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 -> 1999 -> Jul -> Here

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 02:12:27 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 08:28:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse


>Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 16:39:19 +0100
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse

>>Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 03:38:25 -0400
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
>>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse

>>>From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
>>>Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 21:35:21 +0000
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse

>>>>It never ceases to amaze me how witness testimony (when it
>>>>relates to UFOs or UFO occupant sightings) can be dismissed or
>>>>minimized by declaring/insinuating/assuming that it is the
>>>>result of "some other condition." In ufology (for some reason)
>>>>all witness testimony is immediately considered suspect when it
>>>>is a UFO _occupant_ incident that is being reported. It must be
>>>>"something else" or some other "condition" as you so
>>>>indelicately phrase it.

Hello John hi All,

I've done some 'healthy' snipping here for brevity. If you've
been following the thread you don't need it all repeated anyhow.
:)

Mr Rimmer writes:

>John Velez's insistence that his beliefs about UFO abductions
>are validated by his own personal experience, and that we should
>also accept them on that basis, as with many other abductees and
>UFO experiencers, is a form of religious revelation.

"Religious revelation?" I'm not going to touch that stretch in
semantics with a ten foot cattle prod. I'm not much into "word
games" John. That is what you are indulging in when you take my
rather straight forward statements and add labels like
"religious" to them. I'm sure that you are among a very small
minority that interprets what I have written as an expression of
"religious revelation" on my part. Like a monochromatic artist
(when it comes to me) you always seem to reach for the 'same
brush' and somehow you never capture the true to life color of
the original. Only your own severely limited interpretation of
it.

BTW, I have _never_ asked anyone to "accept" anything I say on
"any basis." I don't stipulate how someone should 'take' what I
say or how they should think about it either. Unless of course
the reading of it is as far 'off base' and colored by personal
prejudice as yours is.

>If we take the experience of people like Velez literally me must
>accept that just about everything we know about the universe and
>the way it works is wrong.

Hey, you seem to be making progress John. Yes, that is _exactly_
correct! I don't know how the percentages break down but, I'd
say that the larger percentage of the two (what we know as
opposed to what we don't know) would represent; - what we don't
know.-

It is _arrogant_ to think that we "know so much" (that we can be
truly sure of) about the Universe that we live out our short
lives in. I have been an avid amateur astronomer for 28 years
John so I'm not unfamiliar with the sciences and some of the
current theories/cosmoconceptions. Truth be told, we know paltry
little. It's safer to operate under the assumption that what we
"think we know" may be wrong, and very probably is.

That is, if past history is anything to go by!  :)

> It is clear from the above paragraph that John Velez is really
>only prepared to coutenance investigative efforts which start
>off by accepting the validity of his personal revelation.

Never said any such thing. You need to take off those glasses
that seem to color everything you read and read what is actually
written and not what (you think) I am saying. (Or, what you want
to hear!)

>It seems that John Velez is getting close to telling us we
>should just accept whatever anyone reports to us, without
>attempting to investigate or interpret it.

Again, you put your words in my mouth and your interpretation/
'spin' on my "intentions." Never, anywhere, in any post I have
ever written have I intimated such a thing. In fact the exact
opposite is true. And, unlike a great many I have paid it more
than mere 'lipservice.'  See *** response below.

>It is very clear that in many circumstances our senses *cannot*
>be trusted, and the human brain is capable of extreme radical
>misperception of a wide range of stimuli. Velez seems to think
>he has some special immunity from such things.

You're amazing John. I have never had so many completely
innaccurate words and intentions attributed to me by one person
in my 50 years of life. What really gets me is, you don't even
know me from Adam. Yet your interpretations of what I "mean" or
"intend" are spoken with such authority. As if you actually knew
what you were talking about! I find it most amusing really. It
seems that the one who speaks with "religious fervor" is not me,
but the guy you see in the mirror each morning. You claim to
know more about me and where I'm coming from than my own momma
does! <lol>

I wrote:

>>Reports, especially contact reports
>>from reputable, honest people should be checked out like cops
>>do, _as they are reported_ before allowing ones own personal
>>speculations to enter the picture.

John responds:

>Yes, I agree. Contact and abduction reports *should* be checked
>out like cops do. One of the problems with this however, is that
>the experiencers and their investigator/minders seldom allow
>this to happen.

