David Huggins & Jim Moseley (Nov 15th 2009)

[Schuyler]

What the hell is this?

 

[aNorthernSoul]

What the hell is this?

You took the words right out of my mouth. An insinuation perhaps?

 

[Schuyler]

You took the words right out of my mouth. An insinuation perhaps?

My bad. He was actually alluding to a previous post about abuse, which I did not detect because he just stuck this stuff out there without a preamble. I wrote to him and he explained. He's got an explanatory note on there now. Oh, well...

 

[aNorthernSoul]

My bad. He was actually alluding to a previous post about abuse, which I did not detect because he just stuck this stuff out there without a preamble. I wrote to him and he explained. Oh, well...

Hm, I see. Still though, seems almost like a subtle accusation. Weird. I'm likely just as lost as usual. :redface:

 

[marduk]

On the smell point though, it's a commonly reported feature of abductions that the creatures smell "funny". This is variable depending both on the creature encountered and the person telling it as either sulphurous, moldy, like wet paper, burnt cinnamon or something else. The noted absence of any smell AT ALL is at the very least suspicious.

I'd call it a woody smell... outdoorsy. Like an animal. But earthy, maybe like something underground.

Not strong though.

 

[CapnG]

I'd call it a woody smell... outdoorsy. Like an animal. But earthy, maybe like something underground.

Not strong though.

Strong enough to make note of it though. And again that's based solely on your (presumed) encounters and has no bearing on encounters others have had.

Point is "they" seem to smell and given that sex also generates smells, sex with "them" probably stinks like an open sewer.

 

[marduk]

Strong enough to make note of it though. And again that's based solely on your (presumed) encounters and has no bearing on encounters others have had.

Point is "they" seem to smell and given that sex also generates smells, sex with "them" probably stinks like an open sewer.

Sorry, I should've put a caveat there... that was in my experience only. I'm sure others have smelled other things -- I think Strieber for instance said they smelled like cinnamon.

Never screwed one though. At least that I remember. Filthy buggers, probably have a human in every port.

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

This is the -fourth- time I have heard of this, the dropping of a presented 'hybrid' infant. This may be the second time for any of you who have read the Case Study thread...

"Then after a while, there was a Child all Lovely and Fair put into my Arms; it was all naked, of a smooth shining Skin; I could not see who it was that disposed it to me, but it was unexpectedly let down into my Arms. I thought it to be very Weighty, though but little; so passing to go away with it, it suddainly slipped through my Arms unto the Ground, at which I gave a great Screek, and with great Fear and Concern, took it up again without much Damage." Jane Leade, March 11th, 1677"

I shared this bit in a private forum a few years ago, and two others (both women) said the same thing happened to them. Y'all can believe that or not, but it is truth. A small detail...one which seems strange to make up or fabricate.

I've also heard this before. I think it's intentional to see what your reaction is. Are you repulsed by the infant? Do you have concern for its well being, even if it's not your own?

Much of the interaction with these beings seems to be in the form of a "morality play." I think very little of it can or should be taken at face value. It's more about metaphor. For example, did Huggins really see alien women with human bodies and Betty Page hairdos? Maybe he did, but that's not what they look like. Maybe that's what he wanted to see (assuming any of it is true).

The whole thing seems to feed off of what you put into it. If you expect a scary encounter with a lot of "medical tests" that's what you get.

I've come to the conclusion that my own personal experiences have been with these very same entities (not Huggins' entities, but what we call "aliens" in general), but never in the context of UFOs. I no longer believe they are "aliens" in the accepted sense, but I have no idea what they are. My one encounter with entities from a UFO were small hairy creatures with big green eyes. I don't know what they were either, but they aren't all that uncommon in UFO lore. These creatures were also in a brook near a bridge (street over pass). This reminds me of all the lore surrounding water and bridges and trolls!

