Wednesday, July 30, 2014

the possible unsettling implications of UFO sightings


The website OPEN MINDS just posted an article written by me. It explores the conclusions that some abduction researchers are coming concerning UFO sightings. The implication being that many, if not most UFO sightings have a buried abduction component.

  read the full article HERE  

This article for OPEN MINDS came about during an audio interview I did with their editorial staff. I spoke with Jason McClellan, Maureen Elsberry and Alejandro Rojas about their roles as full time UFO journalists. During that interview I was pestering them to dig deeper in their articles, to go "below the waterline" and write about the weirder aspects of the UFO phenomenon. I think I was almost, but not quite, acting rude.

During that interview, Jason suggested I write an article for the site. So, this was my response to his suggestion. I feel I tried point out some of the "weirder" stuff that I feel the nuts and bolts folks seem to avoid. This is what I feel I am pretty good at, bringing up the weirder aspects in a fairly grounded way.

The idea for the article came from a series of conversations I had with Elaine Douglass. I quoted an article she wrote for the MUFON journal, linked HERE. I consider Elaine's article required reading!
_________________________________________________

8 comments:

Red Pill Junkie said...

Link to Elaine's article is missing.

Red Pill Junkie said...

Ok, so I've read the article, and now if you don't mind I'm going to play Devil's advocate.

The article proposes the hypothesis that a majority of witnesses of 'unambiguous UFOs' are abductees, and that the sighting is occurring either before or after the abduction experience.

Most abduction researchers seem to agree with this proposition, giving a percentage ranging from 'over 50%' (Douglas) to a rather bold '100%' (Montaldo); in contrast, Roger Marsh gives a far more conservative number, which is also highlighted by the fact that he doesn't claim to be an abduction researcher.

So the obvious skeptical response would seem to be the old phrase "to a man with a hammer, the whole world is a nail;" meaning that perhaps those abduction researchers have become so obsessed with their work, they have lost all sense of perspective —personally I feel this perfectly illustrates Montaldo's position, though I may be wrong in my harsh assumption.

But also, the second thing that comes to mind is, we should probably clarify WHAT is the 'abduction experience.' I feel this is the same trap I often see in the vitriolic fights between religious folks & atheists: everyone just assumes THEIR definition of God is the one EVERYONE ELSE has, and that's just plain wrong.

By now everyone has a pop-culture stereotype of what an abduction experience entails --you wake up at night, you can't move, you see 3 or more grays standing by your bed, they fly you aboard the ship, put you on a table & perform some medical examination, yadda yadda yadda-- but if what you're proposing is actually true, then what it means is the stereotype is wrong in many fundamental ways, since the witnesses observing those unambiguous UFOs were quite probably NOT in their bedrooms when they had the sighting.

So those are my observations, which should not be taken as a total rejection of the hypothesis; I'm merely imagining the kind of backlash the article will have with the 'nuts & bolts' crowd who frequent the Open Minds website.


Saludos,

RPJ

Mike Clelland! said...

The "man with a hammer" analogy is perfect. I am swallowed up in the abduction mythos (my own story and my own research) and I feel like I'm seeing *EVERYBODY* as an abductee. I recognize my own obsession in that.

I share that with Joe Montaldo...

Roger Marsh was quoted as saying it's only 5%, and though he doesn't claim to be an abduction researcher - He DOES claim to be a lifetime multiple abductee - and he has psychic abilities!

http://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Dialogue-Natures-Universal-Broadcast/dp/1448970636/ref=sr_1_15?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1406831175&sr=1-15

So in a way this makes Marsh's "off the top of his head guess" all the more bizarre, to me at least.

I agree 1000% with the challenges of defining what the 'abduction experience" might truly mean. I feel it is much more *mystical* than the pop-culture stereotype. I speak to this a lot.

I like your quote: "...everyone just assumes THEIR definition of God is the one EVERYONE ELSE has, and that's just plain wrong."

