In article <7sfoivkvptvdbvijvjdecf3so0t9tv033j@4ax.com>, High_P�WE�D_T��L
says...

First of all why is it that, generally speaking, the individuals
selected by the aliens to be examined are usually regarded by their
neighbours and colleagues (before and after their abduction) as

Normal, like a regular cross-section of people.
Point in fact, engineers, doctors, police-people,
are all abductees.  Abductees cuts across
race, age, status etc.    Many scientific
studies have been done on this.

You need to read some abduction books.
Ask me for a list!

And, why stick things up the subjects rectum,
vagina, urethra down their throats? 

Again, read the material, talk to researchers and
the abductees themselves.  

The other point which has worried me for some time is the need by
aliens to have lights on the side of their space craft whilst in
flight? 

There is only evidence of lighting coming from somewhere.
Perhaps they use some contraption of free-energy,
but there is no indictaion of any light bulbs as such.

Perhaps this article will help you understand a little more:

ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE UFO ABDUCTION PHENOMENON by Budd Hopkins

It is in the nature of human psychology that an event as dramatic as contact
with extraterrestrial intelligence can not be thought about _neutrally_,
without deep-seated hopes and preconceptions. Most of us, I'm certain,
prefer to believe that extraterrestrials would arrive on our planet as
friendly, helpful beings, eager to share their technology and to aid us in
solving our social and ecological problems. Upon this basic and very human
wish certain people have erected a powerful set of interpretations of
modern-day UFO reports. These hopes, hardened into a kind of theology, can
be described as a modern religion, willed into existence after the decline
of our more traditional deities. After all, we have been told more than once
that God is dead.

On the other hand, our recent wars, both hot and cold, and the venality and
deceit we have seen in many of our political leaders have also inspired an
undercurrent of pessimism, global in extent. International chaos, terrorism
and governmental incompetence have trained many of us always to expect the
worst. And so, if the majority opinion, or hope, is that extraterrestrials
would arrive as space brothers, a strong minority opinion fears the opposite
- that we would find ourselves taken over by a band of inter-galactic
conquerors. Our popular science fiction films spell out these hopes and
fears quite literally: We have the kindly Space Brother, Michael Rennie,
stepping out of a gleaming spaceship to help earthlings through their
troubles, and then we have the Body Snatchers out to do us all in. I've
dwelt on these basic attitudes about extraterrestrial contact for an
important reason: when we examine reports of actual contact, especially as
revealed in UFO abduction encounters, we must always bear in mind our basic
preconceptions and how they might influence our reading of these events.

After twelve years of experience investigating the abduction phenomenon, I
will not deal with the validity of such reports in this paper. I've
considered this issue elsewhere, in two books and a number of articles, so
we will here assume that the abductees I've worked with, more than a hundred
and fifty in all, are telling the truth as they best recall it. I will
concentrate instead on what information we can derive from their accounts
that might bear on the question of the moral nature of the UFO phenomenon.
Are the UFO occupants, as they are described by their abductees, good or
bad, friends or foes, or is the situation just not reducible to such terms?
The very first step, obviously, is to analyze what the abductees say they
feel about their captors, and that, every investigator knows, is a complex
task. My twelve years' experience leads me to a distinct conclusion: each
abductee's emotions are invariably intense and many-leveled - and usually
mutually contradictory.

First of all, confrontations with UFO occupants are generally experienced as
frightening, so fear, at some point, is an almost universal element in the
emotional mix. Second, there is a kind of awe or wonder at the power and
seeming magic of the aliens' technology. This often translates itself into a
kind of affection, even love, that an abductee might feel for the particular
captor with whom he or she senses a special relationship. On the other side
of the same coin there is an almost universal anger - verging sometimes on
hatred - that abductees feel towards their abductors because of their
enforced helplessness, their sense of having been used, involuntarily, and
even, upon occasion, of being made to suffer severe pain. According to every
broad study of the abduction literature that I know of, and Edward Bullard's
is the most authoritative [ParaNet members - see FUFOR.ORD], fear, awe,
affection and anger are the basic emotional components of almost every UFO
abduction experience. It is safe to say, then, that _powerful and confusing_
emotions follow such experiences, and that after their encounters abductees
do not believe they have been taken either by purely malevolent foes nor by
selfless, angelic space brothers. The situation is far too complicated for
either simplistic reading.

