April 4th show - Hopkins, Randle & Jacobs

redheadnation · Apr 6, 2010

ArchieBedford said:
I am not being deliberately argumentative but I think you're wrong about this. You probably know that neither Dave Jacobs nor John Mack (nor many other researchers) were originally sympathetic to the idea of alien abductions: in fact, they were skeptical verging on hostile. However, they were professional enough and honest enough to slowly modify and finally change their views when faced with the mounting body of evidence they were uncovering, none of which they were prepared for, expected or could initially accept. This is the very opposite of "confirmation bias." Abductees go through the same process. It's the very last thing you want to be real, but honest analysis of the facts eventually forces you to accept that it may be. Alternately, you can stick your head in the sand and pretend it's all psychological, or sleep paralysis, or fugue states, or some other fantasy.

The sessions I had with both hypnotherapists in 2007 & 2008 in the UK were not videotaped but were audiotaped (DJ always audiotapes the sessions too). To claim that everything should be "regulated" is of course very American and no doubt laudible. No-one will argue too strongly against this in principle but in practice you can't regulate everything anyone ever does in a free society, and shouldn't. Enough already don't you think?

---------- Post added at 11:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:44 PM ----------

Maybe people can be. I know I can't, because usually when under hypnosis I can't remember a thing, no matter how the hypnotist may try to lead. But sometimes things emerge unexpectedly days or weeks later. Then it's a real memory I can't believe I ever forgot, but it seems to be a delayed effect of the hypnotic state which opens the unconscious to slowly release things.

I never said "hypnosis should not be done by a medical person." You misquote me, or misunderstand what I said. My point is that of the three people who have aided me in memory recovery, two were medically qualified, certified hypnotherapists and one wasn't. The two medically qualified were no better, in fact I have to say less skilled and effective, than the third who unlike them was pushing no agenda, did not attempt to lead and asked better, non-leading open questions. This is not the same as saying "hypnosis should not be done by a medical person." It's just saying that being a "medical person" and "regulated" is no guarantee they are going to be any good, that's all.

"Unregulated hypnosis has hurt many people" - no doubt. I am just recounting my own personal experience, not pronouncing how I think things should or should not be in the minefield of medical liability and regulation which infests the western world these days.

BTW my profession is in the field of medical device regulation and international standards and I work with surgeons all day long, and have done so for 25 years.

Best regards.

I don't believe that this is all in a person's head or sleep parylisis. Without examinations you can't eliminate a medical problem nor can you find evidance of abnormal medical findings. For example maybe with blood tests they can find that these people have abnormal glucose levels. Does that mean that they are all diabetics? Maybe......does it mean that they have undergone something that caused elevated blood sugars.....yes. But you don't know until you start looking. You won't know what the connections or what has been done to these people until they are examined.

As far as regulations. YES YES YES! That is what has IMPROVED the level of care from many many health care providers. I'm not talking the political health care issue. I'm talking regulation brings up the standards of care and gets rid of......eventually......those who are providing substandard care. YES WE NEED REGULATION IN THIS AREA!

---------- Post added at 03:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:25 PM ----------

ArchieBedford said:
Can't argue with that. Knowing Dave as I do, I'm sure he'd be delighted to co-operate with any investigation, should such a thing be proposed. He has spent his life under the rigors of professional academia and besides being voted the most popular professor at Temple by the students for several consecutive years, has had four books published by major publishing houses including his doctoral thesis and a book of essays by Kansas University Press. he's not exactly a stranger to academic scrutiny.

Well, I guess he would not have a problem with standards, regulations, and being licensed......esp. since he is a believer in education? Yes?

