UFO UpDates Mailing List
From: "Clark Hathaway" <earthwrk@cyberport.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 07:13:54 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 03:25:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Code of ethics
----------
> From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
> To: updates@globalserve.net
> Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Code of ethics
> Date: Tuesday, December 10, 1996 11:50 PM
>
> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 11:40:56 -0500
> From: "Steven J. Powell" <sjpowell@access.digex.net>
> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Code of ethics
> References: <2.2.32.19961210064513.00bf9188@globalserve.net>
>
> > From: "Clark Hathaway" <earthwrk@cyberport.com>
> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Code of ethics
> >
> > > > You open up a good point here John, fortunately
> > > > those who are properly trained have it covered.;-)
> > > I wish that were true.
> > It is my friend. But considering those like Boylan, I can
see
> > why you feel this way.
>
> Well, if we use the overly simple analogy that life is a
football game
> we get three types of people: Spectators, players (et. al.)
and those
> on the bench (for whatever reason).
>
> Psychology's two primary purposes, within the context of the
analogy,
> are: 1) to get folks off the bench either by getting them back
in the
> game or by getting them in the seats watching the game; 2) Try
and
> determine what got them on the bench in the first place so as
to better
> develop methodologies for helping future benchees.
Good analogy!
> We are incorrect if we expect traditional psychologists to be
the alien
> abduction private detectives that the abductionists pretend to
be. That
> is something they are _not_ trained for and something they are
generally
> _not_ going to be good at.
Correct. But, due to the tremendous amount of psychic shock
attendant to most if not all 'alien' abduction cases, these are
the 'professionals' who are likely to be chosen to deal with the
problem. Privately (now known by any who reads this), I feel
that the shock would be better dealt with by one steeped in
spirituality then in psychology. I suspect that spirituality has
everything to do with the problem. By 'spirituality' I AM not
necessarily referring to those of a clerical persuasion,
although there are certainly those of the ministry that are of a
high degree of spirituality. There are a multitude of facets to
this gem of inquiry my friend. Among these is awareness.
> Tough question: What's more important - getting the
self-claimed
> abductees off the bench and back into the game; or, finding
out what
> really happenned to them?
Both are of equal importance John and both can be accomplished
in my view.
> Take a glance at the Hippocratic Oath and it'll give you a
clue as to
> the answer the mental health community selects.
Don't get me started on that one! <grin>
> So, if we separate treatment from the detective work I think
we can see
> that virtually all MHPs are basically qualified to initiate
(or to
> facilitate) work with a self-claimed abductee.
The only facet of the equation that pertains to mental health
and this is marginal, is the extreme amount of trauma
emotionally that one receives as a result of this type of
experience. I was very nearly a basket case by the time that
hypno-regression was offered to me by a practicing psychologist.
Having had no other offered alternative or not being aware of
one, I jumped at the chance.
> Another misconception regarding psychotherapy that sometimes
confuses
> things is the notion that whatever it is that's bother someone
must be
> either proven right to be dealt with successfully or must be
proven
> wrong and elimnated from their minds before theraputic success
can
> occur. Both are completely wrong and neither are a part of
traditional
> psychotherapy.
I suppose to some degree I experienced this, but as you must
realize, I AM somewhat an independent thinker and I couldn't
honestly buy the 'party line'. I have always run partially on my
intuition and at times it has kept me alive. Don't ask me to
elaborate because I won't.
Be that as it may, when I have chosen not to follow my intuition
I can state that it served to cause me to remember that I should
have. <grin> My intuition has screamed that there is more to my
experience then meets the eye. I have been extremely reluctant
to go back into it. Perhaps I AM becoming ready to enter into
what exactly happened once again.
> A good example is a somewhat unorthodox psychotherapist
(sorry, can't
> remember his name, he's in Florida) who pretty much routinely
uses
> hypnotic regression on patients with various phobias. He
regresses them
> back through 'time' until he comes across an incident
involving the
> object of the patient's phobia (spiders, deep water, whatever)
and then
> focuses on that incident to _begin_ treatment on the phobia.
He has a
> phenomenal success rate in treating phobias. He doesn't for a
second
> 'believe' in past life regression but he knows the value of
personal
> memory and personal experiences. Toward the end of the
treatment he
> counsels his patients that past lives may or may not be real,
what's
> real is that they were once stricken with a particular phobia
and now
> are not.
A wise man. I have watched Julie use similar technique.
> > > Hypnotic regression is simply an unreliable and not
> > > infrequently an undesirable tool - that's why.
