Recent developments in UFO 'Abductology'

[Akhenaten]

Rramjet, would you be so kind as to describe what "UFO" means to you?

A UFO is an observed “flying” object that remains unidentified, despite sufficient identifying information being available, even after independent research has been conducted.

What???

Sufficient identifying information is available and yet the object remains unidentified?

Observer 1: Hey look at that flying object with wings, a beak and feathers all over it!

Observer 2: I wonder what it could be?

Independent Researcher: No clues, I'm afraid. I am unable to find any records of this type of phenomenon.​

You have got to be kidding, Rramjet.

Of course many would contend that a UFO is merely an unidentified flying object to the observer at the time of the observation – but I believe that definition too broad and naturally will include many misidentified mundane objects.

You should pay attention to the many, Rramjet.

UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object. Substituting 'misidentified' for 'unidentified' and adding 'mundane' means you are no longer talking about UFOs.

If someone sees a beaked, winged and feathered flying object but mistakenly identifies it as an aircraft, then it isn't a UFO and won't be reported as anything, now will it?

To me the term UFO should mean something that positively defies mundane explanation.

And so your troubles begin.

Having your own private definitions for things is perfectly within your rights, albeit somewhat quirky, but expecting other people to use them is futile and vexatious.

Why do it?

It is clear though UFO simply means “unidentified” flying object – the argument then becomes from whose perspective?

From the perspective of an observer who can't identify the flying object that they are looking at, obviously.

To another observer who can identify what it is, then it's not a UFO.

To someone not doing any observing at all it's an anecdote.

It's hard to believe you have difficulty with this simple concept.

In my opinion, the UFO “phenomenon” is actually a set of phenomena that ranges from objective observable artefacts (such as “nuts and bolts” craft) to the purely experiential – which I strongly suspect is where the “abduction scenario” fits.

“You” are, “of course”, “entitled” to your “opinions”, but I “think” you're “going” to have “trouble” getting them “accepted” as “having” any “significance” as long as you “insist” on “inventing” your own “definitions” for “everything”.

 

[Rramjet]

I had a feeling that this thread would derail ...so let's get it back on track.

This thread is about the "alien abduction" phenomenon and the OP referenced a recent article containing mere hearsay “evidence” from a disgruntled patient and an ex-wife to contend that “Abductology Implodes”.

I have pointed out that evidence from a disgruntled patent and an ex-wife might not be the best foundation on which to write off the (any!) phenomenon and pointed to some research and information that might actually inform interested people (rather than mislead them as the OP’s article does). Here for example:

(http://www.forteantimes.com/features/fbi/2929/alien_abductions_revisited.html)
(http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/ejufoas00.html)
(http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Abduction_phenomenon)

I also linked to a web page containing many articles, both for and against. Here fore example:

(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/abduction.htm).

I then pointed to a couple of abduction cases in order to show that there is a very real phenomenon occurring for which we have no mundane plausible explanation . Here for example:

Police Officer Herbert Schirmer Abduction (3 Dec 1967)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case659.htm)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/herbertschirmer.html)

The Pascagoula, Mississippi - Hickson/Parker Abduction (10 Oct 1973)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Pascagoula.html)
(http://www.ufologie.net/htm/pascagoula.htm)

Now, armed with the research and evidence, I contend that the OP is premature in writing off the alien abduction phenomenon – especially on the basis of the article cited.

Unfortunately I do suspect that however much I lead the horse to water, I will never be able to make it drink, for the debunkers simply refuse to examine the evidence, let alone rationally discuss it or the implications arising from it. Even the OP seems to have packed up his bat and ball and left the field…

 

[Stray Cat]

Unfortunately I do suspect that however much I lead the horse to water, I will never be able to make it drink, for the debunkers simply refuse to examine the evidence, let alone rationally discuss it or the implications arising from it. Even the OP seems to have packed up his bat and ball and left the field…

I don't think I have read anyone claiming the phenomenon doesn't exist.
In the same way that no one here claims that UFO's don't exist.

However, just because it's been labelled as alien abduction phenomenon, doesn't mean that aliens are responsible for it. In the same way that the Orb phenomenon isn't really spirit orbs zipping in and out of our reality. But it is easier to give it a handy name instead of calling it the 'Mostly Bits of Dust Blown Around and Caught in the Flash Units of Modern Digital Cameras Phenomenon'.

There is no doubt that people claim to have been abducted by aliens... however, there is zero evidence to support the claims and quite a fair bit of evidence to show that the people are mistaken (about the real cause, not the traumatic experiences they report).

