1) Interest

2) Belief

3) Knowing

I can’t presume to tell people what they are experiencing, so if or until it happens to me, I think on abductions, I’m hanging somewhere between #s 1 and 2.

In terms of who or what these beings are, I agree. But are all aspects open to each person’s belief system? If I say I experienced nonhuman people in the same spacial sense that one experiences humans, can someone who didn’t have the experience say it’s an intelligent force projecting the illusion of beings–and both takes on the experience are equal?

I’m not saying that’s your take, mind you, I’m just asking because I’ve met a lot of people who share that intelligent force opinion, as if a Trickster archetype has somehow come alive and stepped outside of human consciousness and is now attacking its maker. I feel like that only makes sense in theory; when confronted with the real situation, it falls apart because you immediately know you’re dealing with real, live beings, whoever they are.

My personal model is that yes, something other than human is interacting with us. Past that, it’s all open to each person’s belief system. Maybe that’s what them “aliens” want.

I’m an abductee. I don’t mind writing that but I won’t say it to you in person. I won’t wear it as a badge of anything and I will more than likely misdirect you in conversation if the subject ever comes up or just defer to this one amazing UFO sighting I had early on. It is an embarassing subject because I know (or presume to know) what Joe Blow’s response will be: “Are ya nuts or putting me on?”

When I meet alleged abductees I don’t give them the benefit of the doubt. I generally feel uncomfortable believing anyone who wears it on their sleeve. I have met the character types some of you are referring to. Add to them the number of people who have replaced “creek in the floor” with “ghost” and then ghost with “aliens” and you’ve got the same problem in the abduction field that you have in the UFO field: a far larger percentage of frauds and misidentifications than the real thing.

So what is the real thing? And who is to say what that word “real” means anyway? Me. I am. I mean you’re not gonna do it, right? So I elect me. Here’s what’s real: alien abduction is a hard nut to crack precisely because it is both nuts-and-bolts and something to do with consciousness. It may be that ultimately whatever these beings are doing involving consciousness falls under the nuts-and-bolts category, we just haven’t the science to understand it yet.

Compounded with that is the added layer of the subject with his/her cultural and personal interpretation of what’s taking place. Just because there is a subjective response to it, interpretation of it, does not mean that there’s nothing objectively happening. Not being able to see ships in the water didn’t mean the Spaniards were a figment of the Mayan’s imagination. Mel Gibson’s, certainly, but not the native peoples’.

I’ve toyed with this notion that there are not individual beings abducting me–that it’s either all in my head or perhaps some invisible god-like entity that has the ability to appear and act like people. If I’m gonna believe that based on nothing I might as well believe it’s aliens, though, right?

Here’s the thing–here’s where I get to judge and be an authority figure on this, if only in my blog: I have had vivid dreams. I have had visions not unlike what’s described with remote viewing. I have had waking dreams, the illusion of my mother walking into my bedroom, sitting on the bed, and saying goodbye before going off to work. I have had abductions. I have currently, and ever-presently, some seemingly other energy in my body that acts as if a cohabitation or possession by someone who knows martial arts and gnostic-type stuff. It’s been evolving in me since early 2001.

Hang with me on this, here….

I have also had multiple-witness UFO sightings. One was spectacular and if everything else ends up being a new form of schizophrenia, I’ll always know that in spite of myself THAT was real.

So add all that up, assume I’m not lying, and you’ve got a guy who can tell the difference between all of those experiences. They are not the same thing. The UFO stuff had multiple witnesses so that’s not all in my head. Two of the abduction-related scenarios had witnesses–my dad and my ex girlfriend, respectively. (Actually, she was knocked out through the whole thing and doesn’t remember anything but she was there.) The energy/cohabitation/whatever the F— it is is demonstrable at any time. I’ve put myself out there to play lab rat in a legit consciousness/brain research project via UFO Magazine and on the radio, but no one’s taken me up on it. If you know of anyone, please write me. I’d like to get to the bottom of it.

But I digress….

The energy thing is actually the reason I’m writing this uber-winded comment. See, it didn’t dawn on me ’til reading this here thread that that’s how I know I’m not interpreting some mystical state of consciousness for abduction, which is a popular hypothesis of late. It is all too possible that this energy is, in fact, a product of said mystical mumbo jumbo. It’s possible that there is an energy that lies dormant in humans until triggered by meditation or steady prayer or what have you. Once triggered, it expresses the language of the body (these martial arts/gnostic ritual looking body movements) that can only be expressed when our personas shut up. This would necessarily look and feel like another entity has taken control of the body, but that’s just an illusion.

