Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New 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 Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1999 -> Sep -> Here

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 09:55:24 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 23:57:35 -0400
Subject: Re: The Challenge


 >Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 15:25:47 -0400
 >To: updates@globalserve.net
 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
 >Subject: The Challenge

Hello All,


 >The other 'obstacle' to such a study (and the more formidable of
 >the two) had to do with getting authors, investigators, and
 >researchers to contribute any relevant material they may be in
 >possession of. That part is like pulling teeth and requires the
 >experience and know how of a 'diplomat extraodinaire'! Those of
 >you that 'know' me will testify to the fact that I may be called
 >a great many things but "diplomat" is not among them!  :)

I, for one, can understand, to a certain extent, this trend. I
know that as I spend my time, my effort and my money on an
investigation, I want to be the one to bring that information to
the public. I want the chance to break the story.

On the other hand,  however, once that information is out, it is
time to reveal all so that others can follow up, others can
verify, and others can duplicate, so that we know the
information or evidence is there and is valid. Without that
follow up and verification, there is nothing but another story
circulating inside the UFO field.

 >If this is 'done right' I'm sure that Richard Hall/FUFOR would
 >help to find the necessary funding for it. I'm just as sure that
 >he would use any of the human resources at his disposal to
 >insure that the study is conducted responsibly and by competent
 >and independent experts. (Experts with no personal 'stake' in
 >the outcome.)

And sometimes this has been done, but we ignore the results. Dr.
Richard Neal did a marvelous study on the missing fetus syndrome
that is rarely mentioned in abduction circles because he found a
complete lack of scientific evidence. For those who wish more
information, please look at 'The Abduction Enigma' (317-327),
and UFO magazine (US version)  Vol. 7, No. 1 (1992), and Vol. 6,
No. 4 (1991).

There is also the Price artifact that was examined as an
outgrowth of the MIT conference. The results of this analysis
were negative, yet we hear little about that. Again, see 'The
Abduction Enigma' (317-327) and Bryant's 'Close Encounters Of
The Fourth Kind' (231).

 >As for the authors, investigators, and researchers; the
 >"challenge" is, to -voluntarily- contribute any materials that
 >may help to find answers to questions which -continue to go
 >unanswered.- It is a social and ethical imperative that they do
 >so. The ones who are 'paying the price' for all the
 >procrastination is the experiencers/ the abductees themselves.

 >The most 'righteous' question that any skeptic or believer alike
 >has is; "Where's the physical evidence?" We -all- deserve an
 >answer to that one. The sad truth is, unless the complete
 >cooperation of all concerned is enlisted, those "answers" will
 >not be forthcoming.

Could it be that the physical evidence simply isn't there? We
have all the testimony we need on the subject. Hundreds have
offered their time to provide interviews to the researchers, and
hypnotizing another hundred isn't going to substantially advance
our knowledge of abduction, especially with all the problems
that hypnosis induces. Physical, corroborative evidence is what
is needed and there simply isn't any that has withstood
scientific scrutiny.

Yes, I'm aware of Derrel Sims and his box of implants, but those
implants have not bee examined by a variety of scientists and
specialists. There are no independent reports that are not
tainted by selective data. Although it has been suggested that
there are independent studies accomplished, when those studies
are requested, they are not forthcoming. We have no way to
verify the results, and that is where we are. We have identified
the problem, but we have not moved much beyond that point.

 >It's a shame that a nobody jamoke like me is the only one
 >actively calling for a study of this material. It's an even
 >bigger shame that those who profit most from our reports (UFO
 >authors, investigators, and researchers) have not yet made any
 >effort among themselves to have an independent analysis of their
 >findings/collected material performed and published.

John, you're not alone in calling for the study, but what do you
expect when many of those who hold the data selectively reveal
it to some people, but not all, and withhold much of it so that
it can't be verified. The independent verification, as you so
rightly pointed out, is exactly what we need.

 >Everyone should take the time to write to Budd Hopkins, David
 >Jacobs, John Mack, Ray Fowler, John Carpenter et al and -ask
 >them- to collectively contribute any materials they may be in
 >possession of that may help to advance what little is known
 >about UFO abductions. If it turns out that they _don't_ have
 >anything of value in stock then that fact should also be known.

I think you might have found the problem. There is nothing in
stock of value.

 >I'm 'gut sick' over the incessant debate and chatter that could
 >all be quelled immediately with a single scientific study. This
 >information belongs to all humanity. Human rights are being
 >grossly violated by authors/investigators that 'hoard' and
 >'covet' evidential data they have gathered. The pressure should
 >be as strong (if not stronger) for them to cooperate with
 >a study, than the public pressure on the government to release
 >whatever they may have. Other than using the material to write
 >and sell more books, if they are hoarding data, they are no
 >different from the monkey boys in Washington DC that spend
 >all their time hoarding what they have!

But could the debate be quelled? What if the answer is negative?
Would that satisfy, or would cover-up be shouted? It is clear to
me that sleep paralysis is the precipitating event in some, but
certainly not all, abduction cases. I certainly believe that Pat
Roach experienced an episode of sleep paralysis and in her mind
turned it into an alien abduction. A review of the material
(Again, see 'The Abduction Enigma' (178-191, 367-384). It is
clear to me that her descriptions of the alien creatures, the
examination the ship, and the other experiences are the
outgrowth of her reading about UFOs and the poor investigative
techniques by both Dr. Harder and me. We both wanted to find
another abduction, and we found it.

 >I say boycott them all, don't buy the books or attend the
 >lectures) until they -all- submit their data/proof for
 >independent scientific analysis. Why bother with it otherwise? A
 >big part of the problem with ufology has to do with the
 >acceptance and support of material that amounts to nothing more
 >than anecdotes (if not accompanied by some form of proof or at
 >least a willingness to have it verified independently.) I don't
 >know, would you take a drug that the manufacturer alone told you
 >was safe? Or, would you prefer to take one that was thoroughly
 >tested and studied by experts who are -independent- of the
 >manufacturer? I can't figure out why the same criteria that is
 >applied to something that you'd put in your body, is not applied
 >to the things we put into our minds!

I say, buy the books, attend the lectures, but don't sit there
in awe of what is being said, challenge it. Ask the hard
questions. Force them to think... and force me to answer the
questions. Maybe you don't like my conclusions on alien
abduction, then ask. The only time that I am disappointed is
when the debate degenerates into name calling and character
assassination. Let's talk about this and see if we have the
right answers or not.

 >Enough talk. Let's demand a study and, that the authors and
 >investigators that we have supported with our dollars over the
 >years, contribute what data/material they can to the effort.
 >There are many ways to do it, but FUFOR seems like a good choice
 >as a central coordinator for such a study and one that many
 >would trust and have some confidence in.

But once that study is made, don't attack the messenger because
you don't like the results. I have seen that happen time and
again. The only results that we want are those that support our
personal belief structures. If you dare to challenge those then
you are a government agent, your are a pawn of the CIA, you are
just a know nothing skeptic.

Sure, challenge the results if you don't like them to make sure
that those results are valid, but also challenge them if you do.
Don't sit back and say, "See, I told you." Challenge it all to
make sure that the facts are accurate and the conclusions valid.

 >Action, action, we want action!

Okay, but be open to the alternative explanations.

KRandle