 

[Akhenaten]

<snip>

Unfortunately I do suspect that however much I lead the horse to water, I will never be able to make it drink . . .

That's because it's dead. Keep flogging it though. Hope springs eternal, so they say.

. . . for the debunkers simply refuse to examine the evidence, let alone rationally discuss it or the implications arising from it.

Evidence??? All we've seen are anecdotes.

Even the OP seems to have packed up his bat and ball and left the field…

Leaving you to repeatedly quote and re-quote yourself for no better reason than to point out, over and over, what you've previously posted and which people have already shown the good sense to dismiss out-of-hand for the nonsense that it is.

There are some very good reasons for people not wanting to take this abduction rubbish seriously, and your insistence that people take what you consider to be more appropriate notice of your various assertions and pronouncements on the subject is hardly likely to negate them.

Rather the opposite, in fact.

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

I had a feeling that this thread would derail ...so let's get it back on track.

You did too? WOW lets also not start showing the same links over and over again!

This thread is about the "alien abduction" phenomenon and the OP referenced a recent article containing mere hearsay “evidence” from a disgruntled patient and an ex-wife to contend that “Abductology Implodes”.

Oh and probably all scientists aswell and anyone with knowledge of patterns of sleep and how hypnosis works.

I have pointed out that evidence from a disgruntled patent and an ex-wife might not be the best foundation on which to write off the (any!) phenomenon and pointed to some research and information that might actually inform interested people (rather than mislead them as the OP’s article does). Here for example:[/quote[

I would call it a good start, a disgruntle patent and an ex-wife is a good way to being to dismantle the bs that Jacobs and Hopkins. Of course they **** talk about Carl Sagan when ever they get the chance to, so you wouldn't care if all the evidence stacks up against them.

I then pointed to a couple of abduction cases in order to show that there is a very real phenomenon occurring for which we have no mundane plausible explanation . Here for example:

Rubbish

Now, armed with the research and evidence, I contend that the OP is premature in writing off the alien abduction phenomenon – especially on the basis of the article cited.

Have you addressed the author of that blog entry? Also there's plenty of reasons why people would write off alien abductions

Unfortunately I do suspect that however much I lead the horse to water, I will never be able to make it drink, for the debunkers simply refuse to examine the evidence, let alone rationally discuss it or the implications arising from it. Even the OP seems to have packed up his bat and ball and left the field…

Yeah you are right, we are too dumb to understand that people are getting abducted by aliens, who impregnate them and leave the baby in their womb for 10 weeks, you know plenty of time to get an ultrasound.

isn't it funny how Jacobs and Hopkins victims I mean abductees are all talking about Alien human hybrids while other abductees' talk about peace love and making sweet sweet alien human love?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Which of course begs the question - Did UFOs follow popular culture or did "cultural depictions" of UFOs stem from the actual sightings over many centuries?

Given the fact that descriptions of both UFOs and aliens fit in with whatever the current meme is, the most likely explanation is that the UFOs follow popular culture.

 

[Rramjet]

There is no doubt that people claim to have been abducted by aliens... however, there is zero evidence to support the claims and quite a fair bit of evidence to show that the people are mistaken (about the real cause, not the traumatic experiences they report).

Police Officer Herbert Schirmer Abduction (3 Dec 1967)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case659.htm)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/herbertschirmer.html)

The Pascagoula, Mississippi - Hickson/Parker Abduction (10 Oct 1973)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Pascagoula.html)
(http://www.ufologie.net/htm/pascagoula.htm)

There are some very good reasons for people not wanting to take this abduction rubbish seriously...

(http://www.forteantimes.com/features/fbi/2929/alien_abductions_revisited.html)
(http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/ejufoas00.html)
(http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Abduction_phenomenon)

As the OP states, this thread is about “Recent developments in UFO ‘Abductology’. Here then is a recent development:

MUFON alien abduction research committee launches Omega Three (http://www.examiner.com/ufo-in-nati...research-committee-launches-omega-three-study)​

…and whatever you do don’t talk about the research or the evidence!

 

[Weak Kitten]

Once again I bring you my personal favorite explanation, Sleep Paralysis. It has been historically interpreted as being attacked by hags, demons, evil spirits and any number of other nightmarish situations.

The article notes several factors that can increase the chance of sleep paralysis occurring. Alcohol consumption is one of these factors. So is stress and sleeping on your back. It would be interesting to do a few sleep studies on people who claim to have had abduction experiences and see if they have the symptoms of a sleep paralysis sufferer.

