present, I think we can all recognize that the abduction phenomenon is an extremely complex issue, and that NOT ALL cases can be resolved through known psychological archetypes. This latter category seems diminutive, but no less portentous, than cases that do SEEM explicable though more mundane means. Whatever is happening to these individuals, seems to be occurring on at least two levels. Physical trace cases, and those with corroborative witnesses, are certainly intriguing, and those most likely to illustrate an external event. For example, the recent incident Budd has been involved with concerning two New York police officers who witnessed an individual being "beamed" aboard a craft. A shared fantasy between abductee and two credible witnesses seems highly unlikely. I find that many of the foremost researchers seem to be searching for the consummate, end-all-doubt abduction case. As a result, many casualties of less extraordinary seizures, are going without investigation and therapy, simply because their cases are less interesting. This is a most unfortunate situation, as some of these people are desperately in need of counseling. Lamentably, you just cannot get quality professional care in this country without insurance or a wheelbarrow full of cash. As Keith Basterfield stated in a recent message... "let's move on, and continue to discuss research, theories, etc. and question *everything* and *everyone* (be they THE EXPERT or not - we can all contribute.) Thanks Dave, Sheldon -- Sheldon Wernikoff - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Sheldon.Wernikoff@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sheldon.Wernikoff@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Sheldon Wernikoff) Subject: Apology Date: 3 Feb 92 00:13:02 GMT In a message to Sheldon Wernikoff <30-Jan-92 22:51> Keith Basterfield wrote: KB> I would like to say that I have found Sheldon's observations, KB> comments and questions of great value in all areas of Paranet. You are too kind Keith. Those words of praise from a seasoned veteran such as yourself to a neophyte like me are certainly an aggrandizement of my abilities and knowledge. KB> This is not an arena for "believers" but an open forum for KB> discussion, debate, disagreement and sharing of information. That was also my conception of the philosophy behind ParaNet. KB> Let's move on, and continue to discuss research, theories KB> etc and question everything and everyone (be they THE EXPERT or KB> not-we can all contribute.) Enough said, back to research. I agree Keith, internal bickering will only succeed in ravaging what little credibility we have all worked so diligently to ensconce in this field. Let us now return to our regularly scheduled program. Thanks for your post on the "Age" newspaper... encouraging to learn it is a respectable publication rather than a tabloid. Also, we can discuss the Chicago case when you receive the information. Take care, Sheldon -- Sheldon Wernikoff - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Sheldon.Wernikoff@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG ******************************************************************************** For permission to reproduce or redistribute this digest, contact: DOMAIN Michael.Corbin@paranet.org UUCP scicom!paranet.org!Michael.Corbin ****************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 Mail to private Paranet/Fidonet addresses from the newsletters: DOMAIN firstname.lastname@paranet.org UUCP scicom!paranet.org!firstname.lastname ****************A**B**D**U**C**T**I**O**N****D**I**G**E**S**T*******************