Christopher O'Brien · Apr 6, 2010

Keiko said:
I think there have been some interesting and well meaning suggestions regarding the need to have a licence to practice hypnosis and a database for alleged abductions. However, to me, the biggest problem about this is that mainsteam academics and science will not take this subject seriously. Look how John Mack was treated by his peers. Unfortunately, I think there will be very few people willing to risk reputations and careers by getting into a serious engagement with this topic, or UFOs in general. If UFOs don’t officially exist, then any experience reported by someone MUST be explained away by some other acceptable version of reality – the psychological version of ‘swamp gas’. I have just finished reading Terry Hansen’s ‘Missing Times’ – it is extremely well written and puts forward a very cogent account of how the media can be manipulated and controlled in the name of National Security. I raise this point to highlight that IMO we are living in a contrived and manipulated environment when it comes to the UFO issue. The subject is being denied and ridiculed by design. This makes it very difficult to create a credentialed body with any legitimacy (not to mention the resources needed for such an endeavour). Also, as far as I am aware, if money is not exchanged between two parties then the services offered are deemed informal and therefore do not fall into the remit of professional regulatory bodies. Ultimately, while we can document and analyse abductions/experiences, until we get a clearer understanding of what the UFOs are or represent we are left trying to make a jigsaw with too many pieces missing. Maybe our brains just can’t process the bigger picture yet. However, I have always found the work of Hopkins, Jacobs, Mack and others in this field valuable. Being human, they have probably made their share of mistakes but I believe they are/were well intentioned and sincere and that means a lot to me in a field too often filled with disinformation, hoaxes and charlatans.

It has been obvious to me for some time that we need a coordinated, standardized teamwork approach to manifest any progress in the UFO and related fields of study. Ideally, we would have already established "think tanks" that came up with a standardized approach to investigate the particular subject. Then we were able to correlate and effectively analyze the amazing data to further our understanding of that which is inexplicable. In a perfect world...

redheadnation · Apr 7, 2010

Christopher O'Brien said:
It has been obvious to me for some time that we need a coordinated, standardized teamwork approach to manifest any progress in the UFO and related fields of study. Ideally, we would have already established "think tanks" that came up with a standardized approach to investigate the particular subject. Then we were able to correlate and effectively analyze the amazing data to further our understanding of that which is inexplicable. In a perfect world...

You are so right! I know it takes money and people willing to give of their time and energy to do this. It just seems to me that this whole field is disconnected. It needs to be organized and standardized. Once this happens I believe those with money will see this is a serious organization and money will come forth. No one will give of their time and money......that is needed.....to do this if we continue to poke along with everyone doing what ever they want. Some how we need this to happen so that we can get down to the bottom of what is going on. Until then we will all be walking around with blinders on bumping into those who are working hard and have good intentions and those who are quacks. We need to be like a business.

Best Regards,
Redheadnation

CapnG · Apr 7, 2010

I enjoyed the show this week. Can't say I'm down with the new theme music but I'm sure I'll get used to it. All-in-all I don't think any new ground was broken here, the same arguments and counter arguments we've been hearing since the 90s were all laid out afresh to be picked at and mulled over once again. One point that did stick out to me though was the comment about (alleged) abductees who wear glasses being taken and asked to do things and informing the "aliens" that they can't see because they left their specs at home. Speaking as someone who wears glasses I felt the ring of truth when Jacobs (I think) said that if this were a dream they wouldn't need glasses. This is absolutely true, I have 20/20 vision in my dreams.

That said I'm still as iffy about the whole thing as ever. Why hypnosis? Why such an easily broken mental block? What about the cases with perfect recall requiring NO hypnosis? It's all very messy. And then there's the most important unasked question: If this is a breeding program where the goal is to produce hybrids and the program is nearly complete then where are all these hybrids? And if they look more like us than them, are they really "hybrids"? My great-grandmother was Russian but that doesn't mean I can read cyrillic...

redheadnation · Apr 7, 2010

CapnG said:
I enjoyed the show this week. Can't say I'm down with the new theme music but I'm sure I'll get used to it. All-in-all I don't think any new ground was broken here, the same arguments and counter arguments we've been hearing since the 90s were all laid out afresh to be picked at and mulled over once again. One point that did stick out to me though was the comment about (alleged) abductees who wear glasses being taken and asked to do things and informing the "aliens" that they can't see because they left their specs at home. Speaking as someone who wears glasses I felt the ring of truth when Jacobs (I think) said that if this were a dream they wouldn't need glasses. This is absolutely true, I have 20/20 vision in my dreams.