> > I recognize that I cannot change your mind John. I will
however
> > continue to maintain that used properly with attendant
> > safeguards to contamination, hypnosis is an excellent tool
in
> > this type of research.
>
> Well, I suspect the debate on hypnotic regression isn't going
to go away
> anytime soon so you and can just respectfully disagree for now
<grin>.
It takes an intelligent, honest and unbiased practitioner.
However, it is O.K. that we have different opinions, I still
like yuh. <grin>
> > > Sorry, but that's just not the case. Age is a probably a
> > > factor but it doesn't magically get better or go away with
adults.
> > I'd appreciate some reference to documentation that what was
> > stated above by you is in fact valid.
>
> I have several papers on my BBS dealing with eyewitness
observation
> studies. Children are more easily fooled, and more easily
fool
> themselves but the problem doesn't go away with age. Adult
> observational accuracy is only about 50%.
Julie states that she is familiar with what you are stating and
that you are correct.
But she adds, that has nothing to do with hypnosis and
everything to do with eyewitness observation. Eyewitness
accounts contain the most fault of all as they are nearly in
every case different from one another.
> > problems, John. This is NOT a scientific problem, but one of
> > awareness. Cognition.
> > The problem exists upon many levels and is real. However, it
is
> > not going to be studied with any chance of success using
> > traditional methodology. Once one accepts this, new
> > possibilities begin to arise.
>
> If that's true then we're going to be waiting a _LONG_
time...<grin>
Perhaps. I sincerely hope not as our future existence may very
well depend upon it.
> > John, it occurs to me that one does what I did. I know that
you
> > cannot appreciate what a state of distress that I found
myself
> > within. I need to remind you that I did have a witness to
attend
> > phenomena to my abduction. I AM referring to the paranormal
> > occurrences going on while I was being taken. I might add
that
> > this person was out of sightline to me.
>
> I can only, just barely, in the most modest way, appreciate
what you
> experienced. But remove yourself from the equation for a
moment. You
> had extraordinary experiences, some of which may have been
witnessed (or
> maybe they were shared). But aside from the testimonial power
of taking
> your word for it how do we objectify the experiences and
convince anyone
> else that they occurred?
I don't know other than to undertake what you have suggested,
that is to be constantly monitored.
However, I want to present another can of worms.
This may in reality be a REAL catch 22, John.
The indicator of this is the seeming fact that the phenomena
itself controls it's own flow of information concerning itself.
Vallee has done a lot of discussion on this aspect if I
understand it correctly. I suspect that in many if not all of
the cases, if a person is being monitored, the events will cease
or failing that the monitoring equipment will be rendered
useless for a period of time corresponding to yet another
reported abduction. What does one do in such a situation? It is
obvious that something is occurring, but what?
> Its not up to me to believe or disbelieve someone. How do we
_prove_ to
> someone that something happenned?
You got me, buddy. Still, you have to admit that based upon the
numbers alone, there is something decidedly strange going on. I
feel it is ominous. It serves to unsettle me to a degree.
I don't feel good about it when I think of it. Furthermore on
another note, it is most unsettling to note that on the New
Age/UFO/E.T. conference circuit, we witness proclaimed experts
declaring that the Alien Space Brothers are on their way here
with eminent arrival to completely restructure our systems of
religion and to replace the ten commandments.
What does that tell you about the experts that promote this type
of material?
I suggest that these folks are looking for a messiah that is,
someone to relieve them of the responsibilities for their own
actions. This was the case of the Jews when Jesus came onto the
scene. They were looking for the messiah to take them out of
hard times to sever the Roman yoke.
> > > There isn't any scientific evidence regarding the Walton
case.
> > > Lots of circumstantial evidence to strongly suggest that
something
> > > happenned but nothing to really indicate what it was that
happenned.
> > Circumstantial evidence gets people convicted of crimes in
> > courts of law all of the time John. ;-)
>
> No argument there. But imagine this: Imagine the leaders of
the AMA,
> the APA and a dozen other prestigeous medical groups held a
news
> conference and announced that, Yes, aliens are here abducting
people.
You gonna have some panic'd people.
> That constitutes recognition of the (alleged) problem but what
good
> would it do, what would happen next?
After the excitement wore down, it might get some real and
useful research in progress.
I AM compelled to add however, that this research does not
necessarily call for an abundance of mental health
professionals. I don't feel professional status or occupation in
these regards are as important as ethical principles.
> > > That might very well be true but statements like that sail
> > > right over the heads of traditional scientists <grin>.