Interestingly, two of the people who had seen the same creatures (one with with me, and other at a later date) have told me of other paranormal phenomenon that have been going on through out their lives. Same with me. One had two encounters (one with his young nephew) with a small gnome with a long beard when he was younger. The other saw, along with her mother and a neighbor, a large orange orb floating about tree top level that she said looked flat and had no depth. She also had many encounters with a large black phantom dog with green eyes and many other strange things.

Phil Imbrogno thinks these are all aspects of the Djin!

So I think this is just the tip of some big unseen paranormal iceberg. This stuff is absurd. So we can't always make sense of it by comparing it to our reality.

Just a few thoughts anyway, and not totally related to Huggins.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

Gen, nice to see you here again...

Huggins is indeed a very nice man, but I don't buy a word of his story, and the reason should be obvious to anyone who actually listened to the episode. There's one key question I asked him - a very simple one - and his answer was the clear evidence that his experiences are NOT objectively real. When you are supposedly involved in intimate sexual relations with someone over a period of many years, you notice how they smell. End of story. Forget all of the other many fallacies of his claims - he never asked them what they heck was going on, he never expressed remorse for not having more access to his many children (yet he claims that he had some sort of severe emotional response to the idea of one of his alien children dying? But he didn't care about the other 59 that he never saw?), he never questioned anything about what they were doing to him - all of that is almost moot, to say that he didn't remember what she smelled like, that's the key. And don't even get me started on the nonsense about him teaching the other two beings how to kiss - romantically - with no tongue. For chrissakes...

dB

Oh thank God. Thank God thank God thank God!! I listen to The Paracast in my car on my way to work (one hour commute, one-way), and I honestly thought the show had jumped the shark. I couldn't tell if D and G were just humoring David H. or were actually buying into what he was saying. I was SO happy to get on here and one of the first posts I see is this one above.

I know it's late, but I thought I'd chime in here with a few observations, just in case anybody's still following this string. First of all, D answered the million-dollar question with the sense of smell. Any biological anthropologist will tell you that smell and scent, (read; pheromones) are a critical trigger for sex. Pheromones are well studied and well documented when it comes to sex. Scent and smell is, too. Believe it or not, for women; cookies and cucumber tend to stimulate the biggest reaction and cucumber and pumpkin for men in the latest study I read up on. I figure rolling around in a garden, then smearing a donut on my junk will get me about any girl out there! But in all seriousness, smell is something you're going to detect SOMEtime. Especially after what, 30+ years of relations with these beings?

That brings up another point and serious problem I have with Huggin's story; decades of intercourse and interaction with these aliens and NO one ever catches a glimpse of them interacting with him? The siblings, spouse, parents....they ALL fail to see any sign of these aliens or their craft, and yet David H. has weekly or monthly encounters? BS. That means these aren't aliens, they're either gods who can manipulate reality or they're figures of the imagination. I've always been amazed at people making claims of contact or abductions that occur "every night" or so for years and years at a time. No video surveillance? No other witnesses. No increased sightings of UFO's, or people waiting in the bushes outside to catch sight of these things? Come on. My very well calibrated (Jose!) BS'o meter has peaked. I do not care how advanced they claim the technology is, if an alien race is contacting a human time and time and time again in this day and age, there's going to be slip-ups, sightings by other people, and evidence caught in one form or another.

I think David H. is an elderly man who's found a niche. He's getting attention with his story and is basking in that attention. Fine, but there is no credibility to his claim, at all. It's all a nice and pretty fantasy, but that's all it is; a fantasy.

In MY fantasy, the aliens have Angelina Jolie lips for LOTS of TONGUE kissing and oral sex. Oh, that reminds me, the show's language was well done, I thought, although I think D needs to use the term "moist" from now on instead of 'wet'. It's a bit more scientific, I think. I also don't remember a lot of description of breast size?

In the end I'm glad to see that Mr. Huggins' had been humored, but was not in the least bit believed.

 

[Schuyler]

I think David H. is an elderly man

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa, there young feller! I am older than that guy (but I look a lot better.) 'Elderly' is like, my Dad.

