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 * **********************************************