So yes, this article of mine opens up a bag of worms. Everything is somehow fleeting and ephemeral But, there is a core part of this weirdness that is VERY real. (again, even the word "real" seems slippery after digging into all of this stuff).

Mike Clelland! said...

Above - I missed the 1234 time-count by a minute. I am forced to conclude that I am not sure what this might mean.

Also - the link to the Elaine Douglass article is up.

Knocker said...

I appreciate RPJ's argument and have one of my own. Granted, I've only seen two ufos, but I had absolutely no missing time. I have no memories or dreams of abduction or of greys, zilch. My husband was with me during each sighting and he can back me up, so I wonder if abductees just assume my memory has been wiped which, to me, is a lot stranger than the fact that my sightings came without residual abduction scenarios.

While I don't reject any theory completely, I think it healthy to have a list handy of those who religiously tout such truths, but that's just a standard I adhere to for myself. To each his own, but ... My memories are in tact.

pueokeokeo said...

As always, this whole mystery comes down to language -- the terms we've been given, the terms that we choose (or choose not) to use-- and comes down to turning those words/terms on their head (or not) and seeing what shakes out.

For me, I don't call the phenomenon "UFO" anymore, as many also have chosen not to ... but instead I have chosen call it by another, more singularity-oriented, acronym. I feel like when I call it a "UFO" my own soul hears me saying "You Foe" ... hears me referring to it as my enemy, you could say. So I asked my soul what I should call it ... and I was told to "simply call me U" ... (drop the F and the O) . So whenever I refer (internally or externally) to the experience of high-strange encounters in the heavens (or on the ground), I simply refer to it as my encounter with U. My own soul is the most unidentifiable part of myself and I bring me (my soul) home to myself when I call it "U". I chase me (my soul) away from myself when I think of those encounters in the greater atmosphere as "UFO" encounters.

This might confuse some people as I speak to them in real-time. If I ask a guy if he has ever had an experience with U, as in "Have you ever experienced U before?", he might get a little confused, but at least it will possibly lead to a discussion of a bigger story that has been concealed by the potentially self-sabotaging hand-me-down terms that he might not have looked at too closely (nor deconstructed) yet.

Language is the great alien technology ... and if language is not deconstructed a bit, then it's likely you will continue to be a member of the slave race to the alien ( to the abduction scenarios). If you do understand the power (and meaning) of the word/s, and do the work of stalking your own use of words, then the alien will begin quickly to leave you the fuck alone , thus making the chances of entering into freedom and sovereignty very high. U may not stay out of your face after entering the sovereign spaces of your own creating but you will not be bothered by U anymore. You won't be bothered to look at U as a savior and won't be bothered to look at U as an evil bastard. U will just be there ... a part of your life ... not good, not bad, and not even neutral, although it might have neutralizing effects in all areas when self-sabotaging comes into play, as a self-sabotaging will always come into play, at least until the wisdom of deep-elderhood is entered into if one should be so lucky.

Anonymous said...

Hello Mike,
I was told 15 years ago by a researcher that in his opinion,individuals that see a UFO up close are likely to be experiencers whether they realize it or not.
The strangeness of the UFO phenomena causes many to disregard many related issues (OBE,ghosts, etc).
One of the correct statements in the paper is that the experiencers are the witnesses, and what they say is probably the best way to try and come to some understanding of what is going on.

L.

Rebecca Hardcastle Wright said...

Hello: Exoconsciousness examines Mike's abduction study regarding UFO sightings. See blog below. I appreciate Mike opening the discussion. Via my work in Exoconsciousness--it is time to move beyond the closed loop of abduction research that often re-traumatizes and views ET experience through one lens, which may be myopic. As science begins to embrace consciousness science, multi-dimensional mind--many of our former assumptions may disappear.
http://rebeccahardcastlewright.com/2014/08/01/ufo-sightingexoconsciousness-the-exoconscious-implications-of-ufo-sightings/