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 -> 1998 -> Feb -> Here

From: Skye Turell <turel33@west.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 07:01:31 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 19:07:41 -0500
Subject: Re: MPD and Abduction

> From: c549597@showme.missouri.edu [Barbara Becker]
> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 12:47:36 -0600
> To: updates@globalserve.net
> Subject: MPD and abduction

> This is an excellent book on MPD.  (Everything I have read from
> this author has been.)

> THE OSIRIS COMPLEX: Case studies in Multiple Personality Disorder
> by Colin A. Ross, MD. (1994).

> The following is from Chapter 14: Flash the Destroyer.

> Margaret is the patient.  And according to Dr. Ross, the only one
> he has worked with who has achieved full integration and who has
> gone on to a complete relapse of the MPD. P 144.

> p148: Margaret's system contained several alters who appeared to
> be psychotic...

>    There was always doubt about the reality of the stories
> Margaret told.  For instance, one of her alters had a clear
> memory of aliens coming into her apartment, impregnating her,
> coming back months later to remove the foetus, the returning
> years later to show her the half-human, half-alien, child they
> were raising among the stars.  This alter was morified when I
> raised the possibility  that the aliens were possibly not
> literally real: she said I had ruined the therapy and her
> chances of recovery forever by doubting her.

> I dont remember which,  but it was either Jacobs or Mack who said
> that they had never heard of, nor had a case of MPD associated
> with abduction. Well...here it is.

Ahem...HELLO?  Just because a therapist, who is rigorously
trained in a certain (very trendy) perspective/diagnosis, has
declared this "aspect" to be integrated does NOT mean that a) the
woman ever had MPD or b) that the alien experiences were ever
"created" by her symptoms.

Needless to say, MPD is the hot diagnosis of the moment and the
therapists/researchers into this phenomenon are hardly blind, in
the scientific testing sense.  Similarly the "patients" are
subtly encouraged to act out certain "personalities" and to play
into this diagnosis.

This is all just so much hot air.

One more thought on the MPD-abduction issue.  In those cases of
apparently real MPD (those which have been fully documented prior
to interaction with the therapist and are clearly not
"manufactured" by the theraputic interaction), where the patient
experiences "missing time" and "wakes up" in a strange location
and so on, there IS an interesting similarity to the abduction
phenomenon.

This raises the question:  Where does the recessive personality
"go" when it's unaware?  What are the dynamics of the lack of
awareness?
The answer to THIS question, which I'm not anticipating anytime
soon <g>, might lead to understanding regarding the lack of
memory and awareness that occurs during abduction experiences.
Clearly there must be somewhere for this personality to "go to"
while it's being recessive.  And this implies that there are
other hidden locations within the mind (if not the brain <g>).

The sad thing is that we are so obviously in need of a much more
sophisticated model of human consciousness than we now have, and
yet the medical and scientific community continues to go for the
easy and trendy...continues to insist that there is one "proper"
perception and one "proper" reality, declaring everything else
pathological.

An episode of "The Unexplained" aired on A&E this week about the
history of the military/research remote viewing projects.  There
were the usual opposing opinions presented...CSICOP...and a
medical researcher, a neurologist.  This researcher, although far
less debunking than CSICOP's representative, did make an
astonishing statement.  He said that an experiment that didn't
successfully EXPLAIN the phenomenon being explored was just poor
research.

This is extraordinary, for obviously you can't explain a
phenomenon using ideas that haven't been discovered or developed
yet.  You are limited to the status quo worldview.  And more
importantly, you are limiting yourself to experiments that will
fit the current worldview. You will cease to even explore.  Is
this a common attitude among research scientists?  If so, we're
doomed to keep "repeating history" endlessly.

Skye Turell <turel33@west.net>
ICQ Pager 6797092