Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Alien Abductions: I Just Want to Say. . .

The Nightmare, Henry Fuseli, 1781

I've been posting a lot lately about alien abductions and my perspectives on the phenomena that after all these years has yet to be solved. Of course, I doubt very much it ever will be solved. But obsession with the process is too enchanting to ignore.

I think mind control from human entities have a great deal to do with what we've agreed to call "alien abductions." MILABS. Social engineering, deep, dark, very black shadow government projects. Rogue elements within not only government, but the so-called "private sector" world of corporate-industrial America. Those two camps: the private sector and the government, are not terribly distinct. They are greedy bed fellows for sure. So all this and much more, including mystical, paranormal and psychological aspects, are a part of the alien abduction phenomena.

But I just want to say, that, while I think the cause of alien abductions are literal aliens literally abducting humans is the least likely, I don't think it's impossible. Who the hell knows what it is? Unfortunately, it's not only time we're dealing with in terms of decades of an unanswered mystery, but sordid episodes within Ufology. Professor David Jacobs treatment of Emma Woods, the shady and uneasy reputation of hypnosis in general, UFO researchers who've led witnesses down their own agenda strewn paths; all have contributed to the tangle called the "alien abduction mystery."

I am convinced there are non-human entities about, on a variety of planes, including extraterrestrials. Accepting there is ET doesn't negate other ideas. It doesn't make these ideas separate from each other: ET here, mind control there. There are many manipulators and co-creators.

In some abductions, witnesses report going through solid walls, or being pulled from their bodies. (the latter something I've experienced.) This is sometimes used to discount ET, and puts the abduction experience in the "mind." Maybe it's both.

Meanwhile, no matter what it turns out to be, for the witnesses that's experienced alien abductions, they're going through hell. It's real to them.  We have to figure out why. Which includes the possibility it is literally as they say. If it isn't, one question that seems obvious is: why do the abductions seem so real?

I don't know what abductions are, but a couple of things I'm sure of. One, abductions aren't just one thing; they contain elements of many types of phenomena. And secondly, there is the possibility that literal aliens from space (or elsewhere, and those we call "aliens" are using the space motif to distract us)  is still a possibility.

Because I refuse to say I'm an abductee myself doesn't mean I discount the stories of those who insist they are. I just want to say...


Mike Clelland! said...


I feel the same way on a lot of your points, although I differ on the empahsis on certain parts of the lore. This is a murky subject for sure. Everything about it is mired in a sort of cloud of distorted perception.

That said, I feel like you and I are in a very similar boat. There are folks out there who are very eager to call me a UFO abductee. But, without a real memory, or direct knowledge - I just can't go there, it just doesn't feel honest.

Mike C!

Terry the Censor said...

I have been reading science papers while researching the Hill case. Scientists find that once a detailed and intense image gets in our head, we tend to assume it's real. Usually our fantasies and dreams are fuzzy and fragmented and even illogical -- that is, qualitatively distinguishable from true memories. Our reality monitoring is pretty good; we pick up the proper cues and discern fact from fiction.
But images experienced in a highly charged or a suggestive state can be more intense and detailed than our usual fantasies and foggy recall. We might be cued to think of these vivid images as real, whether they are or not. Those of us with particularly good imaginations, who have a propensity for what psychologists call "absorption," are more likely to make these errors.
(Dixon and Vasilescu give a good overview of source-monitoring theory in the March 2011 issue of the Journal of Experiential Psychotherapy. They all discuss several suggestive imagery techniques, many used to "recover" memories.)

Rick Phillips said...

Good positions Regan, matches my views quite closely. That said, IMO, the phenomenology of space itself and `different' types of spaces is what I feel is most likely the `majority' of the answer.

Rick Phillips