SUBJECT: MSG THREADS FROM JIM SPEISER FILE: UFO1552
PSI-NET
Category 3, Topic 8
Message 31 Fri Nov 22, 1991
J.SPEISER [Jim] at 01:01 EST
An issue of UFO Magazine dealt harshly with the book. They quoted several
people, including Seymour Hirsch, as saying that they had been broadly
misinterpreted by Blum.
This from a magazine that had, a year previously, touted the then- upcoming
book as possibly a major breakthrough. Is there a glimmer of hope for UFO
buffs being somewhat objective after all?
Bubba: I saw Blum on Oprah Winfrey, and when he was challenged on some basic
facts, his response equated to, "Picky, picky, picky." They didn't seem to be
trivial facts to me.
A point brought out by Don Schmitt of CUFOS on that program weighs heavily.
Blum said that the "UFO Working Group" concentrated a lot of energy on
Elmwood, WI., an area that had seen its share of sightings. But such a group
would gain nothing by studying such a rash of sightings, since they were long
since over with. Rather, they would concentrate on current "hotspots" such as
Hudson Valley, which was in full swing at the time.
Revenant:
RE: Coverups are just someone covering their butt for mistakes...
the unfortunate thing here is that I cannot provide any real counter-
examples, because to do so I would need to have certain knowledge of real
government cover-ups, and if I did, then you could say it wasn't very well
covered up if I know about it. If pressed, I could probably come up with a
couple of examples of cover-ups that did last a good long time, that weren't
simply "mistakes". Lemme think on it.
RE: Project Aquarius...I have a few files on that, including a document that
purports to be THE Aquarius Document. I shall upload it ASAP.
RE: Wagers....Agree that they are sometimes necessary. If they seem childish,
then what about those who claim that they have these powers, but said powers
cannot be demonstrated in front of a skeptic or under controlled conditions?
It is this kind of childishness that I think necessitates the wagers.
RE: MJ-12 duping ufologists: There were elements to the documents that were
fairly interesting at first glance, so I can't blame anyone for becoming
enamored of them. But let's not forget that it was PRO-ufologists who cast the
first stone at them, notably Barry Greenwood. You can fool some ufologists
some of the time....
Jim
----------
PSI-NET
Category 2, Topic 3
Message 34 Tue Nov 26, 1991
J.SPEISER [Jim] at 12:58 EST
TW:
This story has its genesis in one Dr. Scott Corder, a FORMERLY licensed
physician in a town near Russell, KS. The whole thing starts off innocently
enough as a "routine" abduction research project. Dr. Corder, a MUFON State
Section Director, called Walt Andrus, head of MUFON, and asked him for the
name of a computer specialist within MUFON. He said he had an abductee who
claimed to be in psychic contact with her abductors, and was receiving
channeled information that included what appeared to be computer terminology.
Walt steered him my way, and we began a brief correspondence.
Corder sent me copies of his abductee's notes, known to me then only as
"Donna." The notes included computer terms, alright, but arranged in such a
way that I was certain it was a case of someone looking through a computer
book and juxtaposing random terms. I told Corder this, and thought that was
the end of it.
But Corder persisted in the correspondence, and each successive letter became
wilder than the last. He claimed to believe that he, too had been abducted.
Then he claimed to have found the answer to the whole mystery, and "It has to
do with God, Jesus, the Bible, everything...its all true, and the Second
Coming is nigh!" He made some predictions, including a specific one regarding
a "momentous event" in Jerusalem - "watch the headlines" on such and such a
date. Of course nothing came to pass, but he was undaunted. Our correspondence
grew quite bitter, and I finally told him to shove off. At one point he had
sent me a large chart with strange symbols that he claimed were the alien's
word-characters. I sent him back a postcard with the symbols for "mountain"
and "feces."
Eventually Corder got in touch with Michael Corbin of ParaNet, and sent him a
file chock full of wild and fanciful predictions for the coming years. One of
them was that Bob Dole would be the next - and last - President of the US, and
would move the White House to Russell, KS. Needless to say, none of his
predictions came true. Meantime, Mike did some cursory checking, which
apparently led to the Kansas BME lifting Corder's licence to practice
medicine.