 

[Rramjet]

Once again I bring you my personal favorite explanation, Sleep Paralysis. It has been historically interpreted as being attacked by hags, demons, evil spirits and any number of other nightmarish situations.

The article notes several factors that can increase the chance of sleep paralysis occurring. Alcohol consumption is one of these factors. So is stress and sleeping on your back. It would be interesting to do a few sleep studies on people who claim to have had abduction experiences and see if they have the symptoms of a sleep paralysis sufferer.

Sure, but the evidence for sleep paralysis is very weak and merely correlation (aetiology cannot be determined from correlation). For example Spanos et al. (1993) indicated that intensity of UFO experiences ”… were more frequently sleep-related than the experiences of Ss in the nonintense group.” (http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1994-08438-001) Note the term “sleep related” – meaning of course that if abductions are real then they could simply occur more frequently at night… indeed Blackmore and Cox (2000) noted that while ”sleep paralysis was significantly more often reported in abductees than either of the control groups, confirming Spanos et al’s findings” that ”Of course an alternative is that real aliens are causing the increased sleep paralysis, and abductees’ belief in aliens is well founded.” (http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/ejufoas00.html)

Further, Hough (2010) noted that:

”The conclusion here is that a sizeable minority awaken to witness beings without suffering paralysis. Almost a third experience paralysis while fully awake and in locations other than the bedroom as a prelude to an abduction event. Are sleep paralysis and the paralysis experienced by percipients different phenomena? Spanos et al (1993) found that 40 per cent of abduction-related experiences were not connected with sleep. My own investigations seem to support this. (http://www.forteantimes.com/features/fbi/2929/alien_abductions_revisited.html)​

So sure, sleep paralysis is a nice idea but it simply does not explain the abduction phenomenon (and what of all the people who have been abducted while wide awake and in the presence of witnesses? Here for example: http://www.ufocasebook.com/Allagash.html or here: http://www.ufocasebook.com/Cahill.html)

 

[Akhenaten]

There are some very good reasons for people not wanting to take this abduction rubbish seriously...

(http://www.forteantimes.com/features/fbi/2929/alien_abductions_revisited.html)
(http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/ejufoas00.html)
(http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Abduction_phenomenon)

As the OP states, this thread is about “Recent developments in UFO ‘Abductology’. Here then is a recent development:

MUFON alien abduction research committee launches Omega Three (http://www.examiner.com/ufo-in-nati...research-committee-launches-omega-three-study)​

…and whatever you do don’t talk about the research or the evidence!

From your first link:

There have been a number of studies that on the face of it indicate that percipients belong to a group that is prone to fantasise.

my bolding​

From your second link:

This was a very small study, reflecting the fact that abduction reports are not common and probably far less so in Britain than in the USA. Also many abductees are unwilling to be involved in scientific research. Among the 24 approached, only 12 agreed to take part and some were scornful of the value of research.

my bolding​

From your third link:

While few mainstream scientists believe the phenomenon literally occurs as reported—some experts contend the field is essentially pseudoscience—there is little doubt that many apparently stable and sincere persons report alien abductions they believe are utterly genuine.

my bolding​

From your fourth link:

Ring and Rosing (1990) conducted the first study of individuals who reported UFO encounters, comparing them to a second experimental group, individuals who reported Near Death Experiences. Both these groups were also compared with two control groups --- individuals who had an interest in UFO encounters, but no direct experiences, and individuals who had an interest in the near-death phenomenon, but no near-death crisis. They found a great degree of similarity between the UFOErs and the NDErs. Both groups reported childhood experiences with alternate realities and psi phenomena, as well as histories of abuse and trauma. The combination of the above led to a dissociative style in times of heightened stress. Moreover, there was a discernable pattern of psychophysical and attitude-belief-value changes, similar for both groups of experiencers.

my bolding​

All of which leads Pharaoh to (again) make the comment that:

There are some very good reasons for people not wanting to take this abduction rubbish seriously...

…and whatever you do don’t talk about the research or the evidence!

The research which has so far been carried out has revealed that some people believe stuff that isn't true. Gosh!!!

The research that is planned (by The Mutual UFO Network??!!!) hasn't happened yet, and is therefore a bit hard to discuss.

In any case, discussion of this research, dealing as it does largely with psychology, belongs more properly in Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology than it does in General Skepticism and the Paranormal.


Now, about that little word that you've tried to slip in at the end there - evidence.