During the past eight years I have conducted an informal support group for
UFO abductees in the New York City area, and have kept in touch with many
others in various parts of the country. These circumstances have allowed me
to observe a number of men and women over an extended period of time, and to
see various patterns of response to their abduction experiences. The weight
of each component in the standard emotional mix varies widely from
individual to individual, and also changes with time within any one psyche.
But the basic components always seem to remain, subtly at odds with one
another, in each abductee. Several things must be kept in mind, however, as
we study the abductee's emotional charts. First, when one is abducted, he or
she is in something of an altered state, not unlike a hypnotic trance. The
abductee is _controlled_ by the abductors and his or her behavior is in many
ways far from normal. The abductee may be told things, shown things, that
may not be true or "real." So in this context we must consider the
abductee's occasional affection for his or her captors. Psychologists have
shown that this phenomenon, the "Patty Hearst" syndrome, all too often
appears in earthly kidnapping experiences. Therefore in evaluating the four
emotions commonly described by UFO abductees, three seem appropriate but one
must be dealt with warily. Fear is something one would surely expect if the
aliens actually look and act as reported by their captives. Feelings of awe
at the alien's technological magic, an emotion that again seems appropriate.
Anger, often to an extreme degree, seems to be most abductee's reaction to
being paralyzed and controlled by their captors. The physically invasive and
sometimes painful operations performed upon them underline this response,
which is often deepened because the UFO occupants usually refuse to discuss
the purpose of these disturbing procedures. One has no choice except to
submit to needles, lights, knives, "scanners" and so forth, with no power to
protest or refuse. "I feel like a lab rat," one abductee said, her anger
entirely appropriate to her situation. It is the odd affection abductees
often report feeling for their captors that seems suspect, under the
circumstances. Is this feeling possibly an artificial emotion, induced
telepathically through some kind of quasi-hypnotic control? Is it a version
of the "Patty Hearst" syndrome? Is it a genuine reaction? Obviously no one
can answer these questions satisfactorily, but it seems to me that affection
is the one common abduction response that must be viewed with suspicion.

When one tries to tally up the pros and cons of an abduction experience as
it immediately and visibly affects human emotion, it can be said that two
reactions are essentially negative, or even damaging. Fear and anger, which
are often felt deeply as terror and hatred, are surely disruptive of
anyone's life. The sense of awe, while basically neutral and sometimes
tinged with fear, may enhance one's world view, and thus contribute
positively. The fourth and most suspect emotion, affection for one's
captors, if genuine, is a positive one. So the emotional "score" after an
abduction experience does not support either a simple "Space Brother" or
"Body Snatcher" interpretation. Judging purely by obvious surface reactions
we are still in ethically mixed territory, though to me and to many
abductees the negative effects seem more powerful than the positive.

Moving away from the patterns of the abductees' immediate emotional
responses, we can evaluate the ethical content of an extraterrestrial
presence by considering another, larger plane. Is there any evidence that
extraterrestrial intelligence has actively intervened in human affairs,
either helpfully or destructively? The modern era of UFO activity begins in
earnest in 1947, but many UFO reports surfaced during World War II in the
phenomenon labeled "foo fighters" by our airmen. No force, either
extraterrestrial or otherwise, put a stop to the Holocaust until the Allied
armies conquered Nazi Germany. By then it was too late for millions of
innocent people, murdered by a system no one seemed able to stop. The United
States developed nuclear weapons and used them to incinerate tens of
thousands of children, women and men. No one, terrestrial or otherwise,
prevented those bombs from falling. Continuing Stalinist butchery,
international terrorism, American intervention in a Vietnamese civil war -
all meant that thousands upon thousands of innocent people lost their lives
because of the cruelty or indifference of political leaders of every
persuasion. No one intervened. Michael Rennie, alas, never stepped out of
his space ship to save us from ourselves. We have polluted our planet,
spreading cancer by industry's greedy indifference to the consequences of
chemical "bonanzas." No one came to our rescue; the Chariots of the Gods
evidently drew up just to watch the damage deepen. And now we have a new
plague - the disease known by its ironic acronym AIDS...something fresh and
new that we apparently did not have before the advent of the modern UFO era.

