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 -> Jun -> Here

From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 01:00:11 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:01:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse


>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
>Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 10:55:56 EDT
>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse
>To: updates@globalserve.net

>>Documentation, please, on how abduction claims have wrecked
>>lives.

>>Anecdotes not welcome, since they can easily be countered with
>>situations I've personally observed, in which people pulled
>>themselves together by coming to terms with their reported
>>abduction experiences.

>Hi Greg, All -

>Couldn't we turn this around and say, "Documentation please" on
>alien abduction? Couldn't we say "Anecdotes not welcome..."
>Aren't we working here with little in the way of documentation
>of alien abduction?

Perfectly reasonable. Though there's quite a large literature on
abductions, where the anecdotal reasons for believing in them
are set forth in great detail. There are also Eddie Bullard's
studies, which put some scientific heft behind the proposition
that something not readily explainable is going on (or at least
not explainable by some of the familiar attempts at
explanation). There's also Stuart Appelle's paper in JUFOS,
which sets forth the difficulties in accepting the belief that
abductions are real, but also sets forth the equal difficulties
in believing -- at the present state of available evidence --
that they aren't.

Claims like John Rimmer's are, by contrast, made very casually,
with, as far as I know, no supporting documentation, no deep
argument, not even any mustering of data pro and con. That's why
I asked for documentation -- not to be a brat, not to answer his
snipe with one of my own, but in the hope that he'd provide
some, so this wretched argument could be elevated to at least an
elementary level of rational discourse.

Stewart's paper grows more relevant every day. I'm not saying he
has the answers to all our questions -- but he's merciless in
saying which theories have been advanced without much data to
prove them.