Evidence of what, Rramjet, and where is it?

Given that claims of actual contact with actual aliens are extraordinary claims, I certainly hope you have some extraordinary evidence to go with them.

 

[Rramjet]

From your first link:

There have been a number of studies that on the face of it indicate that percipients belong to a group that is prone to fantasise.

Sure there have - Jo Nickell among them… LOL. But seriously, there have been some scientific studies indicating that. However, other studies find no such relationship and a closer look at those studies that have made the link reveals a number of flaws (including the assumption that the phenomenon was fantasy itself (!) and using “second-hand” descriptions of the abductees from other researchers).

Blackmore and Cox (200) state:

” The abductions may not be physically real but they still require explanation. There is no evidence that people who see UFOs are generally suffering from serious psychopathology (Bloecher, Clamar & Hopkins, 1985; Parnell, 1988). Parnell and Sprinkle (1990) found that MMPI scores were in the average range for 140 people who claimed communication with aliens, and Spanos, Cross, Dickson and DuBreuil (1993) tested 49 UFO experiencers and found they actually showed less psychopathology than a student or a community control group and higher intelligence than the students. Bartholomew, Basterfield and Howard (1991) found characteristics of fantasy proneness in 132 out of 152 contactees but when standard tests were used, no differences were found in either fantasy proneness or hypnotizability by Ring and Rosing (1990), Rodeghier, Goodpastor & Blatterbauer (1991) or Spanos et al (1993). Zimmer (1984) found that UFO reporters were as likely as the normal population to be high academic achievers and showed no more alienation, distress or maladjustment.” (http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/ejufoas00.html)​

The evidence then actually suggests that abductees are to all intents and purposes no different on any of these measures than community samples.

From your second link:

This was a very small study, reflecting the fact that abduction reports are not common and probably far less so in Britain than in the USA.

A small study indeed! Twelve people – difficult to legitimately generalise from that would you not agree?

Also many abductees are unwilling to be involved in scientific research. Among the 24 approached, only 12 agreed to take part and some were scornful of the value of research.

Indeed, abductees in general have been treated appallingly. These people have (in the main) suffered traumatically yet if their story becomes public they suffer more under the ridicule dished out by those of a “debunking” mindset and also by researchers using pseudoscientific methodology harassing them and telling them that what they have experienced is not real. I would be sceptical of the value of research under such conditions as well!

From your third link:

While few mainstream scientists believe the phenomenon literally occurs as reported—some experts contend the field is essentially pseudoscience—there is little doubt that many apparently stable and sincere persons report alien abductions they believe are utterly genuine.

Right on the money!

From your fourth link:

Ring and Rosing (1990) conducted the first study of individuals who reported UFO encounters, comparing them to a second experimental group, individuals who reported Near Death Experiences. Both these groups were also compared with two control groups --- individuals who had an interest in UFO encounters, but no direct experiences, and individuals who had an interest in the near-death phenomenon, but no near-death crisis. They found a great degree of similarity between the UFOErs and the NDErs. Both groups reported childhood experiences with alternate realities and psi phenomena, as well as histories of abuse and trauma. The combination of the above led to a dissociative style in times of heightened stress. Moreover, there was a discernable pattern of psychophysical and attitude-belief-value changes, similar for both groups of experiencers.

But of course you fail to note the very next paragraph (!):

”LeLieuvre, Larson, and Remington (2008) replicated some of the Ring and Rosing findings, but did not confirm the abuse-trauma-dissociation pathway. Ring and Rosing did acknowledge that the UFO experimental group was not homogenous for a type of UFO encounter. Rodeghier, Goodpaster, & Blatterbauer (1991) also argue that the lack of homogeneity among subjects might account for the different findings on a number of personality characteristics and personal style patterns often reported --- for example, encounterers, including abductees, are found to be fantasy prone in some studies and not fantasy prone in other studies, etc. Both sets of authors have called for a comprehensive study of abductees, comparing them with a matched community control group. This is the study now under way. It seeks to discover what, if any, psychological antecedents lead to sensitivity to and experiences of alien contact; it also seeks to discover what the long-term consequences of contact are.” (http://www.examiner.com/ufo-in-nati...research-committee-launches-omega-three-study)​

All of which leads Pharaoh to (again) make the comment that: ” There are some very good reasons for people not wanting to take this abduction rubbish seriously...”

You see, there’s your problem right there, even when you do take a look at the evidence - you only note that which supports your own preconceived beliefs.