Now all of this means one thing. As a moral presence the UFO phenomenon
seems sublimely indifferent to what we do to ourselves. Intervention is
evidently not part of the plan, as diving into the surf to rescue a drowning
child is sometimes not part of an indolent sunbather's plans. On the other
hand there seems to be no evidence that an extraterrestrial presence has
inflicted any excess pain upon us, either. If Michael Rennie's alien only
saves us in Hollywood films, the evil, intervening Body Snatchers seem only
to exist there, too. I believe that the cruelty that mankind has endured in
this century has an all too human origin; one doesn't have to look to
spaceships for its cause. And we look to them in vain even for first aid,
let alone salvation. But how should we evaluate what seems inescapable
evidence of extraterrestrial indifference to human tragedy? I feel that the
grades should be harsh. The power and technology revealed by UFO report upon
UFO report indicates that intervention of some kind should have been
possible; help should have been given. Apologists for a Space Brothers
theory use the same argument as Christian Apologists: The UFO occupants,
like God, tolerate evils such as the Holocaust because life is only a
fleeting reality - the afterlife, or a reincarnated life, renders this
question moot. As a Humanist I disagree. The death of a child at the hands
of a gun-bearing adult is an abomination, not a necessary learning
experience. The only excuse I can offer for extraterrestrial indifference is
some kind of flaw in their apparent power, some very real vulnerability that
might provide them with an excuse to avoid moral responsibility the way our
indolent sunbather could avoid trying to save the drowning child because he,
himself, might be unable to swim.

A few valid UFO cases contain accounts of healing, descriptions of wounds
healed, eyesight strengthened and so on, after UFO abductions or encounters.
However, these rare examples of healing raise more ethical problems than
they solve. If the occupants of UFOs _do_ have the power to heal, why is it
used so sparingly, so arbitrarily? Why save one swimmer and let the others
drown? A woman I've worked with and know well was abducted along with her
older sister; each had had childhood abductions, each had lived uneasily
with her memories. Last spring the older sister was murdered in a park, by
an apparently deranged individual. The tragedy had nothing to do with UFOs,
but my friend said this to me: "I always thought, somehow, they were looking
out for us, watching over the people they'd taken in these experiments. Now
I know I'm no safer than anyone else. They don't seem to care." And yet in
one case I know about an abductee was apparently saved in a similar
situation. The arbitrariness of it all undermines any attempt to accept a
Space Brother reading of the entire phenomenon. Amorality is the term that
comes most quickly to mind.

If the immediate emotional reactions to UFO abductions are usually more
negative than positive, and there is literally no sign of benign
extraterrestrial intervention in world affairs, there is still one more area
to examine, and it is extremely important. It is the long term psychological
aftereffects of UFO abductions experiences. Dr. Aphrodite Clamar, a clinical
psychologist with whom I have worked in many such investigations, has stated
that she feels almost every abductee she has dealt with has been
psychologically scarred by the experience. This is surely my opinion also,
and I believe that the psychological tests of abductees administered by Dr.
Elizabeth Slater, as well as the psychological histories taken through
Columbia Presbyterian Hospital in New York City all provide support for this
thesis. Though she points out that cause and effect obviously cannot be
established with certainty, Dr. Slater describes the psychological profiles
of the nine abductees she tested as resembling those found with rape victims
- a low self-esteem, a distrust of their bodies, their physicality, their
sexuality, and a hesitancy to trust others. Not a pretty legacy from our
would-be Space Brothers.

My case files include three instances in which individuals - all males and
apparently somewhat depressed to begin with - committed suicide after what
were described by their friends and family as UFO abduction experiences. And
there is more on this debit side of the ledger, including what seems to have
been an accident following a car-stopping incident and abduction; the
driver, the only surviving parent of four children, died later of
complications suffered in this encounter. Two female abductees I've worked
with either planned or carried out suicide attempts when they were ten years
old, and another recent attempt involves a frightened, despondent
fourteen-year-old girl.

No one who has had this experience regards it as an unmitigated blessing.
Some live in perpetual terror. Some have suffered nervous breakdowns, and as
a result of their experiences and the chemical and shock treatments
administered by baffled and incompetent doctors, are living thoroughly
damaged lives. I have seen disfiguring scars on the bodies of abductees who
have involuntarily been used in the UFO occupant's "medical" procedures. Yet
I have also seen abductees whose lives have been undeniably broadened by
their bizarre experiences; survivors who have managed the human task of
surmounting their traumas and gaining something >from them. The reports,
again, are mixed, but the pain and suffering are immense. Deaths, injuries,
terrors and mental breakdowns must be weighed against a philosophical
broadening in many individuals, an awareness that the universe is larger -
and closer - than anyone had imagined. The cost, of course, has been
tremendous, and the gain due more to human resilience than alien kindness.

