Are 50% of Alien Abductees Homosexual?

[Laura]

In this thread: http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=6989 - a discussion of the "Negative Introject" (programs and the predator's mind), I brought up a subject that is deserving of it's own discussion, in the appropriate forum.

When you apply this knowledge to the human brain, with its intellectual center (prefrontal cortex) that can produce all sorts of rationalizations for this dysfunction, the range of potential subjective dream worlds to lose oneself in are endless. Something sets off our hair-trigger defenses, we can't cope with it and we dissociate. Throw in Laura's research on Transmarginal Inhibition and it becomes obvious that to trust one's own mind without objective, third party review is suicidally reckless at best.

Indeed, this part is the most frightening - and, at the same time, liberating - point that can be made:

"But the truth of the matter is that, until we've created and fused our
magnetic center, ALL of our thoughts and feelings are suspect because
they are all the result of faulty wiring in our brains. Here in 3D STS
it is almost never a matter of "this is me and this is the predator and
I can choose to ignore the predator." In the beginning everything is the
predator. The underlying moods that led to the self-defeating thoughts,
any feelings in response to those thoughts, all of it the work of faulty
wiring."

I was searcing for some info on a completely different subject the other day and came across the text I have excerpted below. This guy makes an interesting case for the construction of the "false personality" including the most basic things about us, including what we perceive as "objects of desire."

I read this at almost the same time as reading in a rather problematical book by Kevin Randle, William Cone and Russ Estes which states that about 50% of "alien abductees" are homosexual. That's an astonishing figure - if it is true - which raises some questions as to why that would be the case. One would think that the number would be more or less equal to the normal percentage of homosexuals in any given population.

Of course, since Randle is basically saying that abductions don't really happen, I'm not sure what his point is. That is one of the reasons I would really like for some of you to read this book and help me sort it out.

Anyway, here is the excerpt that concerns me at the moment:

http://personal1.stthomas.edu/ajscheiber/Professional/TURNSCRE.MLA.htm

Desire and Anomie in The Turn of the Screw

Andrew J. Scheiber University of St. Thomas

Dr. Jean Itard's work with Victor, the "wild boy of Aveyron," constitutes one of the axiomatic scientific fables of the Nineteenth Century. First published in English in 1802, it documents the collision of Rousseauistic freedom worship with the suggestion, embodied in the feral foundling Victor, that the individual personality is constructed rather than inhibited by the symbolic systems of culture; the lesson of the fable, as Christopher Herbert aptly summarizes it, is this: "that in order for desire to exist in any coherent, active, and potentially satisfiable form, it must embed itself in a fully social matrix, which is to say, become directed toward objects conventionally defined and symbolically coded as desirable by human society" (Herbert 50). [...]

This culturally deterministic view of human feeling and behavior enjoyed a resurgence in the early 1890's, as sociological pioneers such as Emile Durkheim insisted that "Social facts are not the simple development of psychic facts, but the second are in large part only the prolongation of the first in the interior of consciences" (DL 349). For Durkheim and others, the socially authorized symbolic objects of desire did not in effect limit the avenues of human feeling, but rather constructed those avenues, mapping routes through what otherwise would be a chaotic wilderness of emotions and impulses. In this view, the norms of "civilized" culture were understood not as restraints, as Rousseauistic romanticism would have it, but rather as tools, a kind of technology of satisfaction which provided the necessary matrix for human desires and their fulfillment. (This is, of course, a position similar to that argued by Matthew Arnold in Culture and Anarchy, wherein he characterizes freedom as a form of "machinery" that has become fetishized as an end in itself.) [...]

It's useful to reflect briefly on the relevance of Durkheim's basic conception to some current debates in literary theory. For him human identity is radically embedded in societal and material contingencies; but more importantly, these contingencies are significant principally in their systematic symbolicity, through which they produce and shape human motives and behavior. Desires of all kinds (including sexual ones) are experienced as a valences of identity, and are not only "trapped in the economy of the sign," as Lacan says; they are in fact created by that economy, their expression and satisfaction dependent, as Jay Clayton puts it, on "embodiment in social and historical forms" (82, 83).

As Durkheim and other pioneers of the "human sciences" grappled with the syntax that governed human society and personality, they theorized the apparent materiality of civilization as a semiotic system within which individual self-awareness was itself constituted. For Durkheim individual states of conscience arise "not from the psychological nature of man in general, but from the manner in which men once associated mutually affect one another," and that "individual constitutions are only remote conditions, not determinate causes" (DL 350); in addition, these "mutual associations" are essentially semiotic in nature, since "it is clear that essentially social life is made up of representations" (S 312).

The key point to be grasped here is that in Durkheim's view the semiotic terms that determine self-consciousness include desires and objects-- including sexual ones-- that the repression model holds to be pre-civilized, and therefore pre-semiotic; as a consequence, disruptions or deprivations of the socially symbolic arena can lead to crises of both identity and desire. This formulation seems to find some support in Itard's narrative of the wild child Victor. Raised in a state of radical cultural deprivation, Victor despite undergoing the biological upheavals of puberty is unable to focus the the changes in his body into anything approaching sexual desire; "erotically oblivious to women, . . . incapable of recognizing [them] as objects of his sex drive," Victor experiences other, less sexually defined symptoms: not only apathy and lethargy but a series of traumatic sensational responses, including "convulsive frenzies," profuse bleeding from the nose and ears (Herbert 49-50).

Victor's behavior suggests the incoherency of his sexual identity at two different levels. First of all, his anarchic symptoms suggest a kind of bodily semioclasm: he is unable to experience himself as a "sign," a socially constructed combination of bodily signifiers (including sexual desires and responses) and underlying biologically determined signifieds (his procreant organs and capacities); but secondly, Victor's "semiotic emergency" (Lacan's phrase) is caused by a larger disruption--that of the relational nature of sign to sign.

Deprived of initiation into the system of representations on which the social and interpersonal dimensions of sexuality are contingent, Victor finds it impossible to construct an individual sexual self-concept as well.

Victor's crisis is, to borrow from Jameson, a "breakdown in the signifying chain" (Jameson's term), a moment in which "the genesis of meaning out of the interplay among signifiers in a total order of meaning is paralyzed by a breach . . . upon which such interplay depends" (Cantwell 292).