That said I'm still as iffy about the whole thing as ever. Why hypnosis? Why such an easily broken mental block? What about the cases with perfect recall requiring NO hypnosis? It's all very messy. And then there's the most important unasked question: If this is a breeding program where the goal is to produce hybrids and the program is nearly complete then where are all these hybrids? And if they look more like us than them, are they really "hybrids"? My great-grandmother was Russian but that doesn't mean I can read cyrillic...

This hybrid thing is just too freaking far out for me. Honestly, how can they come to this conclusion without any scientific proof. I think someone has been watching too much FRINGE!

CapnG · Apr 7, 2010

redheadnation said:
This hybrid thing is just too freaking far out for me. Honestly, how can they come to this conclusion without any scientific proof. I think someone has been watching too much FRINGE!

That's silly. You can never watch too much FRINGE!

redheadnation · Apr 7, 2010

CapnG said:
That's silly. You can never watch too much FRINGE!

Ok well you're right........I do love the show..........I guess I should have said they think it is real!

Keiko · Apr 7, 2010

Christopher O'Brien said:
It has been obvious to me for some time that we need a coordinated, standardized teamwork approach to manifest any progress in the UFO and related fields of study. Ideally, we would have already established "think tanks" that came up with a standardized approach to investigate the particular subject. Then we were able to correlate and effectively analyze the amazing data to further our understanding of that which is inexplicable. In a perfect world...

unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><style>  </style> Indeed…in a perfect world! I think a lot of researchers have been calling for this for a long time. The problem is who are the ‘we’? MUFON? Self-appointed experts? Published authors with credentials? I just don’t think it’s doable. The best we can hope for is some set of guidelines or principles that create a voluntary code of conduct. Of course, nothing will be legally enforceable as technically this subject and all UFO related subjects are not legitimate topics of study or debate. Project Bluebook answered these questions for us some decades ago

<o></o>
As for people with some serious disposable income becoming involved, we already have examples of that. As far as I am aware, Laurence Rockerfeller helped fund John Mack’s institute and work but no definitive answers came from that collaboration (hard to beat that combo of money and credentials!).
<o></o>
BTW wasn’t it Hopkins who encouraged and challenged John Mack to read some of the letters he was being sent in the hundreds by strangers telling him of their bizarre, disturbing and inexplicable experiences? Wasn’t that an attempt to get some academic and scientific input into the field?
<o></o>
<o>
</o>

redheadnation · Apr 7, 2010

Keiko said:
<LINK rel=File-List href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CJanis%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C07%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><STYLE>  </STYLE> Indeed…in a perfect world! I think a lot of researchers have been calling for this for a long time. The problem is who are the ‘we’? MUFON? Self-appointed experts? Published authors with credentials? I just don’t think it’s doable. The best we can hope for is some set of guidelines or principles that create a voluntary code of conduct. Of course, nothing will be legally enforceable as technically this subject and all UFO related subjects are not legitimate topics of study or debate. Project Bluebook answered these questions for us some decades ago
<O></O>
As for people with some serious disposable income becoming involved, we already have examples of that. As far as I am aware, Laurence Rockerfeller helped fund John Mack’s institute and work but no definitive answers came from that collaboration (hard to beat that combo of money and credentials!).
<O></O>
BTW wasn’t it Hopkins who encouraged and challenged John Mack to read some of the letters he was being sent in the hundreds by strangers telling him of their bizarre, disturbing and inexplicable experiences? Wasn’t that an attempt to get some academic and scientific input into the field?
<O></O>
<O>
</O>

So should we just settle for what we got and just give up and go home? I don't think the status quo is the answer.

Tom From Hong Kong · Apr 7, 2010

ArchieBedford said:
Some background: after a lifetime of “experiences” I finally worked out late in life that there might be a UFO-abduction connection only after becoming acquainted with the literature. The trigger event happened in 1972 when at age 16 I had a close encounter with a large daylight disk whilst fully awake and outdoors, with 2 hours 15 minutes of seamless “missing time” and a new, unusual physical scar discovered shortly after the encounter. At the time this bizarre experience made absolutely no sense and there was nothing in the public domain in 1972, especially in provincial <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1>England</st1> </st1:country-region>in that pre-internet age, which might have helped explain any of this. There were other incidents, but the 1972 one disturbed me the most over the years – and I never, ever spoke about it to anyone because well, what the heck could you say?<o></o>
<o></o>

Archie, very interesting. Out of curiosity, how much third party corroborating evidence do you have for your abduction experiences? A spouse that has witnessed strange lights? A non-abductee friend who has missing time due to being present when you were abducted? Have you ever tried to videotape or otherwise objectively document your experiences? Thanks in advance for any insights you may have.