But there is, I believe, an explanation for the apparently callous and often
destructive behavior of the aliens who perpetrate these temporary
kidnappings of innocent men, women and children. One vivid example should
make the point. Two years ago a man in Minnesota whom I shall call Earl
wrote to me about his partially remembered UFO experiences. Eventually I
visited him on his farm, and we began a series of hypnotic regressions. He
recalled a time years before when his wife had been helping him harvest a
crop of hay in a rather isolated field. She lay down to rest on the wagon
while Earl worked a few hundred yards away...but then he saw three small
UFOs fly in at tree-top level and hover above his sleeping wife. One of them
lowered to the ground as Earl put his tractor in gear and raced to her side
to protect her from whatever was happening. A normal looking blond man,
speaking English, stepped from behind the clump of trees where the UFO had
landed and asked Earl to stop; "Everything is all right," he said. "She
won't be hurt." Earl ignored him and leaped off the tractor, continuing on
foot towards the wagon where his wife lay, surrounded now by small,
gray-skinned figures. Earl suddenly found himself paralyzed and helpless. He
stood there, unable to move, as the blond man continued speaking, assuring
him that "everything is all right. Nothing will happen to your mate." Earl
watched in horror as his paralyzed wife was undressed. A Long needle was
pushed into her abdomen as she lay on a bed of hay, crying out at the pain,
but unable to resist. Skin and hair samples were taken, and a thin probe was
inserted into her vagina. Still frozen in place, Earl cursed and raged, and
the blond man seemed genuinely surprised by his reaction. "We _want_ you to
see this," he said. "We're not hurting your mate. She'll be fine. Why are
you upset? We're not hurting her..."

The scene ended shortly thereafter, and the couple returned home, aware of a
period of missing time, but with no memories of the UFO encounter. In the
days and weeks after this event, Earl's wife began suffering from
nightmares, clawing in her sleep at the area near the bridge of her nose,
between her eyes, and screaming for them to "take it out, it's hurting." She
dug deep gouges in her forehead while the nightmares continued unabated.
Other symptoms of her terror appeared, half-understood recollections of the
events in the hay field. Eventually she had to be hospitalized, suffering
from a severe nervous breakdown. She lives at home now, tranquilized and
sadly no longer herself.

This story is but one of many which I could present to illustrate a central
point about UFO occupants and their relation to their human subjects: they
simply appear unable for the most part to understand us, our feelings, our
terrors, our love for one another. They seem psychologically blind to basic
human emotions. In my book _Intruders_ I recounted case after case in which
women were artificially inseminated or endured ovaretrieval operations, but
whose reactions of rage or terror seemed surprising to their captors. These
impassive UFO occupants seem as remote from our "peculiar" human emotions as
they are from our obviously differing anatomy; perhaps more so. And their
basic lack of understanding provides us with a kind of excuse for their
callous behavior.

It seems to me that we are left with but two possibilities, neither of which
is very attractive. If the UFO occupants actually do understand us and can
empathize with our needs and emotions, then they are morally deficient --
even cruel in their single-minded selfishness. Not malevolent or
deliberately evil, but as callous as the sunbather who watches the child
drown in the surf. At some point, amoral behavior becomes immoral behavior.
But if these same alien beings _simply do not understand our feelings_, then
they have an excuse of sorts for their behavior. And the evidence suggest
they really may not know what disasters they sometimes cause. A female
abductee recently wrote me a letter which goes in part:

I was watching a show about animals, because I love animals. I don't know if
it was _Wild Kingdom_ or some _National Geographic_ show, but these
scientists were tracking some polar bears. They had all kinds of weird
looking equipment and were using a white board which rendered them invisible
in the snow to the bears. As I watched I got a real sick feeling in the pit
of my stomach. These scientists were dressed in identical white suits, lured
the bears closer, and drugged the big one with the cubs. The whole time they
were tagging her they were taking blood samples, measuring fat, checking
eyes, mouth, etc. And whenever the bear struggled they would pet her, talk
to her, tell her everything was going to be fine. The cubs stayed close. The
scientists placed a device on her that would track her for so many years.
They even marked her with a special paint that could be spotted from the
air. Then when they were through with her they ran and hid behind the big
screen so that when she woke up she wouldn't see them. She got up, looked
around, and ran so fast her cubs could hardly keep up. Imagine how she must
have felt the other times when they followed her in a helicopter. She could
run, but with that paint and homing device she could never hide! I think all
we are is a bunch of animals to these beings. Some little experiment that
has been ongoing for who knows how long. I don't like the idea of being
something's lab animal.

