UFO UpDates Mailing List
From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com> Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 12:08:04 +0100 Fwd Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 22:50:11 -0400 Subject: Re: First 'Grey' Report? >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net> >Subject: Re: First 'Grey' Report? >Date: Sat, 08 May 99 10:54:08 PDT >>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com> >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>Subject: Re: First 'Grey' Report? >>Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 11:51:31 +0100 >Hi, Jenny, >>Of course, I am not saying we have all the answers and your >>caution is justified. You are correct about the presence of more >>human aliens. They appear in over 50% of British abductions. But >>the numbers have tumbled post 1987. >>But they are not all the same. >>There are aliens with beards. Aliens with swarthy skins. Yes, >>and some Nordic types. But the mixed bag of alien types is far >>greater than most UFOlogists seem to appreciate because it is >>easy to define a few categories that mask these differences. >I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you assuming that >aliens, even from a single source, would all look as if cloned >from each other? Reading the above, I can easily imagine a >Martian objecting to the testimony of an abductee who thinks >aliens from earth snatched him up: "You say some had beards, >some had swarthy skins? They didn't all look exactly alike? You >must have been hallucinating. Surely you don't expect us to >believe in both bearded _and_ clean-shaven earthlings or, even >worse, pale-skinned _and_ swarthy ones." >>There is an undeniable massive impact in British data following >>the books by Strieber and Hopkins. This cannot surely be a >>coincidence. >>I agree that the explanation need not be - as I suspect it is - >>that the form that an entity takes during an account is a >>product of the mental images in a persons consciousness. But I >>think that is a reasonable hypothesis. Not that this eliminates >>the prospect of some actual intelligence being in contact. >The problem with subjectivist explanations, as surely you know, >is that they don't account for the most interesting aspects of >the abduction phenomenon, not the least of them multiple >witnesses. Nobody on this list apparently wants to listen to a >bright, articulate abductee like John Velez, who has repeatedly >explained why he finally had no choice but to accept the >objective nature of his and his family's experiences. Velez is >hardly alone, either in coming to that inevitable conclusion or >in being ignored (or, for that matter, in being subjected to >condescending remarks by those who's rather listen to their pet >theories than to an experient's testimony). >>I have just seen a dozen witnesses to guardian angels telling >>their stories and was struck by the similarities to CE 4 >>percipients. Each felt they had contact with an entity. Many >>reported the Oz Factor. But some said the angels had wings and >>gave names like Rafael (I was waiting for a Monica or Tess but >>none showed up!) Others said they were human. Some said they had >>flowing robes. Some talked of space suits. A couple only saw >>typical BOL LITS. >I would hope that, at least at this early stage of our >inquiries, we'd all resist the temptation to grab some sweeping >single reductionist explanation for all anomalous experiences. >It is entirely possible that several different kinds of >phenomena are occurring simultaneously. Even within ufology, for >example, we long ago learned that the respective testimonies of >George Adamski and Lonnie Zamora are best placed in quite >different categories. >Meantime, let's pursue the wise course, which is reservation of >judgment. >Jerry Clark Yes, Jerry. I do take your points here and I do not really disagree with them. I certainly dont have a fixed opinion on what is going on. The possibility of a real alien intrusion remains ac reasonable one. I think what I was really trying to indicate was that the subjective elements in a CE 4 are part of the solution - not, specifically, the solution. Abductions are without question a merging of objective reality and subjective imagery. The difficulty is in finding a way to blend these together. When I note comparisons between NDEs, Angels and CE4s - for instance - I am not, necessarily, saying that one entity is appearing as all three. Nor am I arguing that each is a mental image fulfilling some inner drive. Rather I am sensing a more fundamental point of comparison - that each occurs during an altered state, with symptoms common to all that include the Oz Factor and descriptions of an OOB experience. The Aveley abduction is a good illustration there - since the witnesses describe floating (presumably out of body) around the UFO with the aliens whilst also seeing their physical selves dead to the world and still inside the car where the encounter began. Much the same applies to oberved abductions such as the Anders case in Sweden or the Gaynor Sunderland case in Wales or the best known of all in Franklin, Victoria, Australia (Maureen Puddy). Here the witness experiences an abduction whilst seen by others and having clearly gone nowhere in a physical, bodily sense. You cannot ignore these cases. Equally, I agree, you cannot reject multiple abductions. The Dandenong Mountains cas - of which one witness (Kelly Cahill) is attending the MUFON conference this year - is one of those incidents that has to confound critics. The evidence, to me, seems better than the Manhatten Transfer saga - in that it features three independent ands interlocking data sets. If this is not a hoax (and neither Bill Chalker nor Keith Basterfield - whose judgement I respect) thinks so - then it almost single handedly proves that CE4s are in some sense a physical reality. But then the observed abductions cited (and several others - rather more, in fact, than of the Manhatten transfer type that seem to argue to the contrary) would provide us with an alternative scenario. I do not say that either is right or wrong. Quite possibly both are. The point then being that the CE 4 has to be a htbrid experience of some sort - a quasi reality. That is why we need to take seriously enough to at least explore the options - therefore looking at more subtle threads between cases. Even the semi amusing dialogue on this list of late about name coincidences is relevant. I have long argued that coincidence is a manifestation of subconscious ESP and perhaps even the restructuring to order of the quantum basis of reality (see my essay on this in 'The encylopedia of the Unexplained' and in more obvious UFO context in my book 'Mind Monsters' (which I dont think ever made it to the USA and barely made it in the UK!) So, I am not even suggesting I have all the answers. But I do think they are more complex than they seem. Jenny Randles
UFO UpDates - Toronto -
updates@globalserve.net
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-696-0304
A Hand-Operated E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related
Phenomena.
To subscribe please send your first and last name to
updates@globalserve.net
Message submissions should be sent to the same address.
|
Link it to the appropriate Ufologist or UFO Topic page. |
Archived as a public service by Area 51 Research Center which is not
responsible for content.
Financial support for this web server is provided by the
Research Center Catalog.
Software by Glenn Campbell.
Technical contact:
webmaster@ufomind.com