Abductions - The Truth
   
By John C. Thompson

9-22-99


Comment

By Skye Turell, mindtrekker@mindspring.com 9-23-99

Abductions - The Truth By John C. Thompson, gin@mindspring.com

ST: "The Truth" - this is grandiose as hell. I don't think anyone knows the complete and total truth about the abduction phenomenon. We might know bits and pieces of truth. We certainly know many expressions of the phenomenon and certain consistent factors. But we don't know "The Truth." That was my first tip-off that this guy John Thompson might be a little suspect, despite his apparent credentials.

JT: Since the modern era of abductions began with the Barney and Betty Hill UFO close encounter of September 19, 1961 in New Hampshire, ufology has never been the same. Before the Hills' encounter, UFO sightings were investigated in a prescribed, straight forward manner that involved gathering supporting evidence while simultaneously trying to disprove a witness's account. The Hill's remarkable experience injected a new element, regressive hypnosis.

ST: "Oh, here it comes." That was my first response in reading the above sentence. He's gonna start harping about the unreliability of hypnosis, which I also happen to be a little wary of, as a means of discrediting the abduction experience. (Of course he neatly side-steps the fact that there are MANY abduction accounts from before the Hill case and before hypnosis was used.)

JT: In future entity-related cases hypnosis would often come to be the only means to prove or disprove an alleged encounter with aliens.

ST: Hardly a factual statement. In most abduction cases, it's my experience that abductees go to researchers and/or hypnotists in order to discover what happened to them. A means of self-exploration, NOT a means of "proving" that the incident was real in a scientific sense. There must have been some degree of reality, at least in the experience of the abductee, in order to drive them to visit a researcher or hypnotist, however the abductees' are first and foremost trying to understand the experience, not prove anything to the world.

JT: This is true of all of the abductees I know who have sought out hypnosis as an investigative/therapeutic tool. And it's true of all the abduction accounts I've read.

ST: From the point of view of the researcher, I've never heard a key abduction researcher claim that a particular case was valid, exactly as described by the abductee, either with or without the use of hypnosis. Virtually all abductees are aware that there are missing pieces to their experience, and episodes that are less vividly recalled than others, not to mention what appears to be an ability of the ETs to alter memory and cloud recall. So there is no proving or disproving taking place here. No claims whatsoever about particular episodes or cases, although the debunkers are very quick to latch onto whatever generalizations seem to serve their purposes.

It is true that the abduction accounts, taken as a whole, have fallen into some general patterns, with some strikingly unique differences, which tend to validate these experiences. If we saw none of these differences, that would raise questions and support the idea that the commonalities are a result of overlay from one experiencer to another. But that's not the case.

As has been repeated ad nauseum by the abduction researchers, the same kinds of experiences are revealed under hypnosis and without the aid of hypnosis. As I recall the figure, at least 50% of experiences are recalled without hypnosis. And I'm part of that 50%+ figure. I've had MANY experiences, and have never undergone hypnosis. I remember whatever I remember, and have forgotten some. I can even tell you where some of the holes in the timeline lie. As I think about it, I only know a few abductees who HAVE undergone hypnotic regression, and many more who haven't. I suspect this is true across the board, as most people are hesitant to even discuss what happened, much less run around consulting strangers.

JT: Hypnotherapy, in short, became a quick truth serum that often eliminated the necessity of independent witnesses and background checks of the alleged abductees.

ST: "Necessity" in the eyes of a professional UFO researcher, perhaps. But to the average abductee on the street, there are no researchers handy and little desire to have strangers interviewing friends, neighbors and family. This experience puts tremendous strain on family relationships. To ask some families to undergo this kind of direct confrontation with reality would be more than the shaky structure could bear.

JT: The lack of supporting physical evidence and why abductions, almost without exception, were never reported to local police agencies was not addressed. OK, so I'll address it. Your implication that this is an attempt to deceive is a little weak, dude.

ST: There is a paradox involving physical evidence. On the one hand, there is TONS of it. Highly unusual burned patches in backyards, occurring in the exact place that multiple independent witnesses saw a craft and/or strange lights, sounds or other effects. Physical evidence on/in the abductee's body as well. These scars and whatnot occurring on the exact night that other forms of supporting evidence were present.

On the other hand, capturing a UFO on film is like capturing lightning in a bottle. And capturing the Ets, their craft or pieces thereof is downright impossible. Well, impossible to the private citizenthe government has been perhaps a little more lucky in this endeavor.

JT: To explain these obvious discrepancies, UFO investigators and researchers came up with innovative ideas. "Screen memories," abduction investigators said, were used by the abducting aliens to conceal their ghastly abductions. The "switching off" of important witnesses, who, somehow never saw their loved ones abducted, was also employed by the tricky extraterrestrial (ET) aliens to conceal their sinister space kidnappings.

ST:You're being rude, dude, showing your colors here.