I’m not saying that’s what’s happening, I’m saying it’s certainly a possibility. What I’m also not saying is that aliens are inside of me. What I’m also not doing is misinterpreting this energy for abductions.

You see my point?

That energy is the very thing you’re referring to when you say that abductions are the cold, scientific Western interpretation of the spiritual enlightenment process. THAT is what I–of all people–SHOULD be misinterpreting as aliens. But I’m not. Because it isn’t.

The aliens are.

Plus, didn’t, like half the U.N. watch Linda Cortile float out of a window in Brooklyn?–Come on, people! Snap out of it! Just because some fruit loops and wannabes have latched onto this subject like moths and groupies doesn’t mean there’s nothing more to the subject than the Old Hag Syndrome.

I’m just sayin’.

There is a great paragraph in Joe McMoneagle’s book “Mind Trek.” He theorizes (and I agree with him) that whatever is out there in “reality” has been processed to conform to conscious expectation before you’re even aware of what you are perceiving. Before that, if it is unexpected, the subconscious is furiously shaping and stuffing whatever it is that comes in from your senses into the proper “box.”

What happened to the Hills? I’m not sure, but Kottmeyer suggested that Barney Hill at least might have seen the Outer Limits episode. What I was suggesting was that maybe he didn’t even need to have seen it for the meme to enter the collective subconscious through him, Dr. Simon, and Betty. It’s just a wild theory, but we have to chip away at dogma wherever we find it, and on this site we are concerned mostly with the UFO phenomena.

If we have no “aliens” to ask about this, at least on demand, we’ve got to use the tools in our box, even if they are rarely used tools. They may turn out to be one of the keys to opening up the mystery to better understanding.

Alien Abductions: Creating a Modern Phenomenon by Terry Matheson

Yes, it is published by Prometheus (and therefore is in league with the now ridiculously named CSI). But it is a good analysis of the various major abduction texts, and the importance of the particular research/author on the abduction accounts in those texts.

That said, I can’t stand the style of “it was in the media” explanations for fortean phenomena. Something need not be in the media to inspire a single case, and so many times this “just so” is suggested, it ends up being wrong due to lack of attention to the chronological or other details.

Anyway, take a look at Matheson’s book.

I’m sure this will all later become “established fact” by them, as are most of their “solutions” to strange mysteries (anyone out there on the crypto front ever seen another of those 12-foot tall Barn Owls that Joe Nickell said was mistaken for the Flatwoods Monster?).

What I look to see here is the same sort of thing that Allen Hynek said he saw happening with the Air Force in regard to UFO “identification” percentages. We have lots of stats on “identifieds” re: Blue Book records, supposedly showing what “was” and “was not” explained. And there is much ballyhoo to the effect that “even the small percentage that remained unexplained is enough to suggest that there is a real mystery here”. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

Yet Hynek stated that the REAL percentage of unknowns and unexplained was much higher that the AF claimed…because the “zoomies” regularly “cooked the books” on these stats.”Massaged” the determinations.

He said they’d take an incident and start evaluating it, and put forth a pure hypothesis on what MIGHT have POSSIBLY been seen. This, he implied, was almost always off-the-top-of-the-head CONJECTURE. This would constitute the initial evaluation report to ATIC.

Then he said the second draft of the case report…typically with NO new evidence to add to the interpretation…would DROP the speculative-sounding word “possibly” and replace it with “PROBABLY” , with, seemingly, no truly sustainable rationale for the word change. But the difference in the two words would constitute a considerable change in the implications of the event analysis. It would slickly remove the onus of pure conjecture from the thing and start giving it an undeserved air of “the sober analysis of developing fact”.

Hey, Hey, Hey! It’s a really great day! Semantic Evolution is underway!” (Sounds like the Ramones, huh?).

Lastly, Hynek would confide, the END report would say such that “It has been shown that…”, or “It has been determined that…” and then the thing that started out as PURE CONJECTURE…and never actually proved out AT ALL…would be credited as the
“fact”-finding “solution” to the inci- dent under review. And such would enter the AF stats list as “solved”.

This sort of thing is what started Hynek’s backing up from the conclusions drawn by Blue Book and ATIC and which eventually led to his split with them.

What this has to do with Betty and Barney Hill and “The Outer Limits” is that we have another one of those pure conjecture situations arising here that one can THINK “might have”/”could have”/”possibly” affected the Hills…but which can never be proved out in any way, shape, or form. Is it not then worth assuming that CSI-CROCK and others will take the old Blue Book route and soon turn THIS “possibly” into “Probably”, and then after that, “Absolutely and undoubtedly”?

I’m just going to wait and watch.

Remember too the Tom Corbett Space Cadet View-Master story? Another early incarnation of the Face/Pyramids on Mars controversy.