As a side note to the whole debate above, is anyone not for more regulation or standardization given some of the horrors that have occurred? The profession will need to do this itself, and absent this, the state legislatures may be the first movers.

ArchieBedford · Apr 7, 2010

Tom From Hong Kong said:
Archie, very interesting. Out of curiosity, how much third party corroborating evidence do you have for your abduction experiences? A spouse that has witnessed strange lights? A non-abductee friend who has missing time due to being present when you were abducted? Have you ever tried to videotape or otherwise objectively document your experiences? Thanks in advance for any insights you may have.

Yes, there is some of this including one incident when the three other people I was with late one night on a beach all witnessed the same bright UFO over the sea and then appeared to be "shut down" for about an hour. I "woke up" an hour later some distance (more than 100 yards) away from them. This however was in 1976 and at the time was explained away as just "weird" as no-one had ever heard of alien abductions so had no reference to explain what might have happened. You can still explain such things away if you're determined to do so by many different possibilities, but the fact is these incidents do form a pattern with repeated and distinctive characteristics.

There was a night-time incident in February 2009: something happened, not sure exactly what though memories the next morning very suspicious (there are certiin indicators which you spot when you become informed about the phenomenon). The next morning, a tree right outside the bedroom window was discovered to have four freshly broken branches. They looked as though they were broken from above, as three were still attached to the tree and hanging down by remaining threads, whilst one was lying in the garden completely snapped off. This is quite a large tree and the branches were a good inch or two in diameter. I left the scene of the crime undisturbed and photographed it all, sent the pics to various people who by then I had gotten to know. Nick Pope was interested and asked the obvious questions about wind speeds that night, presence of frost etc. but apart from photograph and record such things, what else do you do?

The scoop-mark scars are the most interesting physical phenomenon, as they are very distinctive and take literally decades to even out and become even slightly less obvious. Apparently hundreds, possibly thousands of abductees have these, usually in the same places. I met a man from Turkey a couple of years ago (at Budd Hopkins' place in Manhattan) who had one similar to mine in the same place which he had acquired inexplicably in his adolescence in Istanbul, so it certainly looks like a global phenomenon.

---------- Post added at 05:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:48 AM ----------

Keiko said:
BTW wasn’t it Hopkins who encouraged and challenged John Mack to read some of the letters he was being sent in the hundreds by strangers telling him of their bizarre, disturbing and inexplicable experiences? Wasn’t that an attempt to get some academic and scientific input into the field?

Good point. Hopkins also petitioned the late Carl Sagan, and many other scientists, to get involved and study the phenomenon. Hopkins and Sagan met several times and had a long correspondence, Sagan finally agreeing to help investigate a suspected abduction case at Cornell in Ithaca where he lived and worked. He had no response to Hopkins's public challenge on TV: "Carl, wouldn't you agree that an extraordinary phenomenon demands an extraordinary investigation?"

However, when his back was against the wall Sagan backed off. Disreputable subject, academic reputation, can't be seen meddling with that stuff. This is the problem, unfortunately.

Tom From Hong Kong · Apr 7, 2010

ArchieBedford said:
Yes, there is some of this including one incident when the three other people I was with late one night on a beach all witnessed the same bright UFO over the sea and then appeared to be "shut down" for about an hour. I "woke up" an hour later some distance (more than 100 yards) away from them. This however was in 1976 and at the time was explained away as just "weird" as no-one had ever heard of alien abductions so had no reference to explain what might have happened. You can still explain such things away if you're determined to do so by many different possibilities, but the fact is these incidents do form a pattern with repeated and distinctive characteristics.