I just happen to have read an account of the effects of one of the current "date rape" drugs. What happens to the victim while under the influence. Very interestingthere's a term for one of the effects, I forget the term offhand, but what happens is that the victim may cross sensory input. Visuals may be experienced as sounds, sounds as visuals. You may feel the color purple as a very specific sensory experience, completely unlike our normal sensory interpretations of data. Some of these crossovers are symbolic. In other words, in this case we find that humans have the ability to rearrange experience in very unusual, sometimes symbolic ways. If we have the ability to do this under the influence of drugs, it seems likely that we can be encouraged to do this during abductions or other kinds of experiences.

I'm not talking about a psychotic break here, I'm talking about how the human perceptual faculties operate, at least at times. Experiences that are within the range of possible human perception. Interestingly, some of the military remote viewers describe just these sorts of experiences sometimes (rarely) occurring while in the slightly altered RV state. Again, this is not a psychotic break, although such transfers of sensory input happen in those cases too, I guess, but we are talking about a fundamental mode of operation of the human perceptual faculties.

So before you get on your high horse and invalidate the unusual perceptions, or lack thereof, of abductees, perhaps you should study human beings a little more thoroughly. You DO advocate a scientific approach, don't you?

JT: As new UFO investigators joined the hunt in trying to solve the world's most elusive mystery, they, largely, accepted hypnosis sessions with abductees as a legitimate detective tool to seek the truth behind abductions.

ST: And for good reason. Since the hypnosis-assisted data was congruent with the nonhypnosis-assisted data, and because other eyewitnesses could often validate the detailed information brought out under hypnosis, as a working theory, it was valid to consider the hypnosis data as reliable -- for investigative purposes only, not as a means to write the final all-encompassing book on the truth about abductions (irony intended). Again, this doesn't mean that every little detail brought out under hypnosis is to be considered the gospel truth, and I have yet to meet an abductee working with a halfway credible researcher to make claims like this.

JT: Objective UFO investigators after many investigated cases, however, saw that many aspects of the abduction experience were troubling. There seemed to be considerable overlap into what in the past had only been referred to as paranormal activity.

ST: Oh, here comes another one. First off, it's very easy to group a lot of "weird stuff" under the catchall, "paranormal." And we've been trained to immediately dismiss this category of experience. But many subcategories of "paranormal" HAVE been proven in the lab. Proven to such an airtight extent that even CSICOP, the professional debunker's organization, has been unable to find any fault with the test methodology. Telepathy, remote viewing, and to a lesser extent psycho kinesis, have all been proven. Beyond a shadow of a doubt. But this attempt to lump together all unexplained phenomena under one umbrella and quickly dismiss it, this is sleight of hand, folks.

JT: Abductees often say they hear explosions and unidentified, but alarming, strange sounds in their houses. They also see small balls of light floating on their ceilings and have strange green or blue flashes popping inside their homes.

ST: See what I mean? There's the implication here that OF COURSE these experiences can't be valid. Yet these same phenomena are experienced by nonabductees who are present at the time of the occurrences. Believe me, PLENTY of innocent bystanders have caught some pretty strange action while staying with me. Including those who had no idea I was an abductee!

JT: While in bed, abductees sometimes find they have terrifying nightmares where they can't seem to move.

ST: Oh, good move. "Nightmares," you declare them as being. If you would bother to check the accounts of the abductees having these paralysis experiences, you would find that the abductee is WIDE AWAKE! This is NOT a dream, although it might be more comfortable for some to write them off as such.

JT: Often they feel "something" is on top of them trying to suffocate or hold them down.

ST: Oh, here comes another one: The Old Hag syndrome. (God, these debunkers are so consistent!)

If you really wanted to investigate this as an explanation for the abduction experience, you would need to do TONS more research:

First, do people ever experience the Old Hag phenomenon where they aren't "held down." NONE of the abductees I know have experienced a sensation of being held down while being paralyzed during these abduction experiences. The paralysis just IS, seemingly without cause, except that it only occurs when the ETs are present.

The best example I can give is the experience of a friend. He realized one night that he was staring intently at his bedroom wall, observing what looked like some kind of hieroglyphs superimposed on the wall. It took him a moment to realize that this was an extremely strange experience, particularly as he was completely wide awake.

He then became aware that there were people around him and that he had an extremely difficult time moving - not impossible, but it took great determination and focus of intentionthe same thing reported by many abductees, and few if any Old Hag experiencers. He slowly reached him arm toward the nightstand, intending to grab the loaded handgun there. At that point, the ETs said to him, "That won't do you any good." (As an aside, that is the story I tell when people ask why the abductees don't just shoot the ETs. I laugh!)

He then found himself floating, lifted horizontally up from his bed, with the bedclothes still draped over his body, moving upward with him, tent-like. This is NEVER reported during the Old Hag experience either.

