Encounters: The UFO Phenomenon, Exposed!/Encounters - The UFO Phenomenon, Exposed (1995).iso/abduct/abduc079.txt

Text File | 1993-07-25 | 10KB | 204 lines

                          Abduction Digest, Number 48

                          Tuesday, February 18th 1992

     (C) Copyright 1992 Paranet Information Service.  All Rights Reserved.

Today's Topics:

                             Abductions in the Media
                                 Message Re-send
                                   Abductions

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Jim Speiser)
Subject: Abductions in the Media
Date: 11 Feb 92 03:30:00 GMT

Two upcoming media events will highlight the abduction phenomenon, both
of them produced by Peabody Award winner Tracy Torme'. The first is the
long-awaited mini-series treatment of Budd Hopkins' best-seller
"Intruders," which will air on two consecutive nights in May. UFO
purists will no doubt decry the fact that it is a fictionalized version,
with only one scene taken straight from the book, says Torme'. But, he
says, it will be generally good exposure for the subject. It will air on
CBS, which is already producing a teaser called "The Making of
`Intruders.'"

The second and more ambitious project is "Fire in the Sky," about the
Travis Walton case. Torme' originally wrote the screenplay three years
ago, but as in the case of "Intruders," Hollywood politics has kept it
out of production - until now. Tracy has set up shop at Paramount
Studios, and shooting begins July 1st. The director is Rob Leiberman,
whose credits include TV's "Gabriel's Fire" and the Jon Voigt movie
"Table for Five."

Tracy has promised to make himself available to ParaNet in the near
future to provide more information and to, as he puts it, "quash
rumors."

Jim Speiser

--
Jim Speiser - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]



--------------------------------------------------------------------


From: [e-mail] (Chris Lightner)
Subject: Message Re-send
Date: 12 Feb 92 00:12:25 GMT

Keith, this is a message you may not have received due
 to the transmission problem reported by Vladimir Godic.

 Sysop - The Lighthouse BBS / ParaNet Delta-Alpha
 *********************************************************************

 DATE..... : 02-03-92 00:34:52
 TO....... : Keith Basterfield
 FROM..... : David Jacobs
 SUBJECT.. : Abductions

    I have recently written in my new book that to the best of my
 knowledge all abductees have been physically not in place during the
 abduction.  This statement seems rather sweeping but I feel that it is
 accurate.  The Puddy case is interesting but quite obviously the event
 that you describe is not an abduction.  Mrs Puddy might indeed be an
 abductee (the sightings that she had earlier experienced might be
 evidence of this) but the incident in the car has all the earmarks of
 either being a "channeled" episode or a flashback to a previous event, or
 evidence of mental instability.  Whereas on the surface it might appear that
 this has all the hallmarks of an apparent abduction, in fact the
 description that she gave of the entity, the entity's movements, the
 entity's motivations, and so forth, would be immediately suspicious  to
 me.  Her description of the inside of a UFO might well have been  picked
 up either from a previous abduction or from some outside  conventional
 source.  The only way that one can find out these things  with a
 reasonable degree of assurance is by doing hypnosis with somebody  who
 thoroughly understands the abduction phenomenon so that the hypnotist
 and/or researcher can tell when she veers off what is presently known
 about abductions.  I hope that my book will help in that endeavor.
     All of this goes back to the problem that Jim Speiser brought up
 about what is to be believed in conscious recollections of unusual
 events.  People will confabulate, they will remember things wrongly, they
 will unconsciously elaborate and add material, they will slip into
 "channeling," and they will exhibit evidence of mental abberations.
 Separating the wheat from the chaff is a difficult task.  But the most
 important thing to understand is that there is wheat.  Dwelling on the
 chaff is like spending all of one's time ruminating about UFO sightings
 that are identified!  It was the sightings that could not be identified
 that brought us all here.
     It is true that we only have a few cases of uninvolved bystanders
 witnessing an abduction of another person.  This situation is involved
 with the technology employed for carrying out the abduction.  Budd
 Hopkins is at present working on a sensational case that does include
 bystanders witnessing the abduction.  He will probably write a book about
 it and it will go a very long way towards putting this controversy to
 rest.  The IUR will also publish an article of mine addressing the issue.
     Budd and I have many cases in which people witness others being
 abducted and are not abducted themselves.  They are often "switched off"
 so that they can do nothing about it and their accounts are usually, but
 not always, recovered with the use of hypnosis.  We also have many cases
 in which several people are abducted at once and they can independently
 confirm their experiences without knowing that their fellow abductees
 have also remembered the event.
     Incidentally, Jenny Randles talks about the Sunderland case but makes
 no reference to her mother seeing her in bed during a supposed abduction.
 Keep up the good work!

