Abduction Digest, Number 26 Thursday, September 26th 1991 Today's Topics: Re: Implants Implants abductions Re: abductions abductions ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim.Delton@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Delton) Subject: Re: Implants Date: 18 Sep 91 05:39:00 GMT I recently had a CT on my head. The CT is a whole bunch of x-rays that the computer puts together to get a good view of what's in the noggin. With my interest in implants I made a point of asking the Doctor some questions about what was on the plates when we went over them. There were some little spots here and there. He said that such spots are common and are calcium and other stuff but not really identifiable, per se. -- Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Delton@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Keith Basterfield) Subject: Implants Date: 22 Sep 91 16:53:00 GMT Recently while Jerry Clarke was attending the Sydney International UFO seminar, I raised the question with him, "When did implant stories start?" One of the first references I can find in the 1980's is in the Bennewitz saga. At one stage Bennewitz and Dr Leo Sprinkle regressed a woman abductee. Amongst other things, what emerged from this woman was that the aliens were surgically implanting mind control devices into her skull to track her and use her as a "remote control." (Sources: Clark, J. UFOs in the 1980's.Detroit. Apogee. 1990. p88-89. Blum, H. Out There. pp230-231.) Now, we are told that much of what Bennewitz believed was part of a USAF disinformation campaign. So, does the implant section of the abduction phenomenon originate from disinformation? I'd appreciate anyone's thoughts, ideas, more factual information etc on this matter. (9:1040/12) -- Keith Basterfield - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Keith.Basterfield@f12.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sue.Widemark@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Sue Widemark) Subject: abductions Date: 23 Sep 91 07:57:00 GMT I have a difficult time believing that people are really abducted. The most believable case to me, was the Barney and Betty Hill case however, in reading other data (besides the famous book on it which was written from the point of view that the Hills were truly abducted), one discovers things which subtract from the creditability of the Hills testimony. The author of COMMUNION (Whitney Streiber - I think I spelled that right!!) seems to typify what might be a pattern for abduction cases. The hard evidence is rather slim. Abductees are examined with an emphasis on their genitalia and often sexually aroused by the ET's. Abductees often show a characteristic often found in schizophrenia, the "I was chosen to" attitude. I find it hard to believe that IF aliens landed and wished to physically examine us, they would emphasize sexual arousal. Our methods of reproduction are really rather ordinary and sexual arousal is something only exciting to the human animal - the alien might not even pick up that sex is something extraordinarily scintillating to humans - why should they since this attitude seems rather unreasonable (i.e. our almost worshipping attitude about sex) in the overall scheme of things. Descriptions of examinations are often confusing and described as if these aliens, possessing a far greater technology than ours, are rather primitive in the methods of examination. I have studied UFO's for years and have not, to this day, seen any HARD evidence that any have even landed. Pictures are always fuzzy, witnesses are often inebriated or fame seeking or lack in stability in one way or another. Odd circumstances, even such as described in Operation Blue Book, are explainable in other ways and even if they are not explicable, it still doesn't mean that one MUST explain it using the UFO theory. My theory of UFOs is that it's a modern incarnation of the Greek and Roman gods and godesses - the aliens often bear great resemblance to these ancient mythological figures who were super human but very actively sexual beings etc. It's interesting that one seldom finds people into Christianity and 'into' UFO's at the same time. I feel that further upholds my theory - Christians being satisfied religiously speaking, need not search for 'gods' from the sky. In investigating archiological data, one finds evidence in the earliest man of two things - art and religion. (and the art is usually closely connected to the religion). The need for religion seems to be inborn in man (and inexplicable since there is no obvious advantage to this desire, evolutionarily speaking) and I feel that in an age where traditional Christianity and Judiaism, the most modern monotheistic religions, are being rejected, mankind is regressing back to the paganism from whence he came - only the pagan