There was a night-time incident in February 2009: something happened, not sure exactly what though memories the next morning very suspicious (there are certiin indicators which you spot when you become informed about the phenomenon). The next morning, a tree right outside the bedroom window was discovered to have four freshly broken branches. They looked as though they were broken from above, as three were still attached to the tree and hanging down by remaining threads, whilst one was lying in the garden completely snapped off. This is quite a large tree and the branches were a good inch or two in diameter. I left the scene of the crime undisturbed and photographed it all, sent the pics to various people who by then I had gotten to know. Nick Pope was interested and asked the obvious questions about wind speeds that night, presence of frost etc. but apart from photograph and record such things, what else do you do?

The scoop-mark scars are the most interesting physical phenomenon, as they are very distinctive and take literally decades to even out and become even slightly less obvious. Apparently hundreds, possibly thousands of abductees have these, usually in the same places. I met a man from Turkey a couple of years ago (at Budd Hopkins' place in Manhattan) who had one similar to mine in the same place which he had acquired inexplicably in his adolescence in Istanbul, so it certainly looks like a global phenomenon.

Archie, thanks again. Very interesting and much appreciated. Based upon your personal experiences, viewed as objectively as possible, do you agree with Dr. Jacobs' conclusions that the goal of this abduction phenomenon is a hybrid breeding program? Do you think his methodology is the best or most reasonable currently available to get to the truth given the evidence you laid out above?

I dated a woman back in 1990 who had a step-sister who supposedly was being abducted (as was the step-sister's father, both of whom had bright red hair). My girlfriend, who did not claim to be an abductee, reported some odd incidents: the step-sister going out snow-mobiling, with the family subsequently finding the snow mobile and the sister's winter clothing nicely folded on top of the vehicle, but no step-sister. The step-sister supposedly came back to the house hours later with little clothing, despite the wind and freezing temperatures. She also had incidents where a new Rolex watch would stop for periods of time. My girlfriend and her family were not into New Age topics, and this certainly scared the shit out of her (she was a sorority girl who had just graduated from a large state university). Also, my wife works with a female lawyer at a large investment bank who claims to be an abductee. Not the town drunk by any stretch of the imagination. All very troubling, to be frank.

ArchieBedford · Apr 7, 2010

redheadnation said:
This hybrid thing is just too freaking far out for me. Honestly, how can they come to this conclusion without any scientific proof. I think someone has been watching too much FRINGE!

To be fair DJ (like Mack, Hopkins and others) has consistently and patiently requested for 25 years that his data be reviewed by other academics, that his studies be repeated and controlled and please prove him wrong. He makes this challenge even in the introductions to his books on the subject. He has tried to generate interest in the phenomenon amongst his academic colleagues at Temple and elsewhere, who are of course perfectly aware of his books and have certainly (in most cases) read them, as all peer-reviewed books published by academics add credits - and I happen to know that "The UFO Controversy in America", "Secret Life" and "The Threat" were all accepted at the time of their publication by the review panel at Temple as academically rigorous and were so approved. To deny academic approval for credit requires reasons for refusal, and none could be found: they were declared academically sound, in line with the rigorous requirements of professionally written history.

The problem is, only the brave will touch the subject, and there are very few of the brave in academia. It's taboo, and most people keep their heads down whatever their private convictions.

It's all very well to call from the sidelines for "more scrutiny", "regulation of hypnosis", "scientific proof" and so on: everyone is going to agree with that, in theory. However in the real world, it seems no-one will do it. The few brave researchers who stick with the subject from honesty and reluctant conviction deserve a lot of credit IMO. It's hard for me to understand how they keep it up: it doesn't pay anything, their careers suffer, their reputations are villified and denigrated by the ignorant, there's nothing in it for them. And yet their methods are sound, their tentative conclusions consistent, and it looks to me that they're right about this phenomenon.

---------- Post added at 07:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:31 AM ----------

Tom From Hong Kong said:
I dated a woman back in 1990 who had a step-sister who supposedly was being abducted (as was the step-sister's father, both of whom had bright red hair). My girlfriend, who did not claim to be an abductee, reported some odd incidents: the step-sister going out snow-mobiling, with the family subsequently finding the snow mobile and the sister's winter clothing nicely folded on top of the vehicle, but no step-sister. The step-sister supposedly came back to the house hours later with little clothing, despite the wind and freezing temperatures. She also had incidents where a new Rolex watch would stop for periods of time. My girlfriend and her family were not into New Age topics, and this certainly scared the shit out of her (she was a sorority girl who had just graduated from a large state university). Also, my wife works with a female lawyer at a large investment bank who claims to be an abductee. Not the town drunk by any stretch of the imagination. All very troubling, to be frank.