As another aside, this isn't experienced by ANY out-of-body experiencers either. You move THROUGH physical objects in the OBE state. Lately there's been a lot of to-do on the Internet which attempts to explain at least some abductions as OBEs. There is some very superficial similarity. Yes, OBErs do experience themselves floating above their bodies in bed, or floating skyward. But if you've ever had an OBE experience AND an abduction experience, you CAN tell the difference. The floating is different. And personally I tend to ZOOM OBE, not float, but perhaps that's just me.

The point is, an attempt to explain, or explain away, the abduction phenomenon by finding superficial similarities to OBEs, Old Hag, EM-induced states, or other such phenomena, I suggest that perhaps a great deal more research is needed. If the investigator truly wishes to illuminate anything about the phenomenon and not simply debunk it. And, if you want to know the difference between vanilla and chocolate ice cream, you need to ask someone who has experienced both! Concluding that vanilla and chocolate are the same because they are sometimes experienced in conjunction with ice cream (as these people are doing), doesn't exactly illuminate much.

'JT: Awakening, they see "shadows" or short dark robed entities near the foot of their beds. Frequently these unknown entities are found near the beds of their infants, toddlers or children and seen to disappear through walls on entering and leaving. Amazingly, the unknown entities do not cause witness to become frightened as they watch/endure actions that should provoke great fear.

ST: What books have you been reading? Who have you been talking to? I recall in Budd Hopkins' book, "Intruders," there are some VERY frantic mothers, trying desperately to get to their children, to prevent the abduction from occurring to them.

As for the apparent otherworldliness of walking through wallsjust because we don't have the technology or understanding of physics to do this ourselves, doesn't mean it can't be done. We are well aware that most "solid" matter is mostly vacuum, and therefore it's not difficult to at least hypothesize that this is possible. And, for those who have had OBE experiences, this is a COMMON feature of those. What can happen OBE can perhaps happen "in the physical." If we just understood a little bit more.

To argue that these things are invalid because YOU don't happen to understand them is, quite frankly, absurd.

JT: Mind-control, it is thought, is induced to calm the abductees during abductions.

ST: Call it mind control, or a subtle energetic manipulation, what have you. This IS a consistent feature of the abduction experience. As is the impact on memory. We humans are becoming very adept at means of memory hampering, as well as alterations of human mood and capabilities through the use of energetic fields. It is not at all beyond our theoretical understanding to see that a more advanced technological civilization might have even more understanding than we do. (You're not going to start quoting the Bible and claiming that mankind is the top of the heap, are you? God, I hope not. Would positively wreck your scientific, or shall I say, quasi-scientific stance.)

JT: Most, to nearly all, of the above has happened for centuries to people who have never entertained thoughts of a UFO-connected experience. Earlier victims believed their houses were haunted and that ghosts or demons were bothering them. Church officials were often brought in to exorcise the demons. Amateur "ghost-busters" engaged to explain the hauntings. The demons, uncharacteristically, followed many of these same people from house-to-house, just as abductees say abductions follow them through their lives. If it was only ghost activity, as many in the past and even today incorrectly believe, why would the ghosts continue to haunt in new locations? Were tracking devices or implants placed in these helpless victims hundreds or even thousands of years ago as abductees now believe is happening to themselves, today?

ST: Let's jump tracks here, and bring in some really disjointed and unrelated issues, just to muddy the waters! I have a document, a letter, which was analyzed by someone who has military disinformation training. (You should see what these people do! It's diabolical!) He would latch onto a paragraph, like the one above, and just SHRED the sucker. The jumps in logic, the attempts to shift our attention to unrelated issues, to lump ideas together under vague catch-all terms, particularly emotionally-loaded terms. I can't even begin to do proper justice to this paragraph in like fashion, not having that intelligence background, but I'll give it a quick try.

"Most, to nearly all, of the above has happened for centuries to people who have never entertained thoughts of a UFO-connected experience." Neat. Since abduction-like experiences have been reported for centuries, but the experiencers didn't call them ETs, we are to believe what? Be careful the assumptions you make here, reader. Just because the experiencers didn't call them ETs, doesn't mean they weren't the same beings that we today call ETs. Just because they called them demons or ghosts doesn't mean they are what we today would calls ghosts. (For those who believe in demons, EVERYTHING seems to be demonic, which kind of invalidates the term, so let's just toss that one out.)

Again, you would do well to ask someone who has experienced both ghosts and ETs (like me, for example), to describe the differences. I will tell you that there is a very distinct difference between a ghost and an ET. They feel completely different. The ghosts feel human, act human, look human. The ETs feel, frankly, like something not of this world. They don't behave very human-like, either. Eerily not of this world.

JT: "The demons, uncharacteristically, followed many of these same people from house-to-house, just as abductees say abductions follow them through their lives. If it was only ghost activity, as many in the past and even today incorrectly believe, why would the ghosts continue to haunt in new locations? Were tracking devices or implants placed in these helpless victims hundreds or even thousands of years ago as abductees now believe is happening to themselves, today?

