From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 13:05:56 +0100 Fwd Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 21:07:52 -0400 Subject: Re: First 'Grey' Report? >From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> >Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 13:44:19 -0400 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: Re: First 'Grey' Report? Hi Mark, All that are following this thread <huge, unkind snip of very relevant material from the esteemed Mister Cashman> >I hope that none of this will be taken as disrespect to those >who have had or reported these experiences. Determining >the nature of the abduction experience is important, if >for no other reason than to end or alleviate the suffering >of those with these experiences. Sadly, as careful as many >of the researchers in this field have tried to be, however, >there is a tremendous amount of contamination and there >are many problematic accounts. We must be very very >careful to avoid attributing specific objective reality to >some of these events, and we must be especially wary >of doing damage to concepts of objective physical reality >in attempting to bring these events within the sphere of >understanding. If, indeed, these events present new >insights into the nature of reality, those insights will have >to wait until the serious, objective, and fact-based >research required has been undertaken. >------ >Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at >http://www.temporaldoorway.com >- Original digital art, writing, music and more - Mark I agree with your sentiments, I mean no disrespect to any people who claim to have had an abduction experience. In my research into this matter has shown me that the proportion of sighting reports that are the _chaff_ seam almost equal to the same with abduction reports. I do not mean this to insult/slander/hurt/whatever those who claim this dreadful experience but the fact of the matter is a certain amount of _claimed_ abduction experincers are the same as those who _claim_ a genuine sighting. _SOME_ can be explained. Either by Temporal Lobe Epilepsy, Acutely sharp dream state, drug abuse or even having been hyponotised and having had the suggestion implanted. Or some other cause. I have intervied only three people in the flesh, and eleven over the internet. Whilst this might be a pitifully small selection I have never claimed to be an abduction researcher or councilor<sp?> so this to a _normal_ UFO researcher could be a reasonable number?? Drawing a tempory conclusion from the data at hand is where I come to my conclusion about the proportions of genuine cases to that of _mistaken_ cases. I could almost say that I earnestly hoped they was all mistaken so that perhaps this nightmare scenario was wholely made up, bad the sad fact of the matter is (as far as I am concerned) that there is a small percentage of _genuine_ abductions. One thing that really does cause me concern is that some people who automatically assume that nearly all abductions are _genuine_ and that to criticise or investigate is to make the researcher become something more than a skeptic. I know this is relatively true of the whole UFO _scene_ but even more so with the delicate matter of abductions. I for one would like to investigate the matter further but thankfully we have relatively few abduction cases in the UK. ( I wonder if this has led some UK researchers to wonder if the "damn yanks" blow this thing all out of proportion?? )
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