The story of finding the woman's neatly folded clothing on the snowmobile and the woman returning to the house hours later is definitely characteristic of this phenomenon, and you will find plenty of cases in the literature where precisely this kind of thing has happened and been witnessed. I also know someone personally (a well-known researcher and published author in fact) whose sister had similar events to those you describe and seems to have been a lifelong abductee, as was her mother - but apparently not him. Obviously I can't say who on a public forum.

Have you read the 10 or 20 best books on the subject, for starters?

The subject of hybrids and the motives behind the program is a big one and of course the most controversial. Unfortunately, it seems to me from my experience that that's exactly what is happening, outlandish and improbable though it may seem to the consensus-reality paradigm. We all know the world is flat don't we, and if someone tells us it's spherical well - he's crazy, right?

Where it's all headed, who knows. Stealth and secrecy seem to rule with this whole phenomenon, both from the abductors and from governments and their agencies - though this is not to imply the two are connected in any way.

---------- Post added at 08:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:39 AM ----------

Simonemendez said:
Tom From Hong Kong, in regards to your post here, number 43, where you mention Hopkins' New York abductee, that particular woman is one Mrs. Linda Napalitano, who, when she first surfaced publicly in Ufology, prefered to be known as (last name> "Cortile". This link I provide here, is a humerous account she wrote, which was put in Jim Moseleys' Saucer Smear. Linda is a --- creative --- story teller.............

"Linda Cortille" was the name used for Linda Napolitano in BH's book "Witnessed" to protect her ID, at her request.

Linda did not originate the story of her famous Brooklyn Bridge abduction event in the early hours of 30 November 1989. The story was originally reported by third-party witnesses, who mostly assumed some spectacular Hollywood movie involving super-state-of-the-art special effects using lasers or holograms was being filmed in Manhattan in the middle of the night, so astounding was the spectacle. However a minority were convinced from the outset that it was not a movie, but they were seeing something real.

Since the publication of "Witnessed" many other eyewitnesses came forward to testify that they also saw this spectacle, and many reportedly spoke about what they saw to family and friends the following day.

My information is that we haven't heard the last of this case and its extensive ramifications - though unfortunately can't say more about this right now.

Keiko · Apr 7, 2010

redheadnation said:
So should we just settle for what we got and just give up and go home? I don't think the status quo is the answer.

No the status quo is not the answer. This is true. I just don't realistically know how best we could proceed. Sorry if I sounded cynical. Any guidelines/protocols that would help reseachers with this phenomen would be very welcome as would new and intelligent ideas and research (who has the time, inclination or stamina to take on this ridiculed, marginalised topic? More than ideas are needed) For me this includes the work of Hopkins, Mack, Jacobs, Fowler, Carpenter and Yvonne Smith (a qualified and practising hypnotherapist - maybe she would make an interesting guest Gene?) but I also find ideas by the likes of Graham Hancock and Rick Straussman very interesting too. I think at this stage in our understanding of the phenomenon it is quite healthy to have various and challenging ideas. They may all hold pieces of the puzzle.

As for the idea of hybrids being too 'freaking far out' - I don't think anyone would disagree with this is but that doesn't mean it's not correct. Alot of the evidence points to this (including Macks - it's his literal interpretation that differs with Jacobs I believe) so it can't be ruled out unfortunately.

When an excellent and researched documentary like 'I know what I saw' or the hard hitting, high calibre COMETA report released in France don't inspire the mainstream media to ask serious questions about UFOs you realise just how marginalised this topic is. (I think Leslie Kean's new book is coming out this summer - I expect that will be thorough and well-researched. Let's see if that makes any impact.)

Paul Kimball · Apr 7, 2010

Keiko said:
When an excellent and researched documentary like 'I know what I saw' or the hard hitting, high calibre COMETA report released in France don't inspire the mainstream media to ask serious questions about UFOs you realise just how marginalised this topic is.