ST: From what I've read, heard from experiencers, seen in TV interviews and the like, ghosts, ETs, and PK phenomena, for example, ALL may "follow" the experiencer. This is most likely because the experiencer is the focus of attention. We don't know why this is. We don't know why certain people are selected as abductees and why others aren't. We just don't know.

That said, watch the sneaky attaching of the idea of implants to this idea of ghosts "following" experiencers. While some people believe that at least some of the implants are tracking devices, there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that this is the case. I personally don't believe that this is the purpose of these devices. There are many different types of implants and probably as many different functions of them. But Thompson is trying to get you to invalidate the idea of implants -- and of course no one wants to believe that there is such solid evidence left behind! So the idea of implants is very easily brushed aside - and therefore to dismiss the validity of the ETs and/or ghosts. Since most nonFundamentalists don't believe in demons, the tossing-in of this term only encourages us all the more in throwing out the entire phenomena, along with all the attachments.

But in answer to the supposed question raised at the end of this few lines, we don't know if early experiencers had implants. Perhaps one day we will. Right now, we can't speak knowledgeably on the subject. All we know is that some humans who are also abductees, who report that ETs placed the implants in them, do in fact have implants.

JT: To understand the riddle, it has to be accepted, as the preponderance of evidence suggests, that UFO sightings and abductions are two distinct and separate phenomenons.

ST: ASSUMPTION ALERT! Since we don't understand either the UFO or the abduction phenomenon, we can't say whether they are distinctly separate or inseparable! We can say that some abductions involve UFOs, that has been amply demonstrated, with good witnesses, but we don't understand the relationship. Don't let Thompson lead you astray with assumptions on this matter. As he does in the next few sentences

JT: It cannot be positively said that no one has never been physically abducted but it has definitely been an enormous mistake to downplay the similarities between bedroom abductions and demonic activity.

ST: Geez, let's see, how many negatives are in that sentence? Actually this IS a technique of the professional disinformation artist. What I've been taught, is watch for apparent mistakes in grammar, punctuation, and syntax. To the conscious mind these aren't all that important, but they flag the attention of the subconscious and the information contained in and around those areas of a sentence or paragraph are fed more directly into the subconscious mind than would otherwise be the case. (Told you these disinformation people are devious! Although I'm not saying that Thompson is of that type, just that some of his sentences seem to work well in that fashion.)

I count two negatives, which should equal one positive. I give up. If I retranslate as, "Thompson says that it's possible that someone has been abducted, but we shouldn't ignore the similarities between ghosts/demons and bedroom abductions." This sentence makes no sense. I vote we just throw it out. Let's see where this twisted logic and syntax takes us...

JT: Indeed with the exception of a handful of abduction accounts--the Travis Walton account of Snowflake, Arizona being the most noteworthy--that appear to have supporting witnesses, who actually said they saw a kidnapping of a person into an unknown space ship, the testimony of abductees, regardless of how it was acquired, should have never been accepted at face value.

ST: Not so fast, partner. You've slid over quite a bit of abduction research history here. (And, pretty nifty how you attached the questionable "testimony" -- read: lies -- of abductees, with the idea of non-eyewitnessed events. Just because an event has no eyewitness doesn't mean it DIDN'T happen. It just means it might not have happened quite as reported.

First, the obvious. If ANY accounts have reliable eyewitnesses that can connect the UFOs with abductions, then it becomes a valid hypothesis that UFOs and abductions are related, at least sometimes. To throw out ALL abductions that don't have eyewitnesses, doesn't make logical sense, given the high degree of corrollation between independent witnesses/experiencers from all over the globe.

Particularly because we have eyewitnesses that can connect other aspects of the experience -- cars stalling, physical trace evidence, the physical absence of the abductee, and so on -- with the abduction phenomenon, then these other aspects DO BECOME part of the abduction landscape. The abductees say so, the witnesses say so, and the physical evidence says so. If sometimes they all say so simultaneously, then a relationship has been proven, at least in some instances.

While you can't venture that NO mistake was made in the reporting of a particular case, to say that mistakes were made in ALL cases, is illogical. Again, too much lumping together of cases into arbitrary categories.

And look at the net effect of this little progression you've been led through. What it means to throw out all abductee testimony "at face value" (whatever that really means), is to ignore the consistent testimony of hundreds of thousands of people who don't know each other, live in very different cultures, and so on.

"At face value," taken literally simply means that some aspects of the report may be inaccurate. No kidding. But what you are really being asked to believe is that they should be thrown out altogether.

JT: If true objectivity had been observed by abduction investigators this blurring of UFO and paranormal accounts would have never taken place.

ST: Wrong. The "paranormal" aspects of abductions are part of the experience. That has been consistently reported, even in cases where there are multiple witnesses, physical evidence, a missing abductee - the whole ball of wax. Just because you don't happen to like it, doesn't mean it's not so.