Apparently all this time he was grooming Donna Butts as his "star" abductee,
and is known to have developed quite a cult following in his area. The WSJ
article seems to be the culmination of these activities, at least for the
moment.
Jim
----------
PSI-NET
Category 3, Topic 7
Message 67 Sun Dec 15, 1991
J.SPEISER [Jim] at 18:53 EST
Bubba:
I'm not sure that it was stipulated in the Lawson experiment whether the test
subjects had had any prior exposure to the subject or not. In any case, there
were some very significant differences between the encounters related by
Lawson's subjects and those reported by "bona fide" abductees. Most important
was the order in which events occurred. Bullard (1989) has identified a
specific sequence of events - capture, examination, conference, tour,
otherworldly journey, theophany, return, and aftermath - and has shown that in
"bona fide" cases, these events occur in the above order in nearly all the
cases, whereas Lawson's subjects described events in seemingly random order
(within the constraints of common sense, of course - nobody put the return
before the capture!). Also, in bona fide cases the descriptions of the beings
are generally much more homogenous than in Lawson's study. And, of course, you
touched on the emotional aspect, something that was universally lacking in
Lawson's sample; of course, this might be explained by the fact that there is
nothing and no one telling abductees that this is NOT happening. They do not
have the benefit of the "reality check," whereas Lawson's subjects knew they
were making it up.
As far as UFO researchers "plowing ahead" when the going gets rough for
abductees, that is clearly a potential danger inherent in the widespread
proliferation of amateur abduction researchers; However, it has not been a
factor in the past as far as I know. I know that *I* do not "push" abductees
to recall events they are reticent to relive. I have found that it is, in
fact, a good place to stop the session and try again later, because through
repeated, evenly-spaced attempts to "get at" the data, the fear barrier is
quickly broken down and the subject eventually appears to actually _want_ to
get at the unpleasant memory.
Jim
----------
PSI-NET
Category 3, Topic 8
Message 58 Wed Jan 22, 1992
J.SPEISER [Jim] at 09:03 EST
Bubba:
Doty is the biggest BS artist ever to come down the pike. When I contacted him
in 1987 right after the MJ-12 documents came out, He tried to convince me and
several other people that he was the WRONG Richard Doty, that there was
another Richard Doty who had been stationed at Kirtland AFB who had something
to do with UFOs. I have to admit, he had me going for a while - we talked for
45 minutes, and he was EXTREMELY convincing. I just didn't buy it on the
grounds that it was too implausible - two Richard Dotys at the same AFB at
roughly the same time. But it was that conversation that convinced me that
sane, sober people can look you straight in the eye and lie like a rug for no
visible reason. A lesson well learned...in the UFO zone.
Jim
----------
PSI-Net by Michael Stackpole
Category 2, Topic 11
Message 22 Thu May 28, 1992
J.SPEISER [Jim] at 01:28 EDT
Deb:
Sorry if I misportrayed your feelings; it seemed to me to be a bit defensive,
and I think even Bubba was a bit taken aback by your reaction. PTSD is not
something you shake off easily. I know that if I'd been through what you've
been through, I'd be in the rubber room making little cutout dolls.
I have noticed, and others here should take note of this, that VERY FEW
abductees jump to the conclusion that ETs have visited them. The vast majority
simply report their experience without trying to force the ET conclusion down
anyone's throat. They come to us LOOKING for an explanation, not trying to
provide it. Contrast this with the Contactees, who seem to not only have an
explanation, but an epiphany to go with it.
As far as them being physically real, please don't take this wrong, but I'm
not sure you're in a position to judge that. There are mental states in which
completely internally-generated images seem totally real.