 

[dyingsun]

I feel like an 'elderly man' and I'm 29

 

[Kieran]

Oh thank God. Thank God thank God thank God!! I listen to The Paracast in my car on my way to work (one hour commute, one-way), and I honestly thought the show had jumped the shark. I couldn't tell if D and G were just humoring David H. or were actually buying into what he was saying. I was SO happy to get on here and one of the first posts I see is this one above.

I know it's late, but I thought I'd chime in here with a few observations, just in case anybody's still following this string. First of all, D answered the million-dollar question with the sense of smell. Any biological anthropologist will tell you that smell and scent, (read; pheromones) are a critical trigger for sex. Pheromones are well studied and well documented when it comes to sex. Scent and smell is, too. Believe it or not, for women; cookies and cucumber tend to stimulate the biggest reaction and cucumber and pumpkin for men in the latest study I read up on. I figure rolling around in a garden, then smearing a donut on my junk will get me about any girl out there! But in all seriousness, smell is something you're going to detect SOMEtime. Especially after what, 30+ years of relations with these beings?

That brings up another point and serious problem I have with Huggin's story; decades of intercourse and interaction with these aliens and NO one ever catches a glimpse of them interacting with him? The siblings, spouse, parents....they ALL fail to see any sign of these aliens or their craft, and yet David H. has weekly or monthly encounters? BS. That means these aren't aliens, they're either gods who can manipulate reality or they're figures of the imagination. I've always been amazed at people making claims of contact or abductions that occur "every night" or so for years and years at a time. No video surveillance? No other witnesses. No increased sightings of UFO's, or people waiting in the bushes outside to catch sight of these things? Come on. My very well calibrated (Jose!) BS'o meter has peaked. I do not care how advanced they claim the technology is, if an alien race is contacting a human time and time and time again in this day and age, there's going to be slip-ups, sightings by other people, and evidence caught in one form or another.

I think David H. is an elderly man who's found a niche. He's getting attention with his story and is basking in that attention. Fine, but there is no credibility to his claim, at all. It's all a nice and pretty fantasy, but that's all it is; a fantasy.

In MY fantasy, the aliens have Angelina Jolie lips for LOTS of TONGUE kissing and oral sex. Oh, that reminds me, the show's language was well done, I thought, although I think D needs to use the term "moist" from now on instead of 'wet'. It's a bit more scientific, I think. I also don't remember a lot of description of breast size?

In the end I'm glad to see that Mr. Huggins' had been humored, but was not in the least bit believed.

Nice post and that is why people have doubts to this case been genuine. Most cases are not believable to an outsider especially, when someone claims experiences over a extended period of time and have little or no evidence to back those claims up. Time and how frequent your experiences are important issues to anyone's case.

if you aware like Huggins and know this experiences are going to happen./one you have the ability maybe to gather evidence/ others do not because most peoples experiences are not knowable and can not be predicted.

Another problem, i found with Huggins is the lack of asking questions about his experience and i think most people found that strange. But, i have met people like Huggins before, they go about life and rarely question things or even be curious. He seemed to be a man who preferred questions and replying than the asking questions and getting a reply.

Overall i still find some of what he says interesting.

 

[jratcliff]

The single most disturbing thing to me, upon listening to this episode, was when I was forced to consider the notion that the aliens wanted this guys DNA.

Dear Lord help us if the aliens are harvesting gallons of semen from David Huggins.

Imagine a world filled with a bunch of alien hybrids who inherited this idiots gene pool; the mind shudders at the thought.

David Huggins came off as a retarded fool who, upon spending years of his life fucking aliens, never once thought to ask them why.

What a horrific mess that was to listen to. Someone give me a moldy sock so I can scrape the goo out of my ears after listening to this jackass babble.

The only sane thing he related was that his wife divorced him because she didn't want to listen to his bullshit either.

I was appalled when he stated he still didn't understand why his ex-wife wouldn't listen to his alien sex fantasy stories.

John

P.S. Just to take some sting off of this snarky post. Chances are good that David Huggins suffers from a serious mental illness and there reaches a point where maybe we shouldn't be taking advantage of the mentally disabled.

