Abduction Digest, Number 68 Monday, July 20th 1992 (C) Copyright 1992 Paranet Information Service. All Rights Reserved. Today's Topics: The MIT Conference Who is an abductee? Ambiguities Bonding Omega Project Legitimacy Screening The MIT Conference Received Screening ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Anson.Kennedy@p0.f25.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Anson Kennedy) Subject: The MIT Conference Date: 15 Jul 92 04:45:00 GMT I am not sure if you get the Paranet Skeptics Conference (I hope you do, I'm the moderator :-) Anyway, I have started a thread there about the recent conference at MIT. Specifically, I am concerned about the confidentiality agreement all participants were required to sign. If you could pop on over and lend your (firsthand) thoughts on the matter, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. -- Anson -- Anson Kennedy - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Anson.Kennedy@p0.f25.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pony.Godic@f6.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Pony Godic) Subject: Who is an abductee? Date: 14 Jul 92 23:41:00 GMT > It is also important to be very careful about how one does > the screening. One must be careful not to throw the baby out > with the bathwater. Inexperienced researchers have said that > good abduction cases > were a hoax because various aspects of the case were found to > be contradictory or the witness was not as helpful as the > investigator desired. What is even more important, is that the > abduction phenomenon is extremely widespread and its hints and > clues can be easily overlooked by even the most experienced UFO > investigators. My best guess is that thousands of abduction > events are couched behind UFO sightings and have been filed > away in the cabinets of hundreds of UFO researchers over the > years. David, Thank you for your reply in its entirety, it was of considerable interest to me. However, I do remain concerned over how often there's actually a baby in the bathwater. Clearly I am not an abductee, but I think, considering I sometimes wake up in the night like I've been switched on, plus the fact that I have long dreamed about UFOs (classic wish fullfilment dreams. The UFO is always a neon blue with neon pink windows. The one time I recall going on board , the aliens were bipedal ant-like creatures.) I could very easily convince myself that I am an abductee. Again, I stress that I have seen cases so compelling in every way that I am definitely not saying abductions don't happen. I just question the very rubbery indicators. Also, I worry that people like me, and I think the majority of people have had small and interesting things happen to them, may pick something out from background experiences such as I outlined and decide that this one thing is not imaginatively generated. For example, it's definitely not an everyday event, nevertheless, it's not extraordinary for me to see things that aren't there, particularly to wake and see people standing by the bed at night. I went through a small series of bedroom visitors about ten years ago. One night I woke and saw a nun in a discoloured grey-blue heshan type of habit, which covered her face, standing up by Vladimir's head. She reminded me of a situation in a TV show I saw once, not a person. Then on another night, around the same time, I saw a man with a lantern down by the door. He was like the aliens in "This Island Earth" and his lantern reminded me of the Hermit in the Tarot. Then, around the same time, I turned over in bed one night and saw Vladimir up in the air and, while I was thinking why's he up there, he started very slowly and steadily floating down towards the bed at which point I realized he was still in bed. The body above merged with the body below. I was enormously tempted to think I'd really seen Vladimir's astral body returning to his physical body, but, despite its content, this hallucination was no different to any of the others. So, objectively, I realized it was generated from the same source - my imagination. The point of relating this is that the general public have been exposed to an enormous amount of abduction data. For example, someone who has an imagination that's inclined to escape out into the outside world like mine, could absorb a mini series like "Intruders" and, a few months later, generate an abduction type experience that seemed so plausible to them, becuase of what they've been seeing and hearing, that they'd believe that this event was reality. This is why I wonder how often there's a baby in the bathwater. Cheers, Pony -- Pony Godic - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Pony.Godic@f6.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Vladimir Godic) Subject: Ambiguities Date: 15 Jul 92 01:25:00 GMT > Vladmir, I hope that we are finally moving to concensus. To > clear up your puzzlement, I had assumed that if you adhered to > the Rodeghier definition of abductees, then it would > automatically mean that you agreed with propostion that anybody > who claims to be an abductee is therefore an abductee. That is > what the Rodgehier definition allows. If you do not feel that > this is the case, then you and I are in agreement that the > Rodeghier definition should be amended. I hope this clears it > up for you. Again, interesting footwork. You attempt to place me in a position from which I agree with you no matter what I say. Well I don't. I find it disturbing to see how easily you draw unfounded conclusion. > I could not help but notice that you appear to be rather > centered on the idea that there would be such a thing as > leading UFO researchers. You have made the leap into the idea > that this is a self-serving statement on my part. To the best > of my knowledge when the definition of abductions was conceived > it was not done in consultation with Dick Haines, John > Carpenter, John E. Mack, Budd Hopkins, or Dave Jacobs. I > understand that Rodeghier had a perfect right to say anything > that he wanted to in print. I also think that he could have > avoided quite a lot of imprecision and problems if he had > consulted with those individuals, and others. > More interesting psychological footwork. Why the unrelenting assault on Mark Rodeghier? > I certainly agree with your sentiments about sharing data > and publishing in refereed journals. In the United States > there are only two refereed journals that publish pro-abduction > material, THE JOURNAL OF UFO STUDIES and THE JOURNAL OF > SCIENTIFIC EXPLORATION. Every once in a while a psychological > journal will publish an article showing how UFOs or abductions > are related to some other phenomenon, but for the main the > normal channels of scientific information sharing are closed off > to UFO reseachers. The same is true in the book publishing > world. You might be aware of the fact that my first book, THE > UFO CONTROVERSY IN AMERICA, remains the only authored book on > UFOs that takes a pro-UFO stance ever to be published by a > refereed press--and that was in 1975! I originally gave my > manuscript for SECRET LIFE to Temple University Press--a very > good press. They had it for three months and never even > bothered to look at it. So the situation for abduuction and > UFO articles in refereed journals and presses remains fairly > dismal. But, I am sure that you will join with me in hoping > that the quality of our work will increase and that the arbitrary > decisions of the refereed journals and > presses will become more liberal so that we can meet in the > middle and have a wider spread of scientific information. > > Finally, although I agree that a certain amount of > information can be derived from conscious recollections of > abduction material, I feel that being deprived of the very > powerful weapon of hypnosis which is so uniquely suited for > this type of work, places you are at a distinct disadvantage. > Until Australian researchers learn to work around this problem, > and there are ways to do this, or until medical professionals > not only get interested in the situation but also learn enough > about doing research in it to be competent at it, abduction > research will be enormously more difficult in an area that is > already extremely difficult. I don't think hypnosis is a fits all tool with which to investigate abductions, especially when it's not done by professionals. I'm not saying it's not without application, but I would far rather it were used as a last resort when all other options have been exhausted. From what I've seen, abductions are often mixed with a history of paranormal phenomena, abusive childhoods and other factors that are excluded when evaluating the abduction itself. I'm not saying that a person with psychic ability or from an abusive background can't also be abducted, but it seems to me that when strongly present, the abduction experience must at least be evaluated with regards to whether such things have coloured the interpretation or, even contributed to the experience, possibly even generated it. From what I've seen, there's a tendency to eliminate such background static in favour of a single clear picture - i.e. the abduction only. It would seem to me that there's a tendency by some to define the abduction experience in accordance with their own viewpoint. This blinkers them to the extent that any other experiences not conforming to this viewpoint are eliminated from the evaluation process. Unfortunately, such a working position results in these individuals displaying intolerance to anyone who adopts a different approach. I suspect they feel very threatened by such people as Mark Rodeghier and others. -- Vladimir Godic - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Vladimir.Godic@f7.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David.Jacobs@f21.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (David Jacobs) Subject: Bonding Date: 13 Jul 92 07:59:19 GMT I am gratified that you picked up on the importance of the bonding procedures that are administered to abductees. I feel fairly certain that these procedures, and others, are responsible for a lot of the feelings of benevolence and positivness that some abductees feel. I have also been examining the role of sexual feelings elicited in these procedures and they might also play a role. Unfortunately, I am also aware of some procedures in which the hypnotist can lead the subject into falsely feeling quite good about their situation thereby preventing an adequate coming-to-terms with the phenomenon, in a therapeutic sense. I think that it all points to how complicated the abduction phenomenon is, not only in exactly what happens, but also in how the events are recovered. Via SPITFIRE Bulletin Board System - Version 3.2 -- David Jacobs - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: David.Jacobs@f21.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David.Jacobs@f21.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (David Jacobs) Subject: Omega Project Date: 15 Jul 92 07:22:19 GMT I have not read Ring's book and it may be different than his article. All I can say is that the study that he conducted for the article was so terribly flawed that it demonstrated very little and proved nothing. The basis of his article was a thinly disquised idea that NDE and UFO abductions had the same origin. Not only is this idea somewhat nonsensical on the face of it, but the population that he used to do his study was fatally flawed and the indices he used for his measurements were also not very convincing, to say the least. Please read my article for more details. I am afraid that this is the kind of study that obscures rather than clarifies. The main problem with Ring is that he had no real idea what the abduction phenomenon was all about when he began his study. Not knowing what it was comprised of allowed him to engage in rather naive ideas about it that fit in nicely with his NDE material. Via SPITFIRE Bulletin Board System - Version 3.2 -- David Jacobs - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: David.Jacobs@f21.