Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here UFOs | Paranormal | Area 51 People | Places | Random Top 100 | What's New Catalog | New Books Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Our Bookstore is OPEN Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1996 -> Dec -> Here

From: Jorgen Westman <west@tripnet.se>
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 23:51:47 +0100
Fwd Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 13:22:03 -0500
Subject: Re: 'Fake' and 'Self-Proclaimed'

> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 22:03:59 -0500
> From: Greg Sandow <GSANDOW@prodigy.net>
> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
> Subject: "fake" and "self-claimed"
> References: <2.2.32.19961211070158.00749fe4@globalserve.net>

> Going round the big red barn again, let's see if I can clarify two
> issues.

> Or maybe three. A while ago I noticed that two abductees, John Velez and
> Whitley Strieber, thought the alien picture Strieber posted here was
> more like the aliens they feel they've seen than any other picture
> known.

> That made me suggest a test. Show a group of abductees this picture and
> several others, of the standard alien. Ask them which picture is closest
> to the aliens they feel they've seen. If most of them pick the same
> one...

> So now for the objections. Dennis Stacy wrote:

> > Now guarantee that when they say they haven't seen it, they
> > haven't, indeed, seen it. Guarantee next that they haven't seen any similar
> > images now almost ubiquitous in the modern media, beginning with, say, the
> > cover of "Communion" itself.

> Well, of course they've seen these alien images, just as we all have. I
> don't think that's relevant, though. We'd be asking people who all agree
> on the general form of these aliens to pick a specific variant of it. If
> they agree on the variant -- on very fine details, in other words --
> then maybe they've actually seen the same thing.

> Hard to guarantee that they haven't seen it. That's a good point. I
> think we could be reasonably sure, because the new image hasn't gotten
> around much, and in any case, when I've seen abductees in group
> discussions, they're not very ufologically savvy. So if this new image
> only circulates in limited ufological circles (hmmm...what a name for a
> new airplane maneuver...don't think I'd want to be on a plane that was
> doing one of those....), the odds are that most abductees wouldn't see
> it. Though I know this doesn't validate the test scientifically!

> On to John Powell:

> > Show _faked_ alien pictures to a
> > > > group of self-claimed abductees to see which _fake_ picture they
> > > > like?

> I had trouble with two emotion-laden words in that question, "fake" and
> "self-claimed." Re fake, I suggested a parallel to a police identikit.
> But John says there's a difference:

> > The difference is that you'd be showing known fake pictures...<grin>

> The word "fake," I still think, is throwing a cloud of emotion over this
> simple question. What we're talking about here are pictures that aren't
> drawn from life. A police artist works with witnesses to create an
> impression of a suspect. Likewise with pictures of aliens. All the alien
> images we've seen -- the cover of Communion and the rest -- are artists'
> impressions, based on descriptions from people who believe they've seen
> the aliens.

> In that respect, an identikit picture and a drawing or
> computer-generated image of an alien are similar. They certainly serve a
> similar purpose -- to provide an image of something that wasn't there to
> pose for the artist.

> In any case, I don't see how you can call the covers of Communion or
> Intruders or any of countless other books "fake" pictures. Nobody ever
> claimed those aliens were real.

> On to "self-claimed." That struck me as a mocking expression, especially
> in context. To which John replied:

> > So far as alien abductions are concerned we have no evidence that such
> > events have occurred therefore those who claim they have occurred (to
> > them) are accurately 'self-claimed abductees.'...Why do you think refering
> to abductees and their stories as
> "self-claimed" somehow invalidates them?

> "Self-claimed" or words to that effect are routinely used in journalism
> to underline what are perceived as shoddy pretentions or illegitimate
> titles. For example, the President of Mexico would never be called the
> "self-claimed President." But the "Supreme Commander" of a guerilla
> force seeking to depose the president might well be called the
> "self-proclaimed Supreme Commander."

> I don't think you'll find many usages of these terms -- or maybe even
> any -- that aren't mocking or critical.

> I asked if anyone would speak about a "self-claimed rape victim," and
> John replied:

> > or a rape victim I would use the term "self-claimed" during the
> > initial reporting of the alleged event only because at that time it is a
> > self-claimed (and alleged) event.  (An exception of course would be such
> > an event that was independently witnesses in which case it would be an
> > "alleged" event and there would be no need to refer to it as
> > self-claimed.)

> But this, I think, is exactly what is <not> done. Take the Mike Tyson
> rape case. Imagine a newspaper story in which his accuser was referred
> to as "the self-claimed rape victim." There's hardly a reader alive who
> wouldn't catch the implication that the charges were false. So instead,
> newspapers use neutral words like "accuser," which simply state the
> facts.

> Another example. An Englishman named Declan McManus made quite a
> reputation in the pop world for records he made under the name Elvis
> Costello. In fact, to most of the world he simply <is> Elvis Costello.
> So now let's say I come along and I start writing about "the
> self-claimed Elvis Costello." There isn't a soul in the rock and roll
> world who wouldn't know I despised him. (I don't, by the way...)

> Cut now to Michael Jackson. A few years ago, he signed a deal with MTV.
> He'd do something for them (forgot what), and in return they'd refer to
> him, even in their news broadcasts, as the "king of pop." Incredibly,
> the phrase caught on, and Jackson was called that everywhere. That must
> have been his greatest publicity coup ever. If I'd written about him
> after that, I'd have been tempted to call him "the self-claimed king of
> pop," meaning it as a dig, and feeling justified in sniping at him that
> way, because the phrase was originally used deceptively.
>
> (If I kept it up long enough, I'd be cut off Sony Music's press list,
> and my editor would get a nasty letter demanding an apology. You think
> ufology is nasty?)

> Greg Sandow


Hi Greg.

There's one thing that struck me as I read your post:

Do you mean to use a "imitating-image" (I didn't say fake) of an alien
and show it to abductees to see if they have seen the figure before?
Alright if it was a single alien-person, but to me it sounds like
showing a picture of a black man to a race of whites and they will go
"Yeah! He's black alright!".

I don't mean to offend you, but you're not talking about a person -
you're talking about a whole supposed alien race here, right?

Jorgen / WUFOC