The UFO topic is marginalized because of "researchers" like Jacobs and Hopkins who run around, messing about with people, and then claiming that aliens are abducting hundreds (or is it thousands, or millions??) of people around the world (despite the fact that the vast majority of abduction reports seem to come from the United States).

The real conspiracy of silence has been the failure of "ufology" to disassociate itself from the alien abduction cult, and the whole idea that the ETH is a proven fact.

trainedobserver · Apr 7, 2010

Paul Kimball said:
... claiming that aliens are abducting hundreds (or is it thousands, or millions??) of people around the world...

This has supposedly been going on for decades now. Yet no pictures, videos, or other evidence exists other than people's personal accounts.

Why hasn't something been captured on one of the ever present security or traffic cameras that are so prevalent in society today?

It seems unreasonable that such a large number of cases over such a long period of time would produce nothing of consequence in the way of evidence.

If things aren't happening as the researchers and experiencers claim than what is actually happening?

Lauren Jones · Apr 7, 2010

Archie,

The Linda Napolitano case that "Witnessed" is based around is highly suspect at best. This is old news, but in my opinion, George Hansen compellingly deconstructs the case in the Critique linked below. A link to Budd Hopkins' rebuttal to the critique and the factual inaccuracies Hansen claims Hopkins made in his rebuttal are also provided.

You also tease the fact that you have inside information about new information that will potentially be released in the future to further validate the case, but that you're not at liberty to discuss it. I'm sure you're familiar with the tactic such a statement represents, so I'll leave it at that, but please understand that there are serious people on here who have seen this plot device played out ad nauseam.

A Critique of Budd Hopkins' Case of the UFO Abduction of Linda Napolitano

http://www.shoah.plus.com/801/abduct/rebutl.html

BRIEF SUMMARY OF HOPKINS' ERRORS REGARDING THE CRITIQUE BY STEFULA, BUTLER, AND HANSEN Geo

Keiko · Apr 7, 2010

Paul Kimball said:
The UFO topic is marginalized because of "researchers" like Jacobs and Hopkins who run around, messing about with people, and then claiming that aliens are abducting hundreds (or is it thousands, or millions??) of people around the world (despite the fact that the vast majority of abduction reports seem to come from the United States).

The real conspiracy of silence has been the failure of "ufology" to disassociate itself from the alien abduction cult, and the whole idea that the ETH is a proven fact.

I disagree. The COMETA report deals solely with UFOs and something of this nature published by high level officials of the armed forces and aerospace industry deserves to be judged on its own merits. As should, for example, the incident involving Milton Torres in the UK some decades ago. They are national security issues and should be pursued as such.

The ‘abduction’ issue is much more difficult to deal with in many ways because it involves us and some kind of ‘contact’ with other intelligent non-human beings - or an interaction with some other dimension of reality if you choose to interpret the phenomenon less literally.

However this plays out over time, I believe the work of serious researchers into this field has been extremely beneficial in establishing that there is something going on and it’s not just psychological in nature. From that body of work, other researchers have the material to use in conjunction with their own theories whatever they may be. While studying prehistoric cave art, Graham Hancock explores David Lewis-Williams' neuropsychological model and is surprised to find so many similarities to accounts of alien abduction. He quotes Jacob’s research, among others, in his book. While Hancock does not interpret the data as literally as Jacobs, and Jacobs believes alien abduction is a current phenomena (estimating mid to late 19th century as the beginning of the abduction program), I find both hypotheses really interesting and valuable. Even if we want to explore the accounts of abductions through the prism of folklore and myth, like Jacques Vallee or Thomas E. Bullard, doesn’t the existence of a body of work gathered from both conscious recall and hypnosis provide a valuable source of material. People are free to research and make their own decisions about the phenomena.

There are certainly a lot of risks involved in exploring the paranormal, especially in ‘Western’ society in which little framework exists to allow for anything outside the current scientific and rational paradigms. If someone chooses to - whether that involves séances, drinking ayahuasca or going to see a psychic for advice they have to be careful but ultimately they are responsible for their actions. I don’t think Hopkins, Mack, Jacobs, Carpenter etc have ‘messed’ with people. IMO they genuinely interpret this phenomena in a literal way and they are entitled to. Who knows, they might very well be right!