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David.Jacobs@f21.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (David Jacobs) Subject: Legitimacy Date: 15 Jul 92 07:37:58 GMT When I suggested to my old publishers, Indiana University Press, that I was going to do another book on UFOs, they were delighted. They sent me a signed contract. Then I began the abduction work and switched heavily into the abduction topic. I sent the head of IUP a very conservative chapter very early on which in fact was the MUFON paper called "The Consequences of Nonexistence." (A very different form of the paper actually did appear in my book six years later). The paper was about the psychological ramification of the abduction phenomenon not having an objective reality. The head of IUP immediately cancelled the contract because I had deigned to suggest that there was the possibility that abductions might be real. Temple UP acted in much the same way. The subject itself, no matter how it is presented is heavily steeped in ridicule. Oh, I guess that a university press might publish something that was couched in academic jargon and that was heavily quantitative and so on. But that is not the book that I wanted to write. As long as the subject exists on the fringe of respectability one can expect that to be mirrored in the publishing industry. Incidentally, I may be wrong, but I believe that only three books have ever been published by an academic press on UFOs: Menzel's first book, FLYING SAUCERS, published by Harvard UP, Sagan and Page's edited book of AAAS papers, UFOs: A SCIENTIFIC DEBATE, published by Cornell UP, and my first book. However, all is not bleak. About nine doctoral dissertations have been written on UFO-related themes. Via SPITFIRE Bulletin Board System - Version 3.2 -- David Jacobs - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: David.Jacobs@f21.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David.Jacobs@f21.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (David Jacobs) Subject: Screening Date: 15 Jul 92 07:46:09 GMT I guess it is possible to screen yourself, but it would be very, very difficult. Most people do not know what has happened to them and choose those things that the society allows to have happened to them, like seeing a "ghost" and so forth. It does take a trained individual who has heard these stories many times before and who understands what might be behind them to do the screening. But this is all part of the abduction package. Not knowing what has happened to one is part of the clandestine activity that has characterized the abduction and UFO phenomenon since the beginning. The secrecy procedures are very effective. When they do not want someone to know what has happened to him, they are quite good at covering the memory, screening the memory, erasing the memory, and so forth. It is not a perfect science, however, and people do in fact remember all sorts of things. But it difficult, very difficult. I plan to write an article on secrecy shortly and perhaps offer some new directions in thinking about it. Via SPITFIRE Bulletin Board System - Version 3.2 -- David Jacobs - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: David.Jacobs@f21.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve.Rose@f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Steve Rose) Subject: The MIT Conference Date: 19 Jul 92 09:30:38 GMT Hello Anson! AK> I am not sure if you get the Paranet Skeptics Conference (I hope you do, What is the exact echo area name so I can areafix it here? Thanks. -- Steve Rose - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Steve.Rose@f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill.Skiles@p7.f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Skiles) Subject: Received Date: 17 Jul 92 07:50:00 GMT Dear David, Received the package in the mail. Thank You. Will send it back to you asap. BTW, I just received some literature about the IF Foundation. In it, they said that if you write to them they will send you the location of the nearest hypnotherapist. It stated that the staff there would help you to find one. Do you know if this is true? Should I look into it or just continue `moving forward' with you? Thank you for your time. Just a dialouge with someone helps. Still having difficulties. Bill -- Bill Skiles - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Bill.Skiles@p7.f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill.Skiles@p7.f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Skiles) Subject: Screening Date: 18 Jul 92 10:39:00 GMT > I guess it is possible to screen yourself, but it > would be very, very difficult. Let me try and say it plainly. What advice would you give to a person that is not able to contact a hypnotherapist or can't afford one? What tips, techniques, suggestions or advice can you give a person to help them remember or to bring up memories. What about self-hypnosis. What about a means to quiet some of the anxiety so that they can get some sleep? Any thoughts? Bill -- Bill Skiles - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Bill.Skiles@p7.f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG ******************************************************************************* Submissions abduct@scicom.alphacdc.com Administrative requests abduct-request@scicom.alphacdc.com FTP archive grind.isca.uiowa.edu:/info/paranet/abduct Permission to distribute Michael.Corbin@paranet.org Private mail to Paranet/Fidonet users firstname.lastname@paranet.org UUCP gateway {ncar,isis,csn}!scicom ********************End**of**the**Abduction**Newsletter************************