Hypnagogic/hypnopompic experiences fall into this category, and we are still
studying those to see if they have any bearing on this phenomenon. I liken the
situation to a little meter inside your head that, when you experience
something, points to either REAL or IMAGINED. 99.999 percent of the time, the
needle works just fine, for example, when you wake up from a particularly
vivid dream, the needle may have been pointing towards REAL _during_ the
dream, but when you're awake the needle moves to IMAGINED. Every once in a
while, however, the needle gets pointed the wrong way, even in totally non-
delusional people such as yourself (a safe presumption, I think). When that
happens, I maintain that we are COMPLETELY UNABLE TO DISTINGUISH THE
EXPERIENCE from physical reality, despite all our protestations to the
contrary. Until a case goes on record where an independent eyewitness
testifies that he saw an abductee being floated out a window to a waiting
craft, we have to keep this in the "?" category. (Footnote: Apparently such a
case will be presented to the MUFON convention in Albuquerque next month;
however, I am familiar with some of the details of the case, and it sounds
dubious to me).
None of this is meant to demean the importance of your experience; on the
contrary, as I mentioned before, we may be dealing with some kind of new realm
that is "in-between" the real world and the imagined. If so, you and your
fellow abductees are pioneers in the next phase of human discovery.
Jim
----------
PSI-Net by Michael Stackpole
Category 3, Topic 6
Message 115 Thu May 28, 1992
J.SPEISER [Jim] at 01:29 EDT
Steve:
There is no basis whatsoever for believing that UFO sightings represent ET
spacecraft. I know there are elements out there that would have you believe
otherwise; for purposes of this discussion, pay no attention to them.
There IS a basis for believing that something out of the ordinary is
happening. There is a phenomenon, for which there are several competing
hypotheses, one of which happens to be the ET hypothesis. This hypothesis is
not easily dismissed, for a number of reasons. First, if you temporarily
remove the objections that have been raised, ie, lack of discernible
motivation, problems with energy consumption, interstellar travel, etc., it IS
the first thing that comes to mind when reading an eyewitness report. So far,
the phenomenon looks, walks and quacks like a duck in many ways. Secondly, the
idea of ET visitation is so transcendentally important to humanity that it
begs special attention and perhaps momentary dispensation from Occam's razor.
Third, other attempted explanations, such as those raised by Klass et al, i.e.
hoaxes and misperceptions, have not stood up well when applied to the best
cases in the database.
No ufologist worth his salt is unwilling to entertain other hypotheses or
explanations, as long as they are consistent with the known facts, and are
testable under the rigors of the scientific method. You state in your message
that there are, for instance, other possible explanations for "how fast the
UFOs move." Can you provide us with some, so that we can discuss them?
While discarding mundane explanations does not ameliorate the possibility that
UFOs are a terrestrial phenomenon, it does have a tendency to raise the
stature of the extraordinary hypotheses by default, if you will. That is what
I perceive as having happened, especially over the last 15-20 years as more
and more scientific interest has been garnered and more and more mundane
explanations have been rendered untenable by scientific examination.
Jim
----------
PSI-Net by Michael Stackpole
Category 2, Topic 11
Message 26 Sun May 31, 1992
J.SPEISER [Jim] at 14:04 EDT
Steve:
I think you need to brush up on some of the more recent literature. If you
possibly can get a hold of the last three issues of the Journal of UFO
Studies, read all the abduction-related articles. This will bring you up to
speed on the latest scientifically verified findings. We don't know what the
abduction syndrome is, but we seem to be getting a handle on what it's NOT,
and it's NOT dreams, nor has it been shown to be related to any
psychopathology ("abnormalness") that we're currently aware of.
The Journal of UFO Studies is available from The Center for UFO Studies, 2457
W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659. I believe they are $15 each for Vols. 1-
3, New Series.
Jim
----------
Category 2, Topic 11
Message 32 Wed Jun 10, 1992
J.SPEISER [Jim] at 01:01 EDT
Steve:
Here is the abstract from "Psychosocial Characteristics of Abductees: Results
from the CUFOS Abduction Project" by Mark Rodeghier, Jeff Goodpaster, and
Sandra Blatterbauer.