What I found unique is that Huggins was a shitty story teller. Other than getting laid a lot by his alien mistress, and bizarrely wanting to tell everyone about it, he had nothing to offer. Where were the stories about aliens predicting impending doom in 2012? His stories suck; probably because he truly is mentally ill and/or just plain stupid.

I'm all for having wackos on the show but, hey, lets stick to wackos who can tell a good story.

 

[Siani]

Just listening to this episode now. Oh dear. I doubt he's met aliens, but he's definitely on a different planet to most of us. I think this poor man needs help. He's either delusional, or a desperate attention-seeker. Either way, he seems in a bad way.

 

[Kieran]

Just listening to this episode now. Oh dear. I doubt he's met aliens, but he's definitely on a different planet to most of us. I think this poor man needs help. He's either delusional, or a desperate attention-seeker. Either way, he seems in a bad way.

I have to agree and that is how it came across listening to the interview. Now there is a difference with Huggins story and others. Huggins story is one where he said he has bond with a number of aliens, he speaks with them and he visits there world. Now my Aunt and uncle something happened and it was not wanted and there was no communication happening and it only happened the one time. They have seen other stuff, but this was the most extreme one, where beings came into the room and vanished. Now what the fuck that was i have not got a clue.
Huggins has to prove his story because he obviously has the ability to do so maybe.

Like come on ask them can you have some evidence.. see what they say. For me this case is too wacky and i wonder about his sanity. There is something going on with the Abduction scenario, but i not sure every case is true.

 

[Jonah]

Huggins has to prove his story because he obviously has the ability to do so maybe.

I think this idea is mistaken to some extent. The assumption is that there is some burden of proof to prove/disprove a particular story or encounter depends on the mindset of the reader. This thread is a particularly good example of this point. Those seeking "proof" will easily dismiss Mr. Huggins as deluded, mentally ill, a fabricator, nutjob, conman etc etc etc. Those seeking clues will find them if they begin with the understanding that almost every encounter and the telling of it may/or may not include a bit of tricksterish game playing which often includes projection, screens, and other forms of experience/visuals that may not have occurred in physical reality. There is a distinct difference in reaction here between those that consider themselves "experienced" and those that don't (with the exception of Biedny). Worthy of it's own discussion I suspect.

I'll use the dropping of the child presented as an example. For me, this reinforces the case study thread as potentially important when it comes to process wrt the commonly reported presentation of such infants (In Leade's case, one that appeared to be and was described as "not of this world"). Anecdotally, I have now counted four times this has been described, all completely separately. David R. added to those anecdotes with his own admission that he had heard of this peculiar aspect before and his observation that it may be part of an experiment to gauge reaction, emotion or mindset shouldn't be discounted.

I took Schuyler to task a few thread back for too easily dismissing the story relayed to us by the "anonymous" scientist, with the proviso that one must always keep in mind who the presented information might be directed to. In Huggins case, no one here but myself recognized the potential pattern in the dropping of the child. David R. simply affirmed the observation. Gen found it fascinating. Is this important? Maybe, maybe not. I'd be interested to hear from Hopkins or Jacobs if they have heard of this particular aspect of the "Presentation" scenario and if so, how often. I would also be willing to accept that they've never heard of it.

The point is, there is no "burden of proof" put upon those sharing such stories. They simply are what they are. Take em or leave em. My advice would be to simply not do it hastily....with eyes wide shut and all that implies.

 

[Double Nought Spy]

I think you misunderestimate a lot of us.

For my part, I would be far more likely to think Huggins' stories might be useful if they did not seem to be made up of bits and pieces of other stories that are well known themselves, without any compelling reason to think Huggins didn't just make up his own version for whatever reason. There seems to be zero corroborative evidence, and even hints of the opposite in his family's attitude toward him.

Huggins' story, just like any other similar tale, is either useful or not. If it is the result of contact with some kind of alien presence, then it is very useful. If on the other hand it is a survival tool for the person in question, which this seems to resemble a lot more than the former, then it is the opposite of useful for us. It's just more noise.