Note: Lacan's psychoanalytic model posits as a stage in the development of the psyche a "mirror" image, "through which the I is precipitated in a primordial form," a stage which is followed by a second and dialectical element, its "social determination." The first stage Lacan calls "idealization," and the second "differentiation," with individual self- consciousness a result of the interplay of the two.

NOTES and Sources:

Lacan, Jacques. "The Mirror Stage as a Formative of the Function of the I." In Ecrits: A Selection, translated by Alan Sheridan. New York: Norton, 1977. 1-7.

Herbert, Christopher. Culture and Anomie: Ethnographic Imagination in the Nineteenth Century. U of Chicago P, 1991.

I thought it might be useful to also have some background on "The wild boy of Aveyron" in order to evaluate the ideas of Itard et al.

http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/itard.shtml

In 1799 three French sportsmen were exploring a wood in southern France when they came upon a young boy. They guessed that he was eleven or twelve years old, and he was filthy, naked, and covered with scars. The boy ran from them, but he was caught when he stopped to climb a tree. The sportsmen brought him to a nearby village and gave him over into the care of a widow. As the story of his capture spread, local residents began reporting that a young naked boy had been seen in the woods five years earlier. It was presumed that he had lived alonefor many years, and that he had survived by eating whatever he could find or catch (Itard, 1801/1962).

The boy escaped from the widow, and spent the next winter roaming the woods alone. He was eventually recaptured and placed in safe custodial care. An official in the French government heard about him, and suggested that he be taken to Paris where he could be studied as an example of the human mind in its primitive state (Itard, 1801/1962). However, the prominent Parisian physicians who examined him declared that he was not "wild" at all; their collective opinion was that the boy was mentally deficient, and that he had been recently abandoned by his parents. The famous psychiatrist Philippe Pinel put it succinctly when he said that the boy was in fact "an incurable idiot" (Gaynor, 1973).

Itard disagreed. He believed that the boy had survived alone in the woods for at least seven years, citing as evidence his "profound aversion to society, its customs, and its artifacts" (Itard, 1801/1962). He asserted that his apparent mental deficiency was entirely due to a lack of human interaction. Moreover, he believed that this could be overcome. He brought the boy-whom he eventually named "Victor"--to The National Institution for Deaf-Mutes, and devoted the next five years to an intensive, individualized educational program (Humphrey, 1962; French, 2000). This was the first example of an IEP, and the beginning of modern special education (Gaynor, 1973; Humphrey, 1963; Pinchot, 1948).

Itard identified five primary goals for his pupil: 1. To interest him in social life 2. To improve his awareness of environmental stimuli 3. To extend the range of his ideas (e.g. introduce him to games, culture, etc.) 4. To teach him to speak 5. To teach him to communicate by using symbol systems, such as pictures and written words

Itard had been influenced by the empiricist philosophers John Locke and Etienne Condillac, both of whom advanced the idea that all knowledge comes through the senses. Victor's eyesight and hearing were normal, but his responses to sensory input were often sluggish or nonexistent. For example, he would perk up at the slightest sound of a nutshell cracking, but would not startle at the sound of a gunshot. Itard reasoned that Victor could not learn effectively until he became more attuned to his environment. Therefore, his educational approach relied heavily on sensory-training and stimulation. (Humphrey, 1962; Itard, 1801/1962).

Victor improved, but he never approached normalcy. After five years he could read and speak a few words, demonstrated affection for his caretakers, and could carry out simple commands. Itard was disappointed in this lack of progress, but he maintained his environmentalist position, stating that would have been successful if Victor had been a few years younger. (Pinchot, 1948). As it turns out, Philippe Pinel and the other physicians were probably right; modern readers of Itard's personal account usually come to the conclusion that Victor was indeed mentally retarded or autistic (French, 2000; Humphrey, 1962; Pinchot, 1948).

The fact that Itard failed to make Victor "normal" is relatively unimportant to this story. The important thing is that he tried. He was the first physician to declare that an enriched environment could compensate for developmental delays caused by heredity or previous deprivation (French, 2000). Up to this time, it had been assumed that mentally retarded people were uneducable (Humphrey, 1962). As one writer put it, Itard's work with Victor "did away with the paralyzing sense of hopelessness and inertia that had kept the medical profession and everybody else from trying to do anything constructive for mental defectives" (Kanner, 1967).

Itard's influence was further extended through the work of his pupil, Eduard Séguin. Séguin improved and expanded his teacher's sensory-training approach, and put it into practice in special schools for retarded students. He earned fame both in Europe and abroad for his nonverbal intelligence test, which also had its roots in Itard's work (French, 2000; Humphrey, 1962; Kanner, 1967). Maria Montessori developed her methods in large part by modifying Séguin's educational approach. Through her, Jean-Marc Gaspard Itard has had an impact on thousands of normally developing schoolchildren all over the world (Frankel, et al., 1975; French, 2000; Humphrey, 1962)

Then, right after posting the above, I found some stuff Randle wrote on the subject of his demographics. Curiously, I see that it was just posted on Aug. 23!! Talk about strange timing.

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2007/08/abduction-enigma.html

The Abduction Enigma

(Note: Russ Estes, Bill Cone and I published a book called The Abduction Enigma about a decade ago. We saw it as a way of changing abduction research for the better by pointing out the weaknesses in the field. Of course we were attacked for our heresies and our suggestions were ignored. Instead other researchers asked for our demographics and wanted to know our methodologies. The following, originally published in The Anomalist, provided that specific information.)

In July 1996, at the MUFON Symposium held in Greensboro, North Carolina, Budd Hopkins was disturbed by my paper about pop cultural influences on the imagery of alien abduction. He approached me and said, "You´re not an abduction researcher." I reminded him that he used information about an abduction I had investigated in his first book on the topic. I have been investigating alien abductions since the mid-1970s and apparently before Hopkins started.

Four years later, that same comment was made, even after having published a number of articles on the topic, and having written two books about abduction. The second of those books, The Abduction Enigma, written with Russ Estes (seen here) and Dr. William P. Cone, has created something of a fire-storm, with many attacking without attempting to understand the reason the book exists.

Before moving on, it is necessary to provide some background information on both Estes and Cone. Estes, as a documentarian, has been investigating UFOs, and by default, alien abductions, since the late 1960s, which puts him ahead of most in the field today. He has interviewed and video taped literally hundreds of abductees and was responsible for some of the insights published in The Abduction Enigma.

