I'm a little behind with my Paracast listening. Right now I'm about to listen to this episode, but before I do, I wanted to offer my 2 cents with re. to Mike Clelland's article on Open Minds, which Gene & Chris commented upon in the intro.
First, I want to state that I've been following Mike's since 2009. I've read everything he's written on both his personal blog & other sites, so I'm very well versed with both his story and his personal views about the UFO phenomenon, and what we (inadequately) refer to as the 'abduction experience.' What's more, I consider Mike a personal friend.
Being Mike's friend
does not force me to agree 100% with him. You can all read the opinion I gave to his article
here. My main objection was not based on whether all witnesses of 'unambiguous UFOs' could be alien abductees even if they are not consciously aware of this or not; the problem here is
semantics. Something that needs to be kept in mind before casting judgement on Mike's POV, is that he seldom uses the term 'abduction' because it's already such a loaded term in the field; but since it's all we have in the end --'experiencer' is much too vague & ambiguous-- Mike is using abduction to infer a much deeper involvement with the UFO phenomenon, than just a chance encounter resulted from being 'in the right place & the right time.'
So before we start wondering whether seeing a flying saucer fairly close is a sign that the witness is an abductee,
first we need to define what abductions are.
Another thing to keep in mind here, is that Mike is NOT among those people who view the abduction phenomenon with the simplistic lens of some nefarious genetic experimentation, conducted by diminutive ET scientists, aboard their shiny spacecraft. What IMO Mike failed to convey in his Open Minds article, is his working hypothesis that what we call 'abductions' should be better understood as some sort of 'shamanistic initiation', regardless of the nature and origin of the non-human component intertwined with it.
So, in light of all of this, is Mike's idea completely without merit? Yes, painting with a broad brush can lead to wrong assumptions in this field, but I do suspect that Mike's hypothesis is worth taken into consideration regardless. I do feel some folks, for reasons we are yet to elucidate, act as some sort of 'high-strangeness magnet', and that the number of anomalous events in their lives is above the average --Or perhaps they're just the ones paying more attention, I don't know...
We often talk about 'window areas'. What about 'window individuals'?
You yourself, Chris, forgot to mention in this intro your childhood encounter with an alien-like entity at a very early age. Is it really so preposterous to consider that your continuous encounters with anomalous phenomena throughout your entire life are purely accidental, or just the logical result of your active interest in UFOs as an adult?
What came first: The researcher chicken or the ufological egg?
Saludos,
RPJ