 

[Kieran]

I think this idea is mistaken to some extent. The assumption is that there is some burden of proof to prove/disprove a particular story or encounter depends on the mindset of the reader. This thread is a particularly good example of this point. Those seeking "proof" will easily dismiss Mr. Huggins as deluded, mentally ill, a fabricator, nutjob, conman etc etc etc. Those seeking clues will find them if they begin with the understanding that almost every encounter and the telling of it may/or may not include a bit of tricksterish game playing which often includes projection, screens, and other forms of experience/visuals that may not have occurred in physical reality. There is a distinct difference in reaction here between those that consider themselves "experienced" and those that don't (with the exception of Biedny). Worthy of it's own discussion I suspect.

I'll use the dropping of the child presented as an example. For me, this reinforces the case study thread as potentially important when it comes to process wrt the commonly reported presentation of such infants (In Leade's case, one that appeared to be and was described as "not of this world"). Anecdotally, I have now counted four times this has been described, all completely separately. David R. added to those anecdotes with his own admission that he had heard of this peculiar aspect before and his observation that it may be part of an experiment to gauge reaction, emotion or mindset shouldn't be discounted.

I took Schuyler to task a few thread back for too easily dismissing the story relayed to us by the "anonymous" scientist, with the proviso that one must always keep in mind who the presented information might be directed to. In Huggins case, no one here but myself recognized the potential pattern in the dropping of the child. David R. simply affirmed the observation. Gen found it fascinating. Is this important? Maybe, maybe not. I'd be interested to hear from Hopkins or Jacobs if they have heard of this particular aspect of the "Presentation" scenario and if so, how often. I would also be willing to accept that they've never heard of it.

The point is, there is no "burden of proof" put upon those sharing such stories. They simply are what they are. Take em or leave em. My advice would be to simply not do it hastily....with eyes wide shut and all that implies.

I see where your coming from Jonah, but his experiences are beyond the extreme and they are over a long period of time. We have to least question the motives and details of the story and i agree make our own decisions.

I can tell you for a fact, my uncle and aunt have never heard of Whitley Streiber until recently. They have heard of Roswell, but beyond that they would have no clue to UFO Lore. I personally only began looking for discussion more closely in the last three years or so myself.
I tell you remember when Whitley claimed he saw small looking Troll beings, my uncle and aunt saw the same beings. I took a picture with my phone from an artists impression of the beings and said does this look right, and my uncle said it very similar to what he saw. They could not have know this beforehand or be privy to that information. I did not even know Whitley had this experience with this beings until this year myself. This being is never discussed or there is very little discussion about this being. I wonder why? If anyone has more cases of where this being has appeared. I be most interested.

 

[Jonah]

I can tell you for a fact, my uncle and aunt have never heard of Whitley Streiber until recently. They have heard of Roswell, but beyond that they would have no clue to UFO Lore. I personally only began looking for discussion more closely in the last three years or so myself.I tell you remember when Whitley claimed he saw small looking Troll beings, my uncle and aunt saw the same beings. I took a picture with my phone from an artists impression of the beings and said does this look right, and my uncle said it very similar to what he saw. They could not have know this beforehand or be privy to that information. I did not even know Whitley had this experience with this beings until this year myself. This being is never discussed or there is very little discussion about this being. I wonder why? If anyone has more cases of where this being has appeared. I be most interested.

I will share some truth with you, Irishseeker. I saw this being back in 1967. And it was the same for me as it was for you (and your relatives). When I saw this being depicted in the film "Communion", I knew without doubt that Mr. Strieber, and the story he told had truth within it as there was no possible way the entity that engaged me in 1967 could be depicted in the film so accurately without it being "experienced". None.

I will add that this is a somewhat toned down version of what -I- encountered (or encountered me). The skin was darker, purplish and almost iridescent (like a black beetles exoskeleton) and there was a distinct "fierceness" to the face, more so than that depicted below. Not that it was emotionally fierce in essence, but we often don't have a choice as to our appearance. Also note-this entity is a little over three feet tall.