I thought about her letter, her understanding of the animal's plight and the
traumas inflicted by the scientists upon the bear and its cubs. These
zoologists - as well as the occupants of UFO's, one hopes - are all acting
from decent, scientific motives. And yet in both cases pain is inflicted,
paralysis is imposed, and traumatic terror is the result. Some animals might
abandon their cubs after such an experience or die of a mismeasured dose of
a tranquilizing drug or even die from pure shock, just as some humans, like
Earl's poor wife, may never recover from the horror of their experience. Sad
though this alternative seems, it is easier for me to believe that the
occupants of UFOs simply do not understand what they are doing to us, what
traumas they are inflicting, than to believe they do know and are merely
indifferent to human suffering.

I have talked to many people who will not give up on the benign Space
Brother reading of these cases, no matter what. At the outset I said that
our quasi-religious hopes die slowly. And so, despite massive negative
evidence, there are still many people who cling to the idea that somehow,
some way there may be _two_ alien groups, one bad and one good. The bad
group, according to this theory, does the abducting and experimenting while
the good group really loves and understands us. Sometimes a kind of sub rosa
Aryan racism can be detected beneath these hopes, in that the "grays," as
they have been called, are the bad aliens, while the more attractive
"blondes" are good. In my twelve years of investigation, however, the more
human-seeming aliens, whenever they are reported (as in the cases of Earl
and his wife or the Travis Walton abduction), seem to be operating as a team
right along with the so-called "grays," participating in
abductions-as-usual. There is not a shred of evidence that I know of
supporting this simple-minded good-guys, bad-guys dichotomy - but there is
plenty of evidence that this kind of wishful thinking is an all too common
psychological habit.

The Contactee phenomenon, discounted by almost all serious investigators,
represents the triumph of hope against reality, of need against evidence.
The abduction cases I've studied over the years can be defined as being, in
effect, "all evidence and no ideology," while the contactee cults are
essentially the opposite. Contactee messages, as passed on through helpful
"channels," reduce themselves generally to soft entreaties to love one
another, to make peace, not war, and to take care of our planet's precarious
ecology - in other words, the kind of cliche' even people like Reagan and
Gorbachev routinely utter in their formal speeches. (This kind of nebulous
message, it should be said, is sometimes also reported in valid UFO
abduction cases. What we really need, one abductee said to me, is actual
alien help in solving our problems, not just another newspaper editorial
pointing them out.) In short, there is no reason to assume that any benign
group of aliens anywhere has yet done anything truly helpful to our planet.
Such evidence simply does not exist.

The final difficulty in the cultist view of a "good alien - bad alien
duality" lies in the age-old problem of evil. If the bad aliens are hurting
us by their abductions, why don't the good aliens prevent it? For centuries
we've asked ourselves, if God is omnipotent, how can he permit, say, the
torture of children? Many of us felt that since no answer consistent with
the idea of God's omnipotence could satisfy us, there was something
seriously wrong with the theology. And so it is with this kind of alien
theology, apart from the fact that there is no credible evidence of any kind
indicating a struggle between rival alien groups. If there are various
groups of aliens from different places of origin in the Universe, they are
apparently all cooperatively doing the same thing to us, the human race -
and I for one think that what they're doing is, in the short term at least,
immensely destructive.

Once again we are back to the only two viable alternatives. Either the UFO
occupants have not grasped the psychological toll they are taking in these
abductions and genetic experiments because they really do not understand
human psychology, _or_ they must be viewed as a callous, indifferent, amoral
race bent solely upon gratifying its own scientific needs at whatever the
cost to us, the victims. The question of which alternative is true cannot be
presently answered. There is evidence to support both interpretations, but
I, for one, wish to choose the former.

Budd Hopkins