gods are now clothed in technological mythology, riding in space ships instead of chariots. I leave this message, not as a criticism, but in hopes that many will respond to me and present evidence either in favor or against my above stated theory. I wish to learn more from those who might teach me. -- Sue Widemark - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Sue.Widemark@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim.Delton@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Delton) Subject: Re: abductions Date: 24 Sep 91 21:58:00 GMT ON what basis do you state that most witnesses are inebriated or seeking attention. From my reading it is exactly the opposite - most witnesses are "normal" people who as often or not don't want to tell anyone what they saw for fear of ridicule. As to the religious aspects, again, I have seen nothing that would even provide a basis for formulating a theory of any substance in regard to the religiosity of witnesses. I will say however that one might wonder if the failure of religion to solve the complex problems of today might lead otherwise religious people to look for something more meaningful and something that works, i.e., UFOnaughts. I also don't see any evidence that mankind is regressing back to paganism althought I don't see much connection of that with UFO's one way or the other. When all is said and done the "evidence" remains that something is being percieved in the skys over many cities and countries and not just by wackos. There have been numerous reports by people who are not likely to be fabricating what they say, such as the reports by American Military (Bentwaters) and Belgium Military (Belgium UFO) not to mention the tons of military reports during the project bluebook days. Most people don't associate Military with "sense of humor" in regard to false reporting - I think it highly unlikely that most military types make suprious reports on UFO's for the fun of it. That is not proof of extraterrestrial visitation by any means but suggests to me that SOMETHING is being perceived in the sky whatever it may be. -- Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Delton@f100.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser) Subject: abductions Date: 24 Sep 91 22:20:00 GMT Sue: For now, I'll just add one thing to what Jim Delton said. (And this will be a major element in my presentation to your MENSA group). In order to discuss UFOs intelligently, we MUST divide the question into two separate but related issues: 1) Do UFOs exist? 2) Are UFOs alien spacecraft? There really is no reason to discuss the second issue without first establishing the answer to the first. The answer to #1 is obviously yes. You claim: > I have studied UFO's for years and have not, to this day, seen any HARD > evidence that any have even landed. Pictures are always fuzzy, > witnesses are often inebriated or fame seeking or lack in stability in > one way or another. Odd circumstances, even such as described in > Operation Blue Book, are explainable in other ways and even if they are > not explicable, it still doesn't mean that one MUST explain it using the > UFO theory. I don't know where you've been looking, but evidence (not PROOF - EVIDENCE) exists that demonstrates the existence of a phenomenon. The phenomenon involves flying objects that have thus far not been identified, even by our best scientists. They SHOULD NOT BE THERE. When you say, "the UFO theory" in the above paragraph, I assume you are referring to the alien spacecraft hypothesis. That's true, and no one (at least not here on ParaNet) is saying anything about "MUST". But that's issue #2. For now, issue #1 is on the table. I can, and will, show you videotapes of objects that A) evade explanation by ordinary means, B) exhibit aerodynamic properties we are not yet capable of, and C) SEEM to exhibit intelligent guidance. Once that's established, are you willing to explore further, or are you going to tell me what they told me on the SCIENCE echo - basically, "SO WHAT?" Its kinda funny, when Jim Delton first logged onto ParaNet 5 years ago, he left a message almost exactly like yours. He has since changed his stance somewhat, basically because we were able to show him the evidence he needed - pictures that WEREN'T fuzzy, witnesses that WEREN'T cuckoo, etc. A question now occurs to me: are you REALLY PREPARED to change your stance on this issue? Even when the evidence dictates, its not always easy to do.... Jim -- Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG ****************A**B**D**U**C**T**I**O**N****D**I**G**E**S**T******************* Submissions UUCP {ncar,isis,csn}!scicom!abduct Submissions DOMAIN abduct@scicom.alphacdc.com Admin Address abduct-request@shemtaia.weeg.uiowa.edu ****************A**B**D**U**C**T**I**O**N****D**I**G**E**S**T*******************