<<
Psychological and demographic data were collected from 27 persons who met the
author's selection criteria for an abduction experience. Instruments included
the MMPI, ICMI, CIS, and an 85-item survey developed by the authors.
Demographic data suggests that the respondents are similar to the US adult
population, although females outnumbered males in the sample. Data from the
ICMI and CIS questionnaires suggest that the respondents cannot be
characterized as fantasy-prone personalities or as especially hypnotically
responsive. However, a cluster analysis of the primary MMPI scales reveals two
well-defined groups of abductees, clusters I and II. Cluster II has more
elevated scores on most MMPI primary scales and significantly higher scores on
the Keane PTSD subscale. This group also has significantly higher fantasy-
prone scores. Custer II respondents report more loneliness as adults, lower
levels of happiness throughout their life, more problems sleeping, and a
greater incidence of sexual abuse as children. The implications of these
results for current theories about the abduction experience are considered in
depth.
>>
JUFOS, New Series, Vol. 3, Page 59.
Here is another, this one from "Double Abduction Case: Correlation of Hypnosis
Data" by John Carpenter:
<<
This research note presents an example of the type of UFO report commonly
labeled as an "abduction" in popular writings of the UFO community. It is
presented to the serious research community as an example of the sort of data
available in surprisingly widespread cases to researchers and mental health
professionals employing accepted counseling techniques of interviews and
hypnosis. The independent interviewing and hypnotic regression of multiple
witnesses to a UFO close encounter are essential steps toward establishing a
credible account with minimal opportunity for contamination, suggestion, or
influential interactions. The separate hypnotic investigation of two or more
participants greatly decreases the likelihood that imagination, delusion, or
confabulation serve as explanations for these encounters.
>>
JUFOS, New Series, Vol. 3, Page 91.
As to your dream hypothesis, yes, the abduction experience shares many factors
in common with dreams. However, it also has factors that set it apart from
normal dreaming, some of which have been mentioned by others. Most notably, of
course, is the description of the beings, but there is also the non-randomness
of the order of events that take place - I know of no type of dream that has
this cohesive structure to it. Most important is the emotional reaction of the
subject to hypnotic recall of the events. I don't think mere dreams can evoke
such strong responses. (I could be wrong about this; can anyone set me
straight?)
In order for the dream hypothesis to be tenable, Steve, you will have to
account for these discrepancies. Perhaps there is another form of mentally-
generated imagery that we have yet to quantify, perhaps it is triggered by
some chemical reaction that takes place in some people's brains under certain
circumstances. I'd be willing to look at data in support of something like
this. But mere dreams? I don't think so, and neither does anyone else in the
professional community that I know of.
Jim
----------
===========================================================================
BBS: Flite-Line
Date: 08-14-92 (11:32) Number: 5150
From: JIM SPEISER Refer#: NONE
To: GERALD SANDERS Recvd: NO
Subj: What does it all mean? Conf: (46) UFO(Fido)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GS>Until abductees or other individuals with hard evidence step
GS>forward, the whole movement will be relegated to the Weekly World News
GS>crowd and, eventually, be thrown on the scrap heap with the Utopians
GS>and countless other movements that collapsed under the weight
GS>of their own dogma and/or silliness.
Gerald:
Much of what you say is true, of course, but much of it seems to be based on
the mistaken premise that the purpose of this echo, and of ufology in
general, is to prove that UFOs are ET spacecraft. As to this echo, there is
of course no amount of ASCII rantings that will even prove the writer's
identity, let alone the nature of UFOs. We see messages here all the time
asking for "proof," and I picture a hand emerging from someone's monitor
holding a chunk of molten, unearthly metal, and a voice saying, "So there.
Nyah." Short of that, I don't really see what is expected out of a computer
echo.
As to ufology in general, it is important to remember the words of Hynek:
"Ufology does not study UFOs, it studies UFO _reports_." Which is to say
that we are not here to answer the question, "Do UFOs exist" or "What planet
do UFOs come from," but "Why do people report seeing UFOs?" Thus the
solution set is expanded to include sociological, as well as
phenomenological possibilities. From that standpoint, it is an exercise in
misdirection to focus on "proof" so single-mindedly as to imply that the
entire field is unworthy of serious discussion until such "proof" is
forthcoming.