> > Then I suggest that they are not living up to the spirit of
> > their calling. In true 'science' John, an open mind is
called
>
> Although they don't get much press and even less funding there
are a
> number of folks out there working as you suggest. To a
scientist having
> an open mind means accepting the possibility that some such
thing
> _might_ exist, _then_ trying to prove that it does by
understanding
> how it works, etc. The folks working in science who have this
> non-openned mind approach as you define it are actually in the
minority.
I understand that. I have even met a couple who privately shared
with me the strange events that they had experienced not too
dissimilar to my own. Perhaps what is needed is a revolution of
sorts that will remove the minority from visibility and place
those of true ethics in the spotlight.
However, how this could be accomplished I have no idea. Somehow
these in the minority should be shown for the scam artists that
they are.
> But I don't think this is about scientists having an open
mind. I'll go
> out on a limb and suggest that this is really about
experiencer's
> wanting much greater acceptance than they currently have...
I don't know. I have somewhat disassociated myself from the
emotional turmoil that was a result of my experience(s). It
doesn't bother me overmuch that you can't accept outright what I
recall happened to me. To you it is only information subject to
question. It is not a part of your subjective experience ...I.E:
Knowledge. To me however, a good deal of it is knowledge.
> > Electronic monitoring. I suppose it is possible John, but at
> > what cost?
>
> A few thousand dollars, at most. Possibly even for free _IF_
abductees
> were to start filing police reports.
I would be willing to do that as I AM sure others would, if
assured that there would be NO ridicule from those within this
profession. I feel however, that this is extremely unlikely.
> > > That's why unaided human eye observations are so
unreliable,
> > > as are any sighting stories that result from them.
> > You missed what I was suggesting, John.
> > But then that is indicative of the entire problem as it
stands
> > anyway.
> > It is a problem of awareness you see.
> > That is why some will see them while others don't.
>
> You lost me on that one. Please try again.
Some will see paranormal occurrences while some won't.
There is much more to 'sight' then the physical eyes.
Something does NOT have to be a part of everyone's subjective
experience in order to be real.
> > > If we expand our awareness into other realms all we'll do
is
> > > get so far away from the real world that whatever we
discover will
> > > be so incompatible with the real world that no one will
believe us
> > > and we won't have the scientific evidence necessary to
convince
> > > them.
> > Well we seem to have a different opinion as to what
constitutes
> > reality.
>
> Its been my experience that reality does not care what our
opinion of it
> is <grin>!
Hahahaha! Too true!
But seriously, reality is composed of strata or levels John.
All do not experience all of these levels at once or even during
this lifetime.
> > Reality is on the move. It is changing. This can be said
> > anytime, but never has it had the dynamic validity as it
does
> > today. The traditional ways of viewing and responding are
simply
> > a lot less valid. That is why we witness so much insanity
during
> > these times John. This is due to the basic inability of some
to
> > expand their awareness and to keep up with the changes that
are
> > occurring within reality. What you state above seems to me
to be
> > based in fear.
>
> I think you've lost me again. Reality is. That is a
fundamental
> concept that would require an enormous amount of scientific
evidence to
> shake. One very basic assumption is that there is a thing
called
> 'reality' that we can, with much work, observe and figure out.
Reality IS, yes, but it is composed of layers or levels.
Energy IS and All is composed of energy. Matter and energy after
all is transmutable.
Energy can be described as vibrating at different frequency,
that is the different components that comprise it vibrate at
different rates. What I AM suggesting here is that as this
planet's rate of vibrational frequency is on the rise, so it is
that everything of a non-sentient nature is rising with it.
Occupants of this planet that bear sentience must let go of
certain qualities that serve as restriction in order to rise
along with everything else. This higher frequency is disrupting
the natural electrochemical action within the brains of many of
those who are most resistant to this vibratory rise. These may
all be metaphysical tenets to be sure, but I believe that I read
a respectable scientific report somewhere that indicated that
the vibratory rate of this planet was indeed on the upswing.
Although not constituting absolute proof of the above, the
indications are there.
> On the flip side, we do _assume_ that while 'reality' changes
a tiny bit
> over time, and while we change a tiny bit over time, that the
combined
> change is not sufficient to invalidate 'reality' or our
observations of
> it. The dangerous assumption inherent in the basic assumption
is that
> we don't think our 'mind' (our consciousness) is changing
much. Since
> we do all of our observing and understanding with our mind it
would be a
> big problem if _that_ was the element that was
evolving...<grin>
All is in a flux of evolvement and change in my view, John.
> > Again I repeat: We are never going to get any traditional
> > scientific evidence as to the phenomena.