And nothing you've said in this document has directly refuted ANY of the paranormal-like aspects of the abduction experience. You've played tricks with logic and slopped your way all over the abduction map, without contributing ANYTHING to the discussion. And you've got the balls to call this "The Truth." You've GOT to be kidding.

JT: It is this veteran field investigator's belief that 99.9 percent of all entity sightings do not involve UFOs or extraterrestrials. What most so-called "abductees" are really experiencing are innerterrestrials INTs).

ST: Cute. Let's play more games with terminology. We don't know where they come from. We don't know if they are from other dimensions, inner Earth, inner Earth in another dimension, other planets, other planets residing in other dimensions -- the possibilities are truly endless, particularly because the possibilities by definition include many options we do not even conceive of.

Perhaps "Innerterrestrials" use craft! Perhaps a lot of things. You haven't given any evidence of anything here. The issue of "where do they come from" isn't even addressed in this document, but you sneak it in here at the end, like your logic has led us to some kind of impeccable conclusion.

JT: Make no mistake they are an alien species--but not one of the flesh.

ST: Do tell! Got any evidence of this? Gee, and I thought you were scientific!

JT: These dimensional creatures can move easily through walls and, yet, not violate man's known physics.

ST: Unless you've talking very advanced theoretical physics, it does violate man's known physics, certainly on a practical level, since we can't duplicate this effect!

JT: They are spiritually abducting so many victims seemingly everywhere.

ST: Oh, **spiritually abducting**. New terminology. What does that mean? You don't define it, nada.

JT: They do not need space ships or space suits to interface with us.

ST: Ah, more insider information. How do you know this?

JT: They do not need to do insane breeding experiments as so many abductees believe is happening.

ST: Ah, another cute term, "Insane breeding experiments." Unless you understand why so many abductees report on these experiments (besides the obvious conclusion that they ARE doing breeding experiments), and unless you understand the ETs purposes and intentions, in great depth, I suggest that you have no reason to call either the abductees or the ET's experiments "insane."

JT: All can be explained as mind games that nevertheless are of a sinister nature.

ST: Ah, more insider scoop, I guess. Do tell. How do you know they are "sinister." Because Jacobs said so? Because some government disinformation agent said so (put "Dulce" in any available search engine)?

JT: They are, as abduction researcher Dr. David Jacobs correctly proposes, a "threat," but not an extraterrestrial one, as he believes. An ET threat would require a huge logistical undertaking, involving thousands of space ships if there are a million abductees or more as a Roper poll in the early 1990s suggested. The proof that we have two distinct phenomenons can be found in what is not alike between genuine UFO sightings and entity/abduction experiences.

ST: Ah, more clumping together. You haven't demonstrated anything in this document. And this paragraph is full of assumptions. For example, the idea that a huge undertaking like this would require thousands of spaceships. Maybe so, maybe not. I remember a friend, who knew me and one other abductee very well, asking if I'd ever seen very large numbers of abductees on a ship at once. Her reason for asking, she said, was because our mutual friend had once seen something like 500 abductees in a very large room on a craft. I responded that I'd been on a ship once with what I estimated as at least 200-300 women, all involved in the hybrid project, from what I could observe of the activity around me.

Assuming these kinds of numbers are involved on a continuous basis, it's not hard to imagine that hundreds of thousands of people, at least, could be handled. Particularly when you consider that there are numerous accounts of the ET's ability to manipulate time. All of this activity isn't necessarily taking place from a single now, it may be taking place, behind the scenes, from multiple "nows." That number of origin points, origin ships, origin dimensions, what have you - that's a lot of ships/crew/abductees.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON!!! And we certainly don't know all the "how's" of it. To pretend otherwise is just science fiction.

JT: Over the last half century UFO sightings have come largely in great "waves" and, sometimes, in localized "flaps." The great documented UFO waves since World War II have occurred in 1947, 1952, 1965-66, 1973, a smaller and less defined wave during 1987-1988, and finally, the greatest wave, 1993-1997. If you look between these great waves, at least in the United States, you will a find a few localized flaps--Gulf Breeze Florida, Pine Bush New York, Fyffe Alabama, and most recently, around LaGrange, Georgia. Markedly, sighting reports show that there is a huge falloff of UFO activity between waves. Abduction experiences, however, do not ride or crest with these same waves. They have been everywhere and seemingly forever since the abduction of the Hills.

ST: More faulty logic. Since it's apparent that not all abductions involving what the abductee reports as space craft have visible space craft hovering overhead (at least there are no witnesses to verify that there were such craft), and assuming that these abductees are accurately reporting the involvement of craft, at least in some cases, which is reasonable since some cases of this have been verified, then it's reasonable to assume that sometimes the crafts are visible and sometimes they aren't - for reasons we don't understand. Therefore, the flat-line occurrences of abductions vs the more radical fluctuations of "UFO sightings" are not necessarily relevant. And until we know exactly what's going on, we can't accurately comment on this.