*** First:

"Minders" John? Why don't you just say "keepers!" As if we were
all somehow less than human or of less than human intelligence.
Your use of a term such as "minders" when relating to those
reporting UFO abduction experiences reveals the depth of your
feelings of condescension towards those reporting  abduction
experiences. It never ceases to surprize me when some folks
'look down their noses' at people they are _standing at eye
level with._ Remeber the song; "Come down, come down, from your
Ivory tower, . . ."   :)

You're nowhere near as 'smart' or 'astute' as you think you are
Johnno! The day you realize how very little you really know,
will be the day you have truly learned something of genuine
value. It will be better than mere knowledge, it will be a piece
of profound wisdom you will have acquired.

As for:

>One of the problems with this however, is that
>the experiencers and their investigator/minders seldom allow
>this to happen.

Unadulterated cowflop!

I must appologize to those who may be sick and tired of hearing
this, but for John's benefit I will repeat the story -one mo'
time.-

When Budd and I consented to do the NOVA segment (which was the
very first 'public' anything I had ever done,) we were _hoping_
for a scientific treatment of the material and ourselves. As
everyone knows, that never happened.

I had requested of the producers (not the other way around) that
I be given the following tests as a condition of my
participation. They managed to jerk me around and never
performed a one of them.

1. A complete psychiatric evaluation conducted by a
professional(s) of their own choosing.

2. A polygraph examination. (Not that I believed that a
polygraph would prove that my experiences actually happened, but
it _would show_ with some level of reliability whether I was
intentionally fabricating my report or not!)

3. A complete medical examination including exposure to x-ray
radiation or MRI or CAT scan (anything short of a surgical
proceedure) to determine if there were indeed any 'foreign' or
'unusual' objects in my body.

4. (After consulting with my family members) I gave them
permission to interview/question any of my family members. I
also provided some names they could use to as character
references to check me out.

5. I gave them permission to enter my home and conduct any kind
of physical testing they may have wanted to perfom, (short of
tearing down walls and such)

As for Budd; who is one of those "investigator/minders" who you
claim that, "seldom allows this to happen." Budd gave them
-complete access to his files, (which they _never even looked at
once!_ And he invited them to record how he investigates a
report. (I won't get into the highly selective 'editing job'
that the folks from NOVA did with that.) But he made himself,
his records, and his methods completely available and open to
them. More recently it was mentioned on this list how Budd has
submitted the "writing samples" he has accumulated over the
years to Stewart Appelle at Cornell for analysis. He has lab
reports on ground trace evidence and scads of material that
could be/should be checked out by medical professionals which
just sits there awaiting perusal by independant experts. Where
are -they?-

I'm afraid the truth is, that 'the shoe is on the other foot'
John. Myself, and Budd have made ourselves as "available" as
anyone can possibly make themselves. Just haven't been any
'takers' is all.

Your comment is nothing short of pure fabrication based on an
existing and apparently deep seated prejudice/bias on this
subject. Rather than spending so much of your time 'searching
-my- soul, it is your own which bears closer scruitiny.

>If cops are investigating a serious crime and
>have a suspect they will not only interrogate them, but will
>subject their family and close friends to a grilling, they will
>speak to employers, workmates, neighbours; in a serious case
>they may organise stake-outs, arrange phone-taps, etc. Is this
>really what John Velez wants investigators to do in abduction
>cases? We cannot combine "protect the witness" with "check out
>like cops".

Once again you 'twist' one of my statements to fit your own
interpretations. When I say, "check it out like a cop" I mean,
check out the credibility of the individual, go to the scene of
the alleged crime to look for evidence, interview potential
witnesses, look for medical evidence, ground traces etc, etc.
You are quite correct in that there are some sensitive privacy
and witness protection issues. But it is nothing that an
intelligent, experienced, and thoughful investigator cannot
navigate safely.

>It may in fact be that this has happened but that the
>investigators have for some reason decided not to publish
>the results of this questioning. In the immortal words of someone
>or other: "I think we should be told".

Aha! I knew we could agree on 'something' and this is it!

Peace,

John Velez, -Nobody's Fool!
________________________________________________
                                 jvif@spacelab.net
                    ABDUCTION INFORMATION CENTER
                            http://www.if-aic.com/
 "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
________________________________________________