Dr. Cone is a licensed psychological clinician with more than twenty years experience in the field. He has worked with, again literally, hundreds who believe that they have been abducted. Some of those believed the abduction was at the hands of worshipers of Satan, but dozens of others believed that they had been abducted by alien creatures. When we begin to talk of experience, as a psychologist and an abduction researcher, Cone has credentials that are as impressive as any of those working in the field today. Unlike some who gained their experience in the ivory towers of academia, Cone gained his experience in the field working with real people who had real problems.

Of course none of that means anything to the critics of our book. They simply begin attempting to pick apart some of our basic assumptions. For example, those believing that alien abductions are taking place have asked what is our definition of an abduction. They are attempting, I suppose, to understand the process we used to select the participants in our survey. The flip answer would be that we used the same definition that they used and the same people they used. It allows us to dodge the question without answering it.

The real answer is that our sample was taken from those who had been identified as abductees by others. That means that our sample was made up of those who were accepted as abductees and that we identified no one from the general population who hadn´t been accepted by the "mainstream" of abduction research. It means that the abductees were those identified by Hopkins, John Mack, John Carpenter, Yvonne Smith, Richard Boylan and so on. It means that we did not identify them as abductees but relied on the definition used by those others and the identification of those others. Therefore, as mentioned, abductees in our sample are the same as the abductees used by the other researchers.

The interesting thing here is that there seems to be no universal definition of who is an abductee. Jerry Clark, in the second edition of his The UFO Encyclopedia wrote, "Abduction reports concern alien entities who capture humans from their bedrooms, vehicles, or open air, transport their captives inside a UFO, and subject them to a bizarre, sometimes painful physical examination before returning them to the capture site." That seems to define the abduction event but not who, or what, an abductee actually is.

David Jacobs, in Secret Life provided a description of the typical abduction. He wrote, "An unsuspecting woman is in her room preparing to go to bed. She gets into bed, reads a while, turns off the light, and drifts off into a peaceful night´s sleep. In the middle of the night she turns over and lies on her back. She is awakened by a light that seems to be glowing in her room. The light moves toward her and takes the shape of a small `man´ with a bald head and huge black eyes. She is terrified. She wants to run but she cannot move. She wants to scream but she cannot speak... This is the typical beginning of an abduction." Again, this addresses, more closely, what an abduction is as opposed to who is an abductee.

Raymond E. Fowler, in The Watchers, also tells us what an abduction is and provides a few clues about who the abductee is. He wrote, "...credible witnesses who claim not only to have observed but to have been taken abroad a UFO by alien creatures ...the alleged abductee claims to have been examined and operated upon with foreign instruments. Almost always, communication is accomplished by telepathy." By the way, I have seen no complaints about Fowler´s suggestion that communication is telepathic, and I have seen no one howling for demographic data to prove this bold assertion.

The closest that anyone comes, at least in the literature search I made, was from the "Abduction Code of Conduct" published in the Journal of UFO Studies. The authors wrote, "As there exist a number of possible causes for a reported abduction experience, investigators and MHPs [Mental Health Professionals] may work with individuals whose reported experiences stem from a variety of factors... abduction experiencer... simply indicates someone who reports experiences in their (sic) life which are consistent with, suggestive of, or thought to be associated with being `abducted´ (i.e., `carried or led away... in secret or by force,´) by apparently nonhuman entities." What this suggests is that an abductee is anyone who reports that he or she is an abductee. It tends to validate our sample because those we used were those who reported they were abductees.

Unlike most of those other researchers, we did not advertize in the backs of books, or in magazines, or on radio programs, suggesting those with specific types of symptoms to write or call to expand our database. Those used in our survey were those who had been identified by other, the "true" abduction researchers. They were the ones who attended the UFO conferences, the symposiums, and the local, small meetings, and those who had joined one of the many abduction groups whose purpose was to gather to discuss abduction. Many of them were names that would be recognized by the UFO community including those who have appeared on television, those who have written their own books, and those who have been featured in the books of the abduction researchers. We defined our sample by who they were and who had hypnotically regressed them. The flippant answer turns out to be accurate because "our" abductees were the same as those interviewed by Hopkins, Mack, Jacobs, Carpenter and many of the other, lesser known researchers.

I might point out here that, somehow, the selection of abductees has been turned on its head. We used those only identified as abductees, yet the other researchers advertize for their clients. Their abductees are "self- selected." Their sample is not random, by the strictest definition and that could skew their results.

The size of our sample was 316 individuals. They were selected because they claimed to have been abducted and "true" researchers had validated their claim. Today, for some reason, everyone is screaming for our demographics, though in the past no one really cared about these numbers, random sampling or even the scientific method.

In the last few months I read again that there is no psychopathology in the abduction population because Hopkins tested for it. What is rarely remembered is that Hopkins selected the sample, so it doesn´t seem to be random and it was only nine individuals. Hopkins has said that he has interviewed hundreds and hundreds of abductees since he began his research. This would mean that the data he presented about nine individuals who were not randomly sampled are invalid. The sample size was too small and not properly selected. Somehow those facts get missed most of the time.

In fact, Dr. Thomas E. "Eddie" Bullard pointed out that the Hopkins´ test was of people who had "achieved a high educational level." He also noted that "In this sense the group is neither adequate in size or suitably representative to indicate what abductees are like... Abductions may still have a psychological explanation, but it belongs in some branch of the field other than abnormal psychology." Bullard agreed that the sample was too small for the results to have any validity, yet champions of alien abduction continue to cite these data.

Our sample was drawn from all parts of the United States and several foreign countries. Each individual was video taped, and each was asked the same questions in approximately the same order. We, or rather I should say Russ and Bill because they did the lion´s share of the interviewing, asked all questions that seemed relevant. We did not limit ourselves by our preconceived notions, nor did we worry about privacy issues because we do not plan to release the names of those who participated in the interviews. In our sample, all those asked sat down in front of the video camera. Some asked to have their faces in shadow, or to be backlit so that it would be impossible to recognize them. Unlike Hopkins, Mack and the others, everyone agreed to go on camera in some respect. In our sample we had one hundred percent cooperation. Each of those interviewed signed a release, each had the right to refuse to answer any specific question, and each had the right to refuse the interview on camera. This too negates the privacy issue that is now so important to some of these researchers.