> > The phenomena itself controls the information concerning
itself.
> > It is nonetheless quite real!
>
> That _is_ scary!
Yup, but nonetheless REAL, John. I suspect that if we continue
to stick our collective heads in the sand, pretending it isn't
there ... hoping that it will go away, many are going to find
themselves neck deep or more in the doodoo!
> > > > Your confabulation can be undone by one trained
> > > > and skilled.
> > > Imposible. Once the confabulation is in there there is no
way
> > > to differentiate it from non-confabulation memory.
> > Explain to me please why you believe this to be so?
> > It is simply a matter of suggestion and a reminder of real
time
> > events.
> > I agree that it could prove to be laborious in some cases,
but
> > might be worth it.
>
> The human mind uses all sorts of checks and balances during
normal
> conscious worktime to 'determine' the veracity of incoming
data
> (memory). Most if not all of those checks and balances are
suspended or
> drastically reduced during hypnotic regression. An item comes
into a
> person's memory stream without passing through those checks
and balances
> and once it is there it is recorded as if it _did_ pass
through those
> checks and balances. In other words, the person 'acquires'
these
> 'memories' and has no real reason to disbelieve them and every
reason to
> accept them. They are stored in the person's mind as if they
were real
> and once stored that way they cannot be changed (without
active,
> aggressive and intrusive "brainwashing").
I must constitute an anomaly, John. I remember things and for me
they are extremely real, but certain of these I strongly
question. Even though I disagree with nearly everything that the
practitioner who regressed me espouses, he did not create any
confabulation in my mind by suggestion as to where my experience
was leading. I would like to lay that on his doorstep along with
other things, but I honestly can't.
> > > > > Oh, the other thing to do is electronically moniter
> > > > > self-claimed abductees but nobody seems to want to do
that.
> > > > Oh? I'd volunteer. <grin>
> > > Are you being abducted on a semi-routine schedule?
> > Not that I know of. The nature of the phenomena in it's
> > interface with me has changed John.
> > This is due to a conscious degree of heightened awareness on
my
> > part. Having read that I can see that to some this might
> > constitute an egotistical statement if viewed from one
> > direction. All I AM stating to you is that I have done a
number
> > of inner exercises that possibly precludes their being
capable
> > of easily abducting me. In any event their approach is far
> > different today.
>
> I guess that's good news.
There have been encounters of sorts and attempts, but they have
been nipped in the bud.
I can tell you that these were of a purely paranormal nature.
Most of them involved Julie as well.
> One of the basic elements of the alien abduction event
scenario is that
> abductions routinely occur to abductees and are
cross-generational.
> That should make it easy to find suitable candidates for
electronic
> monitoring.
Yes, I understand this to be true. I do not know if this applies
in my case and if it did, I feel sure that it would be strongly
denied.
> > The etheric is an
> > exact blueprint of the physical body. This is the reality
behind
> > an amputee for instance, insisting that he/she can still
feel
> > his/her missing limb.
>
> I've never read a good definition of what is meant by
'etheric' but now
> it makes sense!
Thank you! It is a 'finer' level of reality then we are
normally used to operating upon on a regular basis. Some are
capable of viewing what is occurring on this level as well as
"normal' , physical reality. It is in fact just as physical as
this level, but of 'finer' substance.
Perhaps a perusal of some of the more quality occult literature
is in order here.
Some go a lot further by way of explanation of these matters
than I.
Julie suggests C.W. Leadbeater, Annie Bassett or Blavatsky.
I would suggest the Lemurian Fellowship.
> > Perhaps on a physical level. However, I have suggested based
> > upon my experience that not all or even a majority (IMO) of
> > these cases take place purely upon a physical level. In
fact, I
> > wonder how many do occur on a purely physical level. In any
> > case, no matter what level they are occurring on, they are
in
> > fact occurring. When it does occur, there is usually a great
> > deal of trauma associated with the occurrence.
>
> NO argument about the trauma. I (personal opinion) suspect
that they
> are not physical events at all. Electronic monitoring would
likely
> prove that. That doesn't mean it isn't real but it would
change the
> direction of abduction research.
I could recite a few of the more recent episodes that would
underline what you suggest above.
Julie awoke in the middle of the night during one of these to
see a gray coming out of the ceiling above pulling me up toward
it out of my body. The more physical portion of my body still
reposed flat on it's back. She made a loud noise and I vividly
recall her stating that if I lay back they couldn't take me.
Needless to say, I did. Now this isn't something that any
instruments can capture other than the physical secondary sounds
which aren't necessarily present in each occurrence or all
occurrences.