 *********************************************************************

 Via SPITFIRE Bulletin Board System - Version 3.1

--
Chris Lightner - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]



--------------------------------------------------------------------


From: [e-mail] (David Jacobs)
Subject: Abductions
Date: 12 Feb 92 07:02:28 GMT


    Sheldon, I think that one of the problems here is one of definition.   My
definition of an abduction may be very different than your's or Keith
Basterfield's or others who have perhaps not been as steeped in the  subject
as Budd Hopkins or I.  When I talk of abductions, I am  presupposing that the
abductee has had a physical event occur to him  which involves loss of time,
physical displacement, mental and/or  physical sequelae, and a series of
defined procedures administered to him  during the event.  When people claim
to be abducted and are not, for  example mentally unstable individuals, or
channelers, they do not fit the  definition of being an abductee. They do not
have a loss of time that  they nor anyone else can account for, they are
always physically in place  during the supposed event, they do not have the
mental and physical  sequelae that is evidence for their event, they can not
correctly  identify the procedures that nearly all abductees discuss (this,
unfortunately, will change when my book comes out).  Therefore they most
likely have not had abduction experiences regardless of what they claim   and
it is a mistake to label these people as abductees.
     When people contact me to investigate their experiences, I try to  screen
them as carefully as I can.  I ask a series a indirect questions  that helps
me to ascertain whether the unusual events in their lives are  related to my
field or not.  For those people who I think are not  abductees, I tell them
that their experiences reside in an area that I do  not have the expertise to
help them in.  Therefore the people who come to  me have a high possibility of
being actual abductees or, to be more  precise, of fitting the profile that is
my definition of abductee. Now it  is obviously a little more complicated than
that.  I routinely reject
 people who might very well be abductees but who also have mental problems
with which I will not be able to contend.  I sometimes reject people who
might very well be abductees because they are so encased in a New Age
structure that it is very difficult to break through it to find out what  is
happening.  I reject people who are going through a traumatic  situation in
their lives--divorce, death in family, and so forth--because  I think that
beginning to explore these experiences might be more than  they can deal with
at this particular time.  I recommend against  exploring these experiences if
a person is enjoying a happy, fulfilling  life with no serious problems (as
far as I can tell) who just want to find  out on a lark what is happening with
them.  I do not deal with children  directly.
     As you will soon see, my book does not address all these issues but  it
does try to address the internal generation of abduction accounts and  show
how they cannot account for the evidence as presented by actual  abductees.
The book is not a heavy-duty attempt to convince people of  the legitimacy of
the subject, rather it is an effort to define the  parameters of it and to
show that the idea of internal generation of the  accounts is greatly lacking
as an explanatory model.
 Via SPITFIRE Bulletin Board System - Version 3.1

--
David Jacobs - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]


********************************************************************************
       For permission to reproduce or redistribute this digest, contact:

DOMAIN          [e-mail]
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        [e-mail]
Admin Address            [e-mail]

Mail to private Paranet/Fidonet addresses from the newsletters:
DOMAIN        [e-mail]
UUCP        scicom!paranet.org!firstname.lastname

****************A**B**D**U**C**T**I**O**N****D**I**G**E**S**T*******************