Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New 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 Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1998 -> Dec -> Re: Abductions: Return to the Herd

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Sharon Kardol <sharon@hotmix.com.au>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 14:52:14 +0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 11:57:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Abductions: Return to the Herd


>From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
>Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 15:05:05 +0000
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Abductions: Return to the Herd

>Much has been made of the "classic" ET abduction experience;
>i.e. loss of time, finding one's self in another location with
>no memory of events, etc. For some, encounter groups and
>hypnosis help to retrieve some memories, others continue to live
>their lives with no answers to the mysteries that haunt them.

>However, I'd like to open a discussion regarding an aspect of
>abductions that I have yet to see approached. According to much
>literature that I've read over the years, reports of abductions
>seem to go as far back as the turn of the century; perhaps even
>further, depending on the accuracy or interpretations of the
>records that were kept about such things. Most abductions seem
>to be of the "classic" variety described above. And, of course,
>the only reason we have such reports is because the victims were
>returned to tell their tell, even though such memories may have
>been purposely "erased" by the abductor, only to be retrieved
>using measures described earlier.

>And this, I think, is the focal point of this discussion.


Roger,

This discussion poses many questions, I'm sure most of which we
don't have answers for, merely speculation.  And for my
speculation - I believe that perhaps memory retrieval processes
aren't as effective as we are led to believe.  Just to add to
all the questions, is it possible that adbuctees aren't
remembering everything from their experience, only what ETs want
us to remember?

>When humans pull an animal from the herd to be studied, many
>times the animal will not be returned. And even if it is not
>kept indefinitely, it may not necessarily be returned to exactly
>the same spot or, in some cases, even the same herd. The
>exception to this might be the study of a social group such as
>lions or monkeys where maintaining the structure of the family
>or group is also vital to information being gathered.

>What has this got to do with ET abductions?

>Well, if you consider the intentions of the ETs in question, one
>has to ask why they find it important to return the victim at
>all. Secondly, why do they find it necessary to erase the
>victim's memory? One might suppose that the ET's intentions were
>to hide evidence of themselves from humans.


I don't believe ETs treat us the same as we treat animals on our
planet.  We are put back in the same place as was taken (or
nearby) because they are aware of the importance 'place' has in
our society.  If we were all tossed about and relocated to
different countries or continents, this would place a great many
number of lives into choas therefore they could not observe us
in our natural state.  We have much less respect for the animals
of our planet.

<snip>

>However if one took the position that, as in the study of
>monkeys and lions, it was important to the ETs not to interrupt
>the day to day existence of their victims and the rest of the
>social group, then such a return makes a bit more sense.

This is my belief. too.

<snip>

>1) What did the ET's do to observe us before RF transmissions?
>Did they walk among us?


Perhaps when the Earth's population wasn't as large as it is
today (say, a mere century ago) landing on earth and observing
the population up close would have been much easier for them.
Perhaps that is what they used to do, however, with improving
radar and observation technologies, I believe this has increased
their need to remove people from the planet for observation.

>2) If such a technique was employed effectively in the past, why
>should we feel that it has been abandoned in favor of the less
>accurate monitoring of RF transmissions?


As said above our technology is improving, no doubt no where
near as effective as theirs, but  it is becoming increasingly
difficult for them to observe us up close and personal for long
periods of time. Perhaps they have to take what they can get.

>In short, I feel that the age old notion that ET's are being
>sneaky just to hide their existence doesn't cut it, anymore.
>Obviously, we know they do exist. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure
>that 'They' know we know. You know?


Just because we know of their existence doesn't mean anything.
It is the actual contact between us and them that perhaps they
are consistently trying to avoid.  They aren't very good in
being secretive, as you said, we have pictures and videos and
eye-witnesses, the testimonials of abductees etc but to most
humans this still does not prove ETs.  Until they land on a
government building and shake hands with the Prime Minister of
Australia or the Pres. of the US, and it is telecasted live
around the world and validated by all experts and scientists,
will we ever have proof of their existence?  Perhaps they know
most humans will always doublt their existence and count on it
as the most effective way to remain invisible.

>Curious what you guys think...

You know what they say, curiousity killed the Roger, I mean cat.
Thanks for giving me a brain pain :-)


Cheers

Sharon K