The above is the tail end of one of these episodes. What started
the episode was Julie being awakened by a droning noise that
increased in volume. She opened her eyes and began to notice
that the room we were in was becoming lighter and lighter. She
could 'feel' who ever was causing this become cognizant of the
fact that she (Julie) was aware of what was going on. At that
point, the room began to grow dimmer. Julie would close her eyes
to experience the same thing a little later on. She stated to me
the next day that she found the event to be extremely
interesting.
Finally she went totally back to sleep only to be awakened with
the view of me being pulled upward.
No such activity has occurred since we have been here in the
four corners area.
> > > Well, sure something is going on. The point is to prove
that
> > > it is something _not_ already known to and described by
science and
> > > reality.
> > I think that this is already self evident John.
> > The problem as I see it, is what can be done about it?
>
> You were wearing your experiencer hat when you wrote that.
Put on your
> ordinary-person hat for a moment. Suppose, after electronic
monitoring
> of a few hundred self-claimed abductees over a 12 to 18-month
period not
> a single _physical_ event was recorded but dozens and dozens
of
> abductions were remembered. Suppose then that a few folks
developed
> some form of personal mental training, and with proper
testing,
> determined that this reduced the number of abductions.
I follow you. However, this training that I alluded to isn't
necessarily mental, but spiritual.
> Suppose this was done by _real_ mainstream scientists and
MHPs. Even
> then do you think the taxpayers of this country would stand
still for
> nationwide taxpayer-funded abductee version of a flu-shot???
Again, I follow you. However, not many medical people in my
experience would be qualified to provide this training much less
suggest where to obtain it. I also wish to point out that those
who are qualified to provide this training would accept very
little recompense for it. It would also be extremely difficult
if not impossible to provide this type of training in a
classroom type setting.
But then again, I might be serving to limit things. :-)
It occurs however that given the trauma that those experiencing
these phenomena experience, I imagine that they would be quite
willing to place a high value upon anything that would alleviate
their suffering. I suppose that were I determined to be
qualified to render this service, I would probably figure that a
fee would be determined by the amount of one's income or
monetary worth.
It could be set up on a donation basis, but let's face it the
folks that rendered the service probably wouldn't even be able
to pay for their gas. <grin>
> > > Yes, well, sort of <grin>.
> > Well then. What I see is needed is for a melding of sorts to
> > occur between the more traditional sciences and
Parapsychology.
> > This might serve to move in the proper direction toward
solving
> > these problems.
>
> You and I won't live long enough to see that. We know that
dowsing is a
> real, objective and physical phenomenon but we really don't
have a good
> model for how it works. We know that magnetic fields are
somehow
> involved in functinal dowsing but we don't really know how.
We also
> know that magnetic fields are involved in a number of
mind-reality
> phenomena, some of which are observational. That's (so far as
I know)
> about the sum total of what we can safely say we know to date.
(Except
> that magnetic fields, like gravitational fields, don't exist
on their
> own but are the result of something else.)
O.K. I'll tell you that I strongly feel that the majority of
mankind had better see it John.
This phenomena is occurring to more and more people all of the
time.
We are entering a new paradigm and I feel that mankind's well
being as a whole may depend upon this. There are those of
mankind however that will feel no impact of these occurrences.
> The challenge is to stop pretending, and to stop allowing
others to
> pretend, that we or they are MHPs. Suspend our odd desire to
know
> what these experinces are long enough to allow experiencers
the proper
> therapy they (may) need.
I do not feel that these phenomena fall into an MHP realm John.
It is NOT a mental phenomena. Some of the cases may occur at
least partially on a physical (third dimensional) level, but
other aspects of each case seem to occur on a higher level of
reality.
Our explanation of the etheric seemed to make some sense to you.
If this is in fact a level of reality in support of the physical
as I have tried to indicate, and most of the occurrences do take
place upon this and/or the astral or auric, then perhaps you
can extrapolate the possible ramifications upon the physical.
I AM suggesting that perhaps mankind is being undermined here.
Kindest Regards,
Clark Hathaway
UFO UpDates - Toronto -
updates@globalserve.net
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-696-0304
A Hand-Operated E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related
Phenomena.
To subscribe please send your first and last name to
updates@globalserve.net
Message submissions should be sent to the same address.
|
Link it to the appropriate Ufologist or UFO Topic page. |
Archived as a public service by Area 51 Research Center which is not
responsible for content.
Financial support for this web server is provided by the
Research Center Catalog.
Software by Glenn Campbell.
Technical contact:
webmaster@ufomind.com