JT: So have the sightings of witches, ghosts, and "haints, as rural Southerners commonly call INTs, continued uninterrupted. Worldwide, paranormal activity has occurred throughout history, with many saying that today's demonic infiltration is at unprecedented levels.

ST: Oh, good, let's sneak in terms like "demonic infiltration." Spices up your piece.

JT: (A year ago a Vatican guard went berserk and killed a fellow Papal guard. In a just released (Feb. 1999) Vatican report on the incident it was learned that the first thing the Pope's commission investigated was to see if the guard had been possessed by demons.)

ST: Duh. Just because they investigated demonic possession, doesn't prove the existence of demons nor the possession of the guard. It's just PR talk. Those of us less Fundamentalist or Catholic in persuasion might suggest that there might be a link between events such as this, and the events at Columbine and other acts of violence. But that's another story in which the term "possession" doesn't once appear. ;-)

JT: True UFOs do not occur often in urban areas, despite the vast majority of UFO and abduction investigators living in large cities.

ST: What is this? First, MANY UFOs are sighted in major cities. And MANY MANY abductions take place there. Talk to Budd Hopkins. Talk to Whitley Strieber. MANY of mine took place right in the heart of Manhattan. But all of this begs the question, what difference does it make where the RESEARCHERS live? What possible consequence can this have?

JT: Instead, most authentic UFO sightings take place in rural locales.

ST: Oh, more insider scoop. Got any evidence of this? Are people in the rural areas more prone to accurate reporting? Are city dwellers' accounts automatically thrown out for some reason. That's what you're implying, particularly your nonchalant use of the term, "authentic." How insulting to New Yorkers. Oh, that's right, you're from The South. What's up with this assumption?

JT: There is a good reason for this: If UFOs are extraterrestrial space-craft, as many suspect, it can be speculated that, at least during a portion of their activities on earth, they can be seen and located by humans.

ST: Wrong assumption. Since there are accounts of crafts that are there, but not seen, it's illogical to assume that all crafts can be seen AT ALL. This is actually funny and reminds me of a comment by Whitley Strieber. He told a story once of someone asking him if he'd ever seen a spacecraft. His comment was, "Only from the inside." Funny enough, but what's even funnier is that many abductees share this same sort of ironic experience.

JT: Nearly all of the best close-encounter sightings come from isolated spots where there are seldom other witnesses around. Most UFO sightings also occur late at night and, interestingly, during the period of Sunday through Thursday; the exact times that most people are not outside! Secrecy is essential for these physical craft as they can be seen and possibly touched if detected. Not so with what abductees commonly call the grays, which are really innerterrestrials. Like hauntings, abductions seemingly occur as often in rural as urban areas and at random times which suggests secrecy is not paramount.

ST: More assumptions. Actually secrecy may be important to the Greys, too. I talked to an abductee once who had always had her experiences in a rather dream-like state, she thought, and they did usually occur at night. She asked the Greys if they would come while she was wide-awake, preferably during the day. They responded by saying that they could do that, but that she would be hassled if they did. They showed her an insignia, which at the time was unfamiliar to her. The next day, though, she showed a sketch of the insignia to her husband, who was a State Trooper, and he identified the insignia, perhaps incorrectly, who knows?, as NSA.

JT: Innerterrestrial--haints, shadows, witches, demons, grays, fairies, gnomes, goblins, ghosts, reptiles, or whatever you want to call them--have no need to exercise such great care.

ST: How do you know?

JT: It does not matter if a person sees a gray standing near their bed. They cannot be touched, nor can they touch a human.

ST: Wrong, I've physically touched Greys many times. And they've touched me many more times. (Haha.)

JT: Many witnesses of grays and haints have said they have actually had the entities stick their clawed hands through their bodies with no resultant physical harm.

ST: I'm not sure I've had them stick a hand inside, but they certainly have moved physical medical tools through my abdomen (without pain, I might add). But this is no more remarkable than moving a human body through a roof.

JT: The author has investigated an account of a driver of a pickup truck running a shadow over and then seeing the INT reappear inside the cab of his truck. Innerterrestrials can be seen while wide awake, and in at least one instance the author knows of, where two people have seen an INT at the same time.

ST: No kidding! Multiple witnesses! So what? What's your point here?

JT: These same individuals did not see a space ship near them or think there was an ET connection with what they saw.

ST: Well, let's logic our way through this. Perhaps the ETs weren't anywhere near their craft at the time (would you suggest that because someone saw a human without a car, that means humans never have cars?), the craft was there and not visible, or perhaps they weren't ETs, as you suggest. Perhaps the driver had lapses in consciousness that made the storyline seem strange like this. YOU DON'T KNOW!!!

JT: While it would be easy to lay all the blame on hypnotherapists for making the outer space connection to what are really INT sightings, recent culture conditioning, as noted ufologist Kevin Randle has said, is the real blame.