I think very few people believe the ETH is proven fact. I think many people consider it the most plausible explanation, but a lot depends on the interpretation of ‘alien’. Most will concede it is just ‘other’ - maybe other planets, maybe other dimensions, times, or universes, extraterrestrials, cryptoterrestrials, whatever – but ‘other’. I know Budd Hopkins thinks this because I asked him. Semantics aside, the pressing issue for a lot of experiencers is what and why is this happening to me.

Keiko · Apr 7, 2010

lancemoody said:
I think it is time to face the possibility that the reason the topic is marginalized is not due to the personalities involved (although, lord knows, there have been some doozies!) but because there is nothing to the idea.

Of course, I don't really mean nothing. I think there is definitely a psychological component, certainly a cultural one, and perhaps even an astronomical, atmospherical, meteorological, or geophysical portion.

But science has long moved past the ideas we talk about here: aliens in spaceships or multi dimensional beings, time travelers, etc.

These things only live on because they work as popular mythology and have captured the imagination of the folks who discuss, research and theorize on them.

In the same way we have moved beyond fairies, demons, unicorns and minotaurs, maybe we should admit the evidence is so very low in quality (although there is a whole lot of the lackluster stuff!) that it is time to move on.

Lance

Gosh, I must have missed that whole period where science seriously studied and researched ‘aliens in spaceships or multi dimensional beings, time travelers, etc’ and then moved on. Perhaps someone should tell these out of touch folks:

UK Royal Astronomer Sir Martin Rees
Royal astronomer: 'Aliens may be staring us in the face' - Telegraph

Scientist Jill Tarter http://blog.washingtonpost.com/davos-diary/2010/01/life_on_other_planets.html

Michio Kaku Welcome to Explorations in Science with Dr. Michio Kaku

But if you feel its time to move on, by all means please go ahead.

ArchieBedford · Apr 7, 2010

owlsseered said:
The Linda Napolitano case that "Witnessed" is based around is highly suspect at best. This is old news, but in my opinion, George Hansen compellingly deconstructs the case in the Critique linked below. A link to Budd Hopkins' rebuttal to the critique and the factual inaccuracies Hansen claims Hopkins made in his rebuttal are also provided. You also tease the fact that you have inside information about new information that will potentially be released in the future to further validate the case, but that you're not at liberty to discuss it. I'm sure you're familiar with the tactic such a statement represents, so I'll leave it at that, but please understand that there are serious people on here who have seen this plot device played out ad nauseam.

Hi Owlseered (cool name)

I do know the Stefula/Butler/Hansen papers thanks. I have not read "Nighteyes" yet, though do know of it. Have you? If so, could you confirm what I have heard, that the similarities between the plot of Reeve-Stevens' book and the story in "Witnessed" are virtually non-existent and do not correspond at all in the way SBH claim? I'll read it and find out for myself one day.

In brief, most people who have looked into this think there are at least as many problems with the SBH claims as with the account in "Witnessed" including quite a bit of disinformation and misrepresentation on the part of SBH, but it's a very detailed case and I wouldn't come down on one side or the other as I don't know the whole thiong in forensic detail.

Sorry about the not-very-informative comment re not having heard the last of the case. Your point is a good one but there is something to do with the case which may be out in the open soon and which should not have even been hinted. It'll not be mentioned again by me. My gaffe: end of discussion, I hope.

Best wishes.

April 4th show - Hopkins, Randle & Jacobs

Free versions of recent episodes:

Skilled Investigator

Back in the Saddle Aginn

Skilled Investigator

Devil's Advocate

Skilled Investigator

Devil's Advocate

Skilled Investigator

Skilled Investigator

Skilled Investigator

Sleeping with one eye open . . .

Partly experienced

Sleeping with one eye open . . .

Partly experienced

Skilled Investigator

Paul Kimball

Guest

Paranormally Disenchanted

Skilled Investigator

Skilled Investigator

Skilled Investigator

Partly experienced