I'm pleased you can consider and understand where I'm coming from....can I prove this?...no. Do I need to?...no. Will someone out there get something out of this...I believe so.

 

[Schuyler]

I took Schuyler to task a few thread back for too easily dismissing the story relayed to us by the "anonymous" scientist, with the proviso that one must always keep in mind who the presented information might be directed to.

What? Moi? I have been taken to task? Gosh, and I didn't know. Early onset, I guess, a blessing (What? I'm dead? Why didn't someone tell me?!) Kind of reminds me of my weekly grocery store trips where Moses and I take Big Red to the 'destination store.' I play some games while Moze stands guard. One is how efficiently I can get through the store. If I have to double back for the Bacos, I lose. The second is at the checkout stand. I put all the grub on the belt and rush up to the satnd proclaiming, "I won!'

the checker says, "Won what?" I say, "The Race I won. you lost. I got up here before you ran the stuff through the scanner." Checker says, "Didn't know I was in a race." I say, "Not my problem!" If the checker is in a good mood he/she will inevitably say, "I'm gonna GET you next time!"

But to the task. You can't get through an anthropology program without adhering to the concept of 'cultural relativism.' The idea is that one ought not to judge another culture through one's own culture's eyes, but through theirs. Just because they run around naked doesn't mean they're stupid. Indeed, lots of 'primitive' cultures are more complex than our own, particularly with relationships such as kinship. The Australian Aborigine kinship system is so complex that we cannot intellectually handle it. So who's smarter?

Although this attitude leads to ultra extreme liberalism, on the whole I don't think many people would object to its basic ideas. What's wrong with not being judgmental? Not much I can see. If I'm understanding Jonah correctly here, I think he's applying cultural relativism to the UFO stories we hear, suggesting that the message might not be for an 'objective' observer, but me more subtle in nature and effectively 'for' someone else.

I can understand that some people may not need to 'get to the Truth' and that a more liberal interpretation of reality is acceptable to them, even so far as to invoke 'personal reality tunnels' ala Robert Anton Wilson. If that's the way some folks want to treat this kind of experience, OK. What can I say? But for me an my reality tunnel. it's way too wishy-washy.

I believe there IS an objective reality, even if we make it up by mind alone and even if we really don't understand it at all and despite the fact that we may view it differently. I'm perfectly willing to accept the idea that religion and science may be talking about the same thing, really, but there is a 'same thing.' And just for the record, I don't believe science has 'nailed it down' at all as it seems often much less objective than it claims.

To invoke anthropology again, a seminal paper in the field is called: The Functional Prerequisites of a Society, by Aberle, et. al, first published in Ethics, Vol 60, in 1950. One of these prerequisites is a 'shared cognitive orientation.' If that is 'Mary, God, and Jesus' Okay. If it is 'May the Force be with you,' Okay. And if it's 'Newtonian physics makes the universe work,' Okay. The point is that a society must share a view of reality to survive.

What we have in Ufology is cultural relativism run amok on one side to the point where we cannot or are not allowed to come to conclusions. When that happens I eventually give up on the issue because it is so amorphous and tedious. You can never get anywhere. Admonish me or take me to task if you will, but I can't go there because there is no 'there' there.

And on the other we have folks who KNOW the solution. Trajanus, for example, KNOWS it's 'aliens from space' and he will pick apart your posts, line by bloody line, invoking his view of aliens from space or hit the highway. I give upon this kind of thinking because it is so rigid and tedious. I don't want to go there.

So when you get to someone like Huggins, who doesn't particularly care whether you believe him or not, I'm left trying to find some sort of reality in what he says, but he simply does not say enough. there's no there there. If you can find in his missive something to hang onto, like a dropped baby, Okay, but I can't go there because, to me, it means nothing.

When I listen to Huggins' story, and his utter and complete lack of corroboration from anyone, I'm convinced he has had a recurring lucid wet dream, and that's about it.