ST: Wrong. There are plenty of eyewitnesses to the abduction-UFO connection. And as for "recent cultural conditioning," there are plenty of cases on record that occurred even before the Hill case. In my case, I had plenty of experiences prior to the March 1987-and-after period (when "Communion" and "Intruders" came out, and from which followed lots of TV coverage) to which Randle is probably referring. I was aware of the Hill case from some time before, but if you read the Hill case, in many respects it doesn't even resemble the current typical abduction experience. The beings, for example, AREN'T GREYS as we know them!!!!

JT: For instance, let us suppose a father awakens late one night and sees a dark robed, faceless entity standing next to his son's baby bed. Then, several months later, actually sees a UFO near his home or watches a movie about abductions and recognizes the similarities to his own entity sighting. What happens? Not unnaturally, this father would probably assume his son was abducted and that he had seen an ET as it exited his home. The truth is, throughout man's history, entities have been regularly seen.

ST: What if he didn't see the TV? Then what do you assume? This is the case for MANY abduction cases.

JT: Before the modern era of UFOs began in 1947, with pilot Kenneth Arnold's Pacific Northwest sighting of several discs, people thought spooks, ghosts, or demons were haunting a house or an individual.

ST: And they're probably right. Why do you keep bringing in apples and oranges?

JT: If in fact only the evil ETs or benevolent "space brothers" are behind abductions, why aren't millions of bewildered spouses calling local law enforcement agencies to report that their loved ones have suddenly disappeared and are presumed kidnapped?

ST: For one thing, because whether you like it or not, spouses ARE "switched off." Just because you don't want to believe it, doesn't make it not so. Ask thousands of abductees.

For another, because they aren't ABOUT to report any of this! UFO researchers estimate that only 10% of UFO sightings are reported (for obvious reasons, I might add). And it's probably safe to assume that the abductee is even less willing to report. (Not unless you would enjoy a stay in the local Funny Farm.)

JT: Why are there not stranded cars and trucks all over America's highways, with their doors opened and their drivers gone?

ST: a) Usually the abductee pulls off the road, often onto side roads! b) Sometimes the car is taken up to the ship c) Don't assume that 2 hours on a ship equals two hours on the ground!

JT: Has everybody been switched off! Indeed, no one is switched off. Nobody is missing from their beds or cars;

ST: You haven't done your research. Budd Hopkins tells of incidents where abductees believe they have been taken in an out-of-body state. But, when Budd interviewed the family members, on some occasions they went into the abductee's room during the time in question and THEIR BODY WAS NOT LYING ON THE BED! I believe there are also stories of spouses in cars being aware of the missing person, just as they are aware while in the bedroom.

JT: it is only mind tricks played by the innerterrestrials. Abductees meeting other abductees in real life can even be explained by the mental imagery created by innerterrestrials. An INT, perhaps, visits one person and then scans their image for later use. This same INT then, days, months or years later replays this saved image into a future victim. Sometime later the INT returns to its original victim and plays the new scan into that victim's mind. Months or years later these same two victims, by chance, meet in real life and presto! They think they were abducted together aboard a space ship.

ST: Geez, talk about convoluted and completely hypothetical! Yeah, let's grab right onto these ideas, they seem so plausible! And let's not consider that far less extreme idea that perhaps people can recognize each other from abduction experiences for the simple fact that they were both there!

JT: Victims are being repeatedly visited as many abductees claim. Why are so many being visited by innerterrestrials? If hybrids are not being created, as many abductees report, what are the INTs doing?

ST: I repeat: We don't know what's going on. Some are reporting hybrid programs, some no doubt aren't. So what? That just means there is more than one thing going on. Really radical idea, I know!

JT: An important clue was provided by Wes Clark of MUFON and CE-4 Research Group in Florida. George Filer, MUFON's eastern regional director, on receiving similar reports from this investigator and Wes, decided to put us in touch. Wes, it turned out, had carried his research one step further than the author's. Wes offered proof that abductions were only demonic encounters. He said several of his "abductees" had stopped their abduction experiences by screaming "Jesus is my savior" when aliens were next seen.

ST: Oh sure, this is really scientific research! I can think of MANY reasons why this invoking of Jesus may have the desired effect, none of which have anything to do with demons or Jesus (or aliens).

JT: This investigator has since found that this same approach used by some, he knows, has also stopped their unwelcome visitors from returning. One woman told this investigator while standing in the hallway of her home in daylight that she had a haint jump on her back and try to "suffocate her." In desperation she yelled, "Jesus! Jesus! Save me!" The haint immediately flew off and has not since returned. Another individual while having a lucid dream of a dark, big-eyed, gray screamed, "Jesus is my savior!" as Wes suggested. That was nearly nine months ago and all alien related activity in his house has vanished. A third person, who believed he was an abductee, and after seeing his dog going crazy a top his bed barking at an unseen entity, performed an undescribed exorcism. That was several months ago and all his alien troubles have ended. The simple "cure" is, admittedly, totally dumb-founding. While the relationship between abductions and paranormal activity has been documented by many investigators, this is compelling proof that abductions have nothing to do with space kidnappings. If high-tech ETs are behind the abduction madness, why would one's belief in God stop abductions cold? Such Jesus-laced utterings would not have stopped earthbound evils, so why would they halt highly advanced and technologically sophisticated ETs from abducting?