Do certain people here take certain UFO "truisms" as given? Yes. For some,
they represent a belief system; for most, however, they are merely a
starting point for discussion. This echo would dry up and blow away if no
one could post without absolute proof positive of whatever they proposed.
For that matter, so would all of science.
And that, I believe, is the central point. Much of science deals with things
that are unproven. This is not a barrier to discussion or even speculation
in the mainstream sciences, yet it seems that when it comes to UFOs, its
"put up or shut up." Many of us recognize the need for proving our
assertions, and we accept the challenge of "extraordinary claims demand
extraordinary proof." What we resent is the implication that, in the absence
of such proof, we are doing no more than engaging in mental masturbation and
tabloid-style pseudo-science. This does not seem to apply to such unproven
postulates as black holes, super-string theory, or what happened one
millisecond after the Big Bang; why does it apply here?
If your answer is the lack of evidence to support the very _existence_ of an
unexplained phenomenon, I must take issue. While the field is, as you say,
rife with anecdotes and unproven assertions, there IS a solid body of data
constituting evidence of an unexplained and _paradoxical_ phenomenon. This
database includes thousands of reports of _high strangeness_ from highly
reliable sources, reports that transcend the "Threshold of Observational
Ambiguity." This means that the degree of strangeness involved obviates the
tired old chestnut of "misperceived prosaic phenomena" and places the
reports in a realm where the only two realistic choices are fabrication -
deliberate or not - and objective reality. When such reports come from
multiple independent witnesses of unimpeachable character, I submit that it
is unrealistic to ascribe them to fabrication and it is time to start
dealing with the _possibility_ of objective reality. To propose otherwise is
to yourself breech the walls of "extraordinary claims."
The database also includes evidence of a more tangible nature. Certain
photographs have yet to be explained (and yes, they're a little fuzzy; I
don't trust the crystal-clear ones). Certain videos have undergone extensive
analysis by skeptical scientists and yet defy explanation. There are ground
traces which have undergone the same thorough testing; you can read the
results for yourself in "The Journal of UFO Studies," a refereed science
journal. The phenomenon as described _exists_ Gerald. I assure you, as a
card-carrying skeptic myself, I wouldn't be here if it didn't.
I emphasized "paradoxical" in the above text; the fascination the UFO
phenomenon holds for me is its paradoxical nature. We are told by science
that it is profoundly unlikely that UFOs could carry visitors from other
solar systems, and, having some inkling myself of the barriers involved, I
am forced to accept that (for the moment, anyway). Yet in light of the
evidence cited above, I submit that it is _equally_ unlikely that they're
"from here," either. They shouldn't be in our skies, yet they can't NOT be.
What's a scientist to do?
It is this concurrent duality that caused Vallee to speculate that it may be
time for a new scientific paradigm, Kenneth Ring to postulate his "Imaginal
Realm," and others to begin to investigate new ways of looking at reality.
No one is suggesting that we tear down the old house before building the new
one, but I think its fair to at least look at the proposed blueprints. I
submit that it is the job of mainstream science to help guide us through
this process, rather than sit back and laugh at our efforts, or turn a blind
eye to the questions raised by the evidence. I founded ParaNet as a means of
extending a hand to curious skeptics and even nay-sayers, to ask them to
join us in formulating a way out of this "hall of mirrors with a quicksand
floor." I extend the same hand to you, in the spirit of mutual curiosity and
cooperation. You ARE at least curious, aren't you?
Jim
* OLX 2.1 TD * A ParaNet Point System - Excellence in Ufology since 1986
--- GrayQwkMail 1.0
* Origin: ParaNet Zeta-Reticuli 9:1010/100.0 (UFOs R Us) (1:114/37)
**********************************************
* THE U.F.O. BBS -
http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo *
**********************************************