Here again there are some interesting twists. Yes, when I first approached Pat Roach (who, by the way was self-selected), she asked that I use a pseudonym for her. I called her Patty Price to protect her identity. Within months, she had agreed to go on a syndicated television program and used her real name. So much for the privacy issue here.

The story of Sherry, as related in The Abduction Enigma, is also illustrative. Sherry wanted her identity protected. She wanted to remain in the shadows and have her facial features obscured, up to point. That point seemed to be Disney and the opportunity to appear on a program that would be aired nationally. On television she told a story that was somewhat different than that she had been telling her abduction researcher and that she had told Estes. Not only that, she dragged her daughter into the tales, telling how she had stood by helpless, paralyzed, as the aliens had medically examined her child. Sherry had appeared in front of the camera to tell her horrifying tale.

Finally, before we leave this area, and in contrast to what other researchers claim, Estes noticed that the abductees were often eager to appear on camera. The reason given was that the abductee seemed to believe that sharing the tale might help others and if that was the outcome, then the exposure to possible ridicule was well worth it. If Hopkins and others are having trouble finding people to appear on television programs to help advertize their latest books, then they simply are asking the wrong people. It has not been difficult for us.

One other point about the our sample is important. The range of ages is from 26 to 47. We all decided not to deal with children because the memories of children are easily manipulated as shown by a number of scientific studies. When you begin to interview children under five, the things you learn from them are colored by their sense of wonder and by "magical" thinking. They don´t understand causal relationships and everything is new and wonderful for them.

As children grow, they learn more about the world around them and their view of the planet changes. They learn that some of the myths of childhood have no validity, but they are still confronted by things that are new to them and information that is often difficult to grasp. An authority figure, whether a parent, a teacher, a police officer, or an abduction researcher, can lead them, often without intension, into arenas that are far from the literal truth. We eliminated this problem by dealing solely with adults.

Now, in what has become the strawman of our research, we found a disproportionately high number of homosexuals in our sample. One hundred and seventy-four of them expressed homosexual tendencies. That can be broken down into those who were bisexual (23%) and those who had expressed a homosexual preference but who had not engaged in sexual activity for more than five years (29%). Before anyone claims the percentages do not add up, remember that those who said they were bisexual could also be in the group who abstained. And no, we did not investigate to learn the accuracy of their claims. We accepted, at face value, their reporting of their sexual preferences and activities, just as the other abduction researchers have accepted at face value many of the self-reported facts.

Before we proceed, it might be illustrative to discuss how this discovery was made. It wasn´t a question of sitting down to decide to talk about homosexuality, but an outgrowth of the interview process. Russ Estes had asked about the gender of the alien creatures. He was told, by the females, that most of the abductors were male, but that the leaders seemed to be female. In early discussions, as these distinctions were being made, Estes asked the natural follow-up question which revealed the pattern of gender identity. Once the preliminary observation had been made, the question about sexual orientation, as an outgrowth of an attempt to learn the gender of the alien creatures, was added to the survey.

The statistic became important, not because it deals with homosexuality, but because homosexuals are over represented in our abduction sample. Depending on which psychological or sexual study is cited, the representation of homosexuals in the general population is between 2 and 10 percent. This means their representation in our sample is between six and thirty times what it should be. Given that there is no accurate way to identify a homosexual individual by outward appearances, it would seem that an alien race grabbing people at random would end up with a sample that is statistically within the norms of the general population. This is not the case, based on our findings.

Maybe it should be pointed out here that African-Americans, Hispanics, and Asians are vastly under represented in the abduction population. Again, you would expect that all racial and ethnic groups would be represented as they appear in the general population, but this doesn't seem to be the case. Yes, Hopkins, Mack and Jacob all say that the representation of these groups is normal but the individuals in these sub-groups simply do not report their abductions. Of course, if they don´t report them, then we can´t know for certain that they are properly represented but I see no one suggesting that abductions researchers explain this abnormality. No one is asking for proof that these other racial and ethnic groups are properly represented in the abduction populations. Instead the pronouncement that these other groups are properly represented but don´t report their abductions is accepted at face value without questioning the validity of the claim.

All of this leads to a number of other statistical surveys that could be made. By changing the variable from sexual preference to college education, or incident of divorce, or religious choice, or right and left handedness, further statistical abnormalities might be identified, and that might provide clues about the nature of alien abduction. If another population, one which has no outwardly visible signs is overly represented, then we would have learned something about those who report abductions and that might provide clues about abductions in general.

And while we're attacked for not providing precise demographic data, other abduction researchers are not asked similar questions. Using Budd Hopkins again, he has said that 20 to 30 percent of the abductees have conscious memories of their abductions so that hypnotic regression is not a factor. No one has asked any specific questions about this information. For example, what exactly does Hopkins mean by conscious recall? Does this mean a vague feeling of unease, the memory of awaking paralyzed and the belief that something is in the room with them, or is it just the memory of a vivid dream?

Hopkins reported that "Steve Kilburn" had a conscious recall of a vague feeling of dread about a segment of highway. Under hypnotic regression, this feeling of dread was expanded into an abduction experience. Is Kilburn counted in this 20 to 30 percent?

Does the conscious recall include what is properly termed sleep paralysis? Depending on the study used, as many as half the people in the general population have experienced an episode of sleep paralysis. The symptoms match, exactly, those Jacobs outlined as his typical abduction experience cited earlier. No one has asked if the abduction researchers have taken care to separate the abduction experience from that of sleep paralysis.

In fact, abduction researchers have claimed that sleep paralysis does not explain alien abduction. They cite differences such as those who were allegedly abducted while fully awake. That does not mean that a percentage of those now identified as abductees did not have, as the precipitating event, an episode of sleep paralysis.

I should point out here that we attempted to gain the cooperation of a number of abduction researchers in a general survey of sleep paralysis in their abductee populations. It seemed to us that such a statistical analysis would provide some independent corroboration of some our findings. Of our 316 individuals, nearly half reported an episode that mimicked sleep paralysis and seemed to be the event that caused them to search for additional answers. None of the abduction researchers were courteous enough to even respond with a negative answer. Instead they ignored our requests for assistance and this was long before the book was published.

We can expand our database by searching through the abduction literature. Hopkins´ tale of a man he called Philip Osborne provides us with some clues. Hopkins wrote, "I noticed his interest in the subject [UFOs] had a particular edge to it. It was almost as if he accepted too much, too easily." Hopkins believed "that someone with a hidden traumatic UFO experience might later on be unconsciously drawn to the subject."