ST: Perhaps it wasn't the utterings that did it. Perhaps the experiences didn't stop, but were blanked out by the abductee. After all, if they had THAT MUCH of a need to believe in Jesus, and that powerful a belief in the "utterings," then perhaps they would not be too thrilled to learn that their incantations had no effect. WE DON'T KNOW!!!!

But to suggest that all of this is evidence of demons or the power of The Lord, or anything else, is absurd.

JT: Innerterrestrials are real. They are a threat and, in the author's opinion, conditioning mankind for their own sinister purposes. As man's technology exponentially advances, we are increasingly becoming the threat to the innerterrestrials.

ST: Opinion, without any evidence. Nice.

JT: This could explain the upsurge in INT abductions.

ST: While it certainly appears that there is an upsurge, it is also quite possible that more people are simply becoming aware of their abductions. YOU DON'T KNOW!

JT: While there is still no conclusive physical proof that ETs are visiting earth, there is over half-a-century of credible eyewitness reports to suggest that extraterrestrials are here. Sometimes INTs and ETs play on the same "fields" but their objectives are different, and with the extraterrestrials, their motivations unknown. True UFOs should be the providence for our best scientists to investigate.

ST: Oh, now we've got "True UFOs" and presumably "False UFOs." How do we tell the difference? Do you offer any suggestions on this? No. (Because these are completely self-serving terms based on opinion and no facts at all.)

JT: Conversely, religious leaders, and not UFO investigators, should be investigating "abductions."

ST: Oh that will clear it all RIGHT UP! Great idea!

JT: Detailed warnings and the dangers of INT contamination should be given to the clergy's cherished congregations.

ST: Here we go, another buzzterm: "INT Contaminations." Like this term really means anything.

JT: Not just mutterings about taking care against the "devil and his agents," but real warnings of how the innerterrestrials actually do their dirty work. Special attention should be provided to parents that their children are vulnerable to mind-conditioning or, worse, "dumbing-down" attempts by innerterrestrials.

ST: Haha!!! The only "dumbing down" I see around here is on the part of the local civilization! This is TOO FUNNY!

JT: Until clouded abduction reports are placed in the true paranormal arena they belong,

ST: Hey, I like this. We've got "True UFOs," and now we've also got "True Paranormal arenas." I wonder what a "False paranormal arena" would be like? I'll have to think about that.

Of course, since many paranormal occurrences HAVE been proved, I guess abductions would be in good company there. Better than in amongst the religious institutions.

JT: ufologists cannot expect mainstream scientists to seriously investigate UFO sightings.

ST: That's true. There's a great quote somewhere, from a major scientist, indicating that science is the LAST area of human endeavor to change, and generally this occurs because the old generation dies off. But, more seriously, there are many very top-drawer scientists, mainstream as can be, who are VERY INTERESTED in this subject. They have a very difficult time being open about their interest, however -- but some know who they are, hell even I know who some of them are -- because the older generation hasn't died off yet. And the older generation hands out the paychecks and research funding.

JT: There is no proof that extraterrestrials are kidnapping people.

ST: Yes there is. (See below, for starters.)

JT: There are tens of thousands of credible anomalous airborne sightings by equally amazing numbers of impressive and reliable witnesses to suggest many UFOs are real.

ST: By that same token, "there are tens of thousands of credible anomalous visitations by equally amazing numbers of impressive and reliable witnesses to suggest that abductions are real." Cuts both ways, dude.

JT: Ufologists need to work with what they have the best chance to scientifically prove.

ST: NO! Ufologists and scientists need to work with WHAT IS!!! Most scientists today work with what they can scientifically prove. That's how you get dissertations signed-off on by your committee. That's how you get the military-corporate moneybags to fund future research. But that doesn't make it good science, or good for our society.

I could apologize for my bitchy tone in my responses here, but I don't think I will. I get irate at someone who parades themselves as scientifically-oriented and then rants about "INT contamination," and uses "The Truth" in the same sentence. Until you/we accept that we don't know what is happening, we will not even begin serious investigation! This sci-fi stuff, religious rantings, it's all counterproductive. And it's all a pathetic attempt to manage fear. Well, it won't make the problem go away. And it won't teach us how to really handle our fears. That's got to be Step One.

--

Skye Turell, mindtrekker@mindspring.com


Reposted from Sightings with Permission



UFOS and Ufology Netowne Home

1999 Web Design by Steve Karol