The research which has so far been carried out has revealed that some people believe stuff that isn't true. Gosh!!!

Not only do they believe it, but there is no unequivocal evidence that they are psychologically different from a community sample and we have no plausible mundane explanations for the phenomenon.

The research that is planned (by The Mutual UFO Network??!!!) hasn't happened yet, and is therefore a bit hard to discuss.

Sure, but it is a new development (spot on topic for this thread).

In any case, discussion of this research, dealing as it does largely with psychology, belongs more properly in Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology than it does in General Skepticism and the Paranormal.

Apply to have it shifted then.

Now, about that little word that you've tried to slip in at the end there - evidence.

Evidence of what, Rramjet, and where is it?

Given that claims of actual contact with actual aliens is an extraordinary claim, I certainly hope you have some extraordinary evidence to go with them.

Interesting that while you note some of my links (and comment on them) you actually ignore the ones (fifth and sixth links) providing the evidence! Here fore example; (http://www.ufocasebook.com/Allagash.html) or here; (http://www.ufocasebook.com/Cahill.html). Why would that be do you think?

I am not sure I would characterise them as extraordinary claims either …alien contact claims have a long history and seem quite common.

 

[Akhenaten]

<snip>

I am not sure I would characterise them as extraordinary claims either …alien contact claims have a long history and seem quite common.

my bolding

That's the whole problem with all of your assertions, proclamations and contentions, Rramjet, and the reason that you can't find agreement with anyone.

Personalised definitions of well-known and understood words have left you reading a different page to the rest of us.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Sure, but the evidence for sleep paralysis is very weak[...]

And the evidence for physical abduction by aliens isn't?

 

[Rramjet]

And the evidence for physical abduction by aliens isn't?

So then you will not be averse to discussing the evidence for such presented in the following cases (http://www.ufocasebook.com/Allagash.html) or here; (http://www.ufocasebook.com/Cahill.html)?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

So then you will not be averse to discussing the evidence for such presented in the following cases (http://www.ufocasebook.com/Allagash.html)

Testimony gained under hypnosis has no value. Testimony gained under hypnosis 13 years after the event even less. There's no way to tell whether any of the reported story is true, although it's worth noting that the two accounts on that page have contradictory elements and cannot both be 100% true.

or here; (http://www.ufocasebook.com/Cahill.html)?

404 error.

 

[Bell]

404 error.

http://www.ufocasebook.com/Cahill.html

 

[carlitos]

Once again I bring you my personal favorite explanation, Sleep Paralysis. It has been historically interpreted as being attacked by hags, demons, evil spirits and any number of other nightmarish situations.

The article notes several factors that can increase the chance of sleep paralysis occurring. Alcohol consumption is one of these factors. So is stress and sleeping on your back. It would be interesting to do a few sleep studies on people who claim to have had abduction experiences and see if they have the symptoms of a sleep paralysis sufferer.

I had an amazingly vivid episode of this last year. Really amazing. Faces and voices were appearing over me and talking, all weird like what an acid trip might look like. (I personally haven't tried that, but have heard lots of descriptions) I was completely convinced that I had lost my mind for a while. I had all three of the highlighted conditions above plus big overseas jet lag.

No aliens were present, as far as I know.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Testimony gained under hypnosis has no value. Testimony gained under hypnosis 13 years after the event even less. There's no way to tell whether any of the reported story is true, although it's worth noting that the two accounts on that page have contradictory elements and cannot both be 100% true.

People who have been "abducted" find out the details of their abductions by going to "therapists" who are believers in abduction. If the person had gone to a therapist who believed in repressed memories (of childhood abuse), the patient would have recovered the amazing details of their terrible upbringing.

The word of the day is confabulation.

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

RRamjet you say we don't know what motivates aliens to abduct people correct?

So what's your thoughts on David Jacobs and Bob Hopkins ''research'' saying that aliens are breeding with humans for a slow take over of Earth?

 

[Akhenaten]

So then you will not be averse to discussing the evidence for such presented in the following cases (http://www.ufocasebook.com/Allagash.html) or here; (http://www.ufocasebook.com/Cahill.html)?

Evidence???​

Evidence???????​

Like this, from your first link:​

Really????????????



ETA:

Claims of alien abductions, Rramjet, are extraordinary. If you wish to lend any credence to them you're going to need some extraordinary evidence.

Anecdotes and cartoons aren't extraordinary evidence. I'll see if I can find you some links to threads where this has been discussed elsewhere in the forum.