Osborne called Hopkins after an NBC UFO documentary and said that he had been struck by Steve Kilburn's remark that anyone could be the victim of abduction. According to Hopkins (seen here), Osborne had been searching his memory for anything in his past that would indicate some sort of strange experience. Then, one night after the NBC program, Osborne awoke in the middle the night, paralyzed. He could not move, turn his head or call for help. The experience was over quickly, but it reminded him of another, similar event that happened while he was in college. That earlier event had one other, important addition. He felt a presence in the room with him.

Hopkins, along with others, met Osborne a few days later to explore these events using hypnosis. During the initial hypnotic regression, Osborne gave only a few answers that seemed to direct them toward an abduction experience. According to Hopkins, Osborne told them that he "had more or less refused to describe imagery or events that seemed 'too pat,' too close to what he and we might have expected in a UFO encounter."

During the discussion after the hypnosis, Osborne told Hopkins that "I would see something and I would say to myself in effect, 'Well, that's what I'm supposed to see.'"

And, in a second hypnotic regression session held a few days later, while under hypnosis, Osborne said, "I'm not sure I see it... I think it's my imagination... It's gone now."

Osborne, it seems, had recognized one of the problems with abduction research, had communicated it to Hopkins, and then had it ignored. Osborne was wondering if the "memories" he was seeing under hypnosis were real. Hopkins believed they were so took no notice of Osborne's concern. Hopkins believes in the reliability of hypnosis as a method for uncovering the truth. We, however, see those statements by Osborne as extremely important in attempting to understand the context of alien abduction.

The fact that seemed to be overlooked, once again, is that Osborne's initial experiences are classic forms of sleep paralysis. Even the belief that an entity is in the room happens in about eighty percent of the cases of sleep paralysis. While Osborne certainly has some form of conscious recall of an event, it wasn´t until hypnosis was introduced that the memories moved from those that sound suspiciously like sleep paralysis to those that are now a complete and full blown abduction. The key here, with Osborne, as it has been with so many others, is the use of hypnosis and the validation provided by the abduction researcher.

And now we reach the reports that can be classified as vivid dreams. Betty Hill remembered nothing of the abduction until she began to dream about it. On the advice of friends, she began to keep a journal of those dreams and when interviewed by UFO researchers about her sighting, told them of the dreams she was having. That aspect of the case, the abduction told through dreams, was virtually ignored until she, along with husband Barney, were hypnotically regressed. Then, because the memories were accessed through hypnosis, they seem to have been validated. The point, however, is that the conscious memories of the abduction surfaced through dreams.

So, there are a number of reports that represent conscious recall. Unfortunately, that conscious recall isn´t of an abduction itself, but of a dream, or possibly sleep paralysis, or of vague anxieties that emerge under hypnosis.

Yes, we know that Eddie Bullard, in his report for FUFOR noted, "Only a minority of cases include hypnosis in their discovery and investigation. For 212 cases the reports include no mention of hypnotic probes, and undoubtedly in most instances no mention means no hypnosis." Of course, this is an assumption on the part of Bullard. Since his report was published in 1987, that situation has changed. But the real point is that we have no demographic information about where Hopkins obtained his 20 to 30 percent suggesting no hypnosis necessary for recall of the abduction event.

But all of this, the demands for demographic data and definitions of abduction are red herrings because they mask the real issue. In The Abduction Enigma we addressed many of these issues, but more of the criticisms focused on either the lack of demographic data or that we had found an anomaly in our statistical sample. That is, the homosexual population was over represented. We thought this strange statistic should be reported simply because none of the other abduction researchers had explored this ground. When questioned about it, they thought nothing of it.

Overlooked, however, are the facts we uncovered about abduction research itself. These facts are mentioned, in passing, by other researchers, but the significance of them is downplayed. Searching the abduction literature, we found, expressed by other researchers, another part of the abduction answer. It was an answer that each of the researchers offered to explain the mistakes of their fellows, but a criticism that did not apply to the researcher making the claim.

Jacobs, in The Threat, wrote, "Many hypnotists and therapists who work with abductees adhere to New Age philosophies and actively search for conformational material. During hypnosis, the hypnotist emphasizes the material that reinforces his own world view. If both the subject and the hypnotist are involved with New Age beliefs, the material that results from the hypnotic sessions must be viewed skeptically, because their mindset can seriously compromise their ability to discern facts."

John Mack (seen here) said something similar. He said, "One of the interesting aspects of the phenomenon is that the quality of the experience of the abductee will vary according to who does their regression."

Mack also told C.D.B. Bryan, "And there´s another interesting dimension to this which Budd Hopkins and Dave Jacobs and I argue about all the time, which is that I´m struck by the fact that there seems to be a kind of matching of the investigator with the experiencer... And the experiencers seem to pick out the investigator who will fit their experience." This is, of course, a ridiculous explanation offered to explain why the investigations of a specific researcher match the data gathered by that researcher, but not necessarily that of another.

Mack then goes on to explain it. He said, "It seems to me that Jacobs, Hopkins and Nyman may pull out of their experiencers what they want to see." Mack has just provided an answer about the abduction experience if he could understand what he implied. He has explained why Jacobs finds hybrid invaders, Hopkins finds alien scientists and Mack finds eastern philosophers. They pull from their experiencers what they want to see.

Evidence of this is seen from the earliest investigations into alien abduction. When I arranged for Dr. James Harder, at the time the APRO Director of Research, to use his hypnosis skills on Pat Roach, there weren´t many people claiming to have been abducted. His motivation was a validation of the Hill abduction. If there were additional abductions in widely separated parts of the country, Harder believed that the testimony would be persuasive evidence of alien abduction.

A close reading of the transcripts of Harder´s hypnotic regression sessions with Roach point to his leading her to the place he wanted to reach. For example, when Roach mentioned that she believed she had been examined by the aliens but didn´t really remember it, Harder asked her if it had been a G-Y- N examination. There certainly was no reason for Harder to limit it to that one specific kind of examination, other than his desire to validate the Hill case.

There is another point that is not evident on the tapes or in the transcripts because the intervals between the hypnosis sessions were not taped. These discussions provided some insight into the researcher methods. At one point, before the session in which Roach revealed she had been examined, Harder had told her of Betty Hill´s quasi-medical examination on board the UFO. It was in the very next session that Roach told that she thought she had been examined and Harder asked about the G-Y-N.

In fact, a close examination of the Roach case revealed where most of her inspiration could be found. Harder was inducing it during his questioning under hypnosis and in his discussions with her between those sessions. At the time, to me, it seemed to be a good technique because it assured her that she was not alone in her memories of alien abduction. It was supposedly a relaxing technique that reduced her anxiety. In the end, it was a subtle prompting that took Roach in the direction that Harder wanted her to go. I doubt that Harder realized what he was doing. I certainly didn´t see the harm in 1975 as we interviewed Roach.

I tried to find out how pervasive such coaching might be. Looking at the Herbert Schirmer abduction from Ashland, Nebraska in 1966, I saw that Dr. Leo Sprinkle, working with scientists from the notorious Condon Committee, had met with Schirmer during one morning to explain how they planned to proceed with their investigation. Notes and information about the hypnosis sessions were included in both the official report issued by the Condon Committee and in books written by Coral Lorenzen. Neither of those sources provided the answers that I wanted.

Working with Jerry Clark, we began a long distance investigation. We asked Dr. Michael Swords, who has been through the Condon Committee files, and who is quite familiar with the case, if there were any notes that would tell us what happened before the hypnosis session. Unfortunately, there was nothing available in that source to clear up the questions.

Clark, who is friends with Sprinkle, agreed to approach him to see if notes or minutes or some sort of record of those earlier sessions existed. Sprinkle responded quickly to Clark´s request, but only to say that everything he had was published and he gave the same sources that we had already checked.

What I wanted to know, and what is important here, is how Sprinkle had approached Schirmer. What did he say to him about the reasons for wanting to hypnotically regress him? It would seem that if Sprinkle mentioned that he thought there might be more to the original UFO sighting, if Sprinkle mentioned the possibility of an abduction, then the session would be tainted. That is not to suggest that Sprinkle mentioned abduction, or that one of the scientists from the Condon Committee mentioned abduction, but there is no way of knowing this in today´s world.

If we extrapolate from the problems with the Roach investigation, the possibility of implanting memories by discussing hypnosis, and from Mack´s theory, we can see that each of the researchers is finding an abduction where nothing of the sort might exist. All we have to do is return to the initial hypnotic regression sessions, as published by the abduction researchers, and we find, time and again, how, originally, the subjects said there was nothing there. The researchers, however, using various techniques, "strengthen" the state of hypnosis and eventually break through the mental blocks erected by the abductors.

I think we need to note here that it doesn't matter how skilled the hypnotists are, or how sophisticated the alien abductors might be. Everyone who tries is able to break through the mental blocks to learn all that the aliens try to hide. It would seem that an alien race who has defeated the problems of interstellar flight would understand enough human psychology to hide their actions if they wanted to do so. Yet their attempts fail as the weekend hypnotists, as well as though with extensive training, are able to learn the alleged truth.

Eddie Bullard in his report for FUFOR noted, "At no time in any of the reports on record has an abduction appeared out of nowhere to someone undergoing hypnosis for unrelated reasons." Bill Cone reinforced that, saying much the same thing. In our survey of 316 individuals, all of them had gone to an abduction researcher. All of the individuals found an abduction experience, even when the reason for beginning the search was little more than a very vivid dream.

In a corollary, it should be pointed out that we know of no case in which someone approached an abduction researcher, was taken on, and failed to produce an abduction experience. Yes, we know that one researcher screens those who write to him, suggesting that he can tell the "nut cases" by the number of times confidential is written on the envelop and how much tape is used. The point is that all those who have been accepted have produced the required tale, with the proper elements that reinforce the specific researcher´s belief structure.

In one of the most important of the revelations in The Abduction Enigma, we found a clue about the nature of the abduction phenomenon and we have discovered why the stories, used as proof that abductions are real, seem to match so well. The researchers are directing the stories as they are being told. This observation was one that was made by Mack and Jacobs. There is no reason to reject it as an explanation. Both have suggested, as noted, that the researcher finds what he or she wants to find.

But, rather than discuss this revelation, rather than suggest that we have misinterpreted what they said by claiming it is inaccurate, they begin to complain about demographic material, source of interviews, and the fact that a disproportional number of gays were found in our abductee sample. These researchers and critics don´t know if our sample was skewed because none of the other researchers asked these basic questions. Instead they suggest that we were asking questions that were none of our business. This from people who are not mental health professionals but are using hypnosis and commenting on psychological principles that they have not studied and about which they know very little.

And if it is true that the researchers are pulling from the abductees what they want to find, and we certainly saw corroboration of it in our research, then hasn't the case for alien abduction been seriously damaged? Haven´t we reported on a flaw that has been virtually ignored as researchers continue to gather data? If we are correct, then shouldn't abduction research, as it is now conducted, be reevaluated to eliminate these problems? Remember, we are not the only ones to find this problem but we did suggest it as a major reason that abduction research should be altered. Instead of considering this possibility, the critics and abduction researchers begin to focus on demographics and trivia rather than confronting the issue.

Case study research, which is what the lion´s share of abduction investigation has been for the last twenty to thirty years has yielded all the results we can expect. There are now, literally, thousands of case studies, beginning in this country with Barney and Betty Hill and continuing to Linda Cortile of Witnessed fame. These latest studies provide nothing that is actually new or important but become one more stone to throw onto the pile. But case studies are not going to advance our understanding of alien abduction. Instead, they conceal understanding under a mountain of paper and transcripts. The real point of The Abduction Enigma was that abduction research has stagnated. Abduction research is caught in a cycle that allows for no new revelations or understanding. When we suggested that such was the case, when we presented evidence that such was the case, the attitude was to ignore these criticisms and attack demographic information that has little overall importance.

This report provides the sort of demographic information that other abduction researchers have refused to supply. It also points out where abduction research should go if it is going to survive in the future. We understand the case studies, we understand that the abductees are telling all the truth as they understand it, but we must now determine if that truth is of alien visitation or if it conceals something else. That was supposed to be the message in The Abduction Enigma but too many chose to ignore it or fail to see it. They would prefer that we stay where we are, placing the unsuspecting under hypnotic regression in a thinly veiled attempt to maintain the status quo. Let´s look beyond that and move the research into an arena that can provide some answers and that will actually help those claiming abduction. To do any less would be to ignore the situation.

 

[allenb]

I might point out here that, somehow, the selection of abductees has been turned on its head. We used those only identified as abductees, yet the other researchers advertize for their clients. Their abductees are "self- selected." Their sample is not random, by the strictest definition and that could skew their results.

The size of our sample was 316 individuals. They were selected because they claimed to have been abducted and "true" researchers had validated their claim. Today, for some reason, everyone is screaming for our demographics, though in the past no one really cared about these numbers, random sampling or even the scientific method.

Randles' sloppiness in getting his sample population for his research seems evident right here. He says that other abduction researchers did not have random samples because they advertised for their "self-selected" subjects, yet he seems to have then selected from that very same pool of subjects! He also mentions nothing of delving further into the subjects' reported homosexuality. For instance, would they have classified themselves as classically "gay" or have they felt more open to homosexual experimentation later in life?

That is, the homosexual population was over represented. We thought this strange statistic should be reported simply because none of the other abduction researchers had explored this ground. When questioned about it, they thought nothing of it.

This seems like a bold claim for which he gives no evidence. I happened to spend a bit of time with John Mack in Glastonbury a couple of months before his death. I have no doubt such a claim would have, at the very least, raised his eyebrows quite a lot. They guy thought very deeply about the abduction phenomenon and, as far as I could tell, did not feel he really understood it. That sort of data makes a researchers sit up and take notice.

Eddie Bullard in his report for FUFOR noted, "At no time in any of the reports on record has an abduction appeared out of nowhere to someone undergoing hypnosis for unrelated reasons." Bill Cone reinforced that, saying much the same thing. In our survey of 316 individuals, all of them had gone to an abduction researcher. All of the individuals found an abduction experience, even when the reason for beginning the search was little more than a very vivid dream.

Again, Randle seems only interested in twisting facts. He is implying that all abduction memories are a result of the researcher and uses his own sample of 316. Yet, he had already stated earlier that his sample of 316 were specifically people who had been to abduction researchers!!

 

[anart]

For instance, would they have classified themselves as classically "gay" or have they felt more open to homosexual experimentation later in life?

I think this may end up being the crux of the issue with his statements on this subject - how is he defining homosexual? I haven't seen that he has made that clear. As I mentioned in the other thread, human sexuality is much more of a scale of desires, drives and experiences than it is a 'yes or no' switch and using the words 'homosexual tendencies' is about as vague as you can get. There are a LOT of people who have homosexual thoughts, impulses and even homosexual experiences who do not consider themselves 'homosexual' - so there is a rigidity of thought here on Randle's part - what seems to be a personal bias based on his own rather limited understanding of human sexuality in general, osit.

It may be closer to the fact to say that 50% of all humanity in general has 'homosexual' tendencies - meaning that at some point in their life they have such thoughts/feelings/experiences for one reason or another - fwiw.

 

[Laura]

Since my own experience with "abductees" does not fit Randle's theory, I think now is a good time to recount it as I wrote it in "Amazing Grace."

As many people know, I was a rather vocal non-believer in the entire "alien hypothesis" for most of my life. Yes, I had worked with and studied many anomalous things, but I drew the line at "aliens" and UFOs. All this is discussed in "Grace."

I had met an individual who was quite convinced of the alien/UFO reality and he endeavored repeatedly to get me to consider it. I steadfastly refused for a very long time. At one point, I was sick and the person brought me a bag of UFO/Alien abduction books to read while bedridden. At first, I refused to even look at them, but finally, when boredom settled in, I took a look. That is where this excerpt from "Grace" begins:

I reached into the bag and pulled out a book.

Hmm. "Missing Time", by Budd Hopkins. I was pretty amazed as I read. This was not the flaky flim-flam of Ruth Montgomery or the "Gothic Existential Angst" of Whitley Strieber. It was actually an attempt at "serious research!" I was surprised.

And, more disturbing, I recognized many events that I'd shoved under the rug in my own life, clearly evident in the lives of the people interviewed for this book. They had reached a point of exploring these anomalies and talking about them and retrieving memories under hypnosis.

But, after some consideration, I brushed their "alien abduction" explanations away. I could think of a dozen other solutions. Besides, it was too soon to draw conclusions: I needed more data.

I read on. Book after book.

"The Interrupted Journey." "The Andreasson Affair." "The Alien Agenda."

There were people claiming we had been being visited by aliens since archaic times. There were others who claimed we had been visited a few times, but they were gone now, nothing to worry about! Another group claimed that we had "let them in" by setting off the atomic bomb; they were here to make sure we didn't blow ourselves up along with the rest of the universe. Some claimed they were good guys who were just a little weird because they had followed a different path of evolution, or were further along than we were. Others claimed they were demons from Hell and we had better get ourselves back to church if we expected to survive the invasion.

Sheesh! The only thing certain was that people were seeing and experiencing something singularly strange. Secret government projects? Secret alien-in-cahoots-with-the-government? By the time I finished I was sure of one thing and one thing only: there was a LOT of smoke!

But smoke obscures the source of the fire. Underneath, there might only be a smoldering mess. I wasn't sure if this was a "manipulation" by the government to make people think aliens existed, or if aliens did exist and were trying to make the government look guilty.

What a morass of confusion!

Not to be intimidated by unexplained phenomena of any sort, I started working on a new theory to explain the UFO/Alien abduction phenomenon. There was little in these stories that could not be explained by mass hallucination and hysteria, psychokinesis, stigmata, repressed memories of physical or sexual abuse, psychosis, schizophrenia - heck, just a whole cornucopia of tricks of the mind to choose from!

I worked on the problem, discussed it with Frank, and demonstrated how every event in every case he cited could be explained by some aspect of my new rationalist theory of UFOs. He was practically foaming at the mouth in frustration with my stubborn refusal to see anything other than what could be classified, categorized, and explained by any number of currently established scientific perspectives, even if some of them were a little far to the left of "normal". I was actually pretty proud of my fiendishly clever solution!

This was in March of 1993.

So, as you can see, I was well within the "Randle camp" at that point. Now, back to "Grace" for the account of a hypnosis session with my "first abductee."

Not long after I had been released from my sickbed and the inundation of UFO books, I went to the supermarket one morning, and there was a stack of pink flyers with "flea-market" type ads. I was looking for some additional computer equipment, so I picked one up and tucked it in my pocket. When I got home, I read over it and noted an ad for exactly what I wanted.

I called the number and talked to the woman. We began to chat about computers in general and specific. She asked, conversationally, what programs I used. I mentioned my astrology programs, which piqued her interest. This led to questions which led to a series of remarks about my hypnosis work. THAT piqued her interest.

She began to "probe" a bit about the subject, and then asked about scheduling a session because something REALLY strange had happened to her back in 1987, and it STILL bothered her and she wanted to know why, or at least get relief from the internal anxiety it had caused.

The story was that she had been to the funeral of an aunt, accompanied by her 16-year-old son, and they were returning home to Maryland and were driving on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. (I don't remember where the funeral was.)

It began to snow, and she saw a very bright light ahead, off to the side of the road, sort of bluish white, and she thought that it was a light that had come on to illuminate a billboard since the snow had made things a bit dark.
She then said that what happened next was so strange that, even in remembering it, she felt strange and uneasy. She said that she felt a paralysis come over her hands and arms as though someone had taken control of the car.

I immediately recognized the purported prodromal signs of a "missing time" experience as described by Budd Hopkins, so I casually asked what happened next.

She said that this was the crazy part because she couldn't remember! After seeing the light and feeling the paralysis, the next thing she remembered was sitting at a traffic light 50 or 60 miles down the road. She did not remember making the turn off the main highway, and her son had just cut his finger on a tin of cookies he was trying to open. He was bleeding, and she "came to herself" saying "there's a towel in the back seat." To further add to her dismay, she arrived home much later than she should have, but, at the same time, still had an almost full tank of gas.

She was sure that it had been her aunt attempting to contact her psychically and she really needed to have an answer. What had her aunt been trying to tell her?

Well, the fact that she made no mention or claim about aliens made the whole thing far more interesting to me. And, of course, I did not want to even suggest anything about "aliens," as I wanted to try to prove my theory about alien abductions being "psycho-dramas" in the same manner as past lives [are created in past-life therapy]. I just told her that we could certainly clear the problem up quickly with hypnosis!

She made an appointment. I decided to make a videotape of this session rather than the usual audiotape. I wanted a record of my "proof" that the "alien abduction phenomenon" had another explanation!

On the evening of the appointment (she was caring for an ill husband and needed to come at a time when her kids would be home to look after his needs), it began to storm terribly. I was sure she would not come out in such rain and expected a cancellation. But she showed up.

We went through the normal pre-session interview, and then talked a bit about the event again. I wanted to get the times and details down about her general life situation, so I would have clues about areas of possible family conflicts that might be at the root of such a drama.

She was a real estate agent and also owned a medical reports business working under government contract. She talked a bit about her children and her disabled husband, who was dying. I was sure the stress of caring for him was an exacerbation of her problems.

Nothing was said about "aliens" at any point whatsoever. I carefully inquired about her interests. She had never been interested in metaphysics, much less aliens. Also, she was a former devout Catholic who was now in a state of doubt about her religion. She was sure that I was not going to be able to hypnotize her.

She was a good subject and quickly went under.

I never transcribed this session or even viewed it from the time it occurred until I handed the videotape over to Tom French for his St. Pete Times article. Since he is the one who has viewed it over and over again and transcribed it for his own research, as well as having interviewed the subject afterward, (and hasn't returned the tape), I am going to quote from the Times version of it here:

"I wish that damn light would change," said the woman on the couch.

Her eyes were shut, her body stretched out under a blanket. Her hands were folded above the blanket, making tiny movements. In her mind, she was still at the wheel.

Laura, sitting in her chair a few feet away, did not understand.

"What?"

"I'm just waiting for the light to turn green," the woman said. Suddenly her voice changed. "Oh my God, Patrick! What did you do?"

Something was wrong. They had gone through it all together, Laura and the woman. Laura had gotten her to close her eyes and slow her breathing, and then the woman had gone under and resurfaced back inside that night out on the turnpike. She had already told Laura what happened. Now, still under hypnosis, she was telling it again, letting it run in her head, like a scene in a movie.

She and her teenage son, Patrick, were returning from a funeral in Pittsburgh. It was snowing. There was fog and ice. They took a detour onto another highway, trying to find better weather. Then the woman sees the light in front of the billboard. The light is an iridescent blue, a pale oval of baby blue, and the oval is hanging there in front of the billboard, it makes no sense, and the woman thinks she is imagining it, she is rubbing her eyes, but it isn't working, the light doesn't go away, it just keeps getting bigger, and so she asks Patrick if he sees it, but he doesn't, only he does say something about electricity, and then she feels something taking control of the car, now she's not driving it anymore, something else is, and the light is still growing.

Then the skip.

Suddenly she and her son are somewhere down the road. Now they are in a little town called Waynesboro, off the highway, just north of the Maryland state line. Something has happened. Fifty miles have ticked by on the odometer, and they do not know where the miles have gone. All they know is that they are sitting at a traffic light in Waynesboro. The woman is at the wheel, waiting for the light to change, and her son is beside her, trying to open a tin of cookies someone gave them after the funeral. But he can't open them, so she tells him to look in the glove box, there's a penknife, and he gets the knife, and he works at the cookie tin, and he cuts himself. Now he is bleeding. They are at the light, and Patrick's hand is bleeding.

"Oh my God, Patrick!" the woman was saying. "What did you do? There's a towel in the back seat. Get it."

Still in her chair, Laura studied the woman carefully. Frank Scott, a friend of Laura's, was watching, too, videotaping the session from the corner.

By this point the woman had grown agitated. Something was upsetting her, and not just the cut on her son's hand. She was breathing faster. She had raised her arms to her chest and crossed them, as though she was trying to protect herself.

Laura told the woman everything was fine. She reminded her that she and her son were safe. But they needed to go back to the beginning, back to the turnpike, and start over.

"Let's go through it again," Laura said. "A little more slowly this time."

It was the night of Thursday, April 15, 1993. Laura and Frank and their subject were working in Laura's living room in her home in New Port Richey, there on Montana Avenue. Outside it had been storming. Inside, all was quiet, except for the interplay between Laura's voice, soothing yet insistent, and the woman's voice, confused and edgy. Occasionally there were the chirping sounds of the family's cockatiels; there were also murmuring noises as Frank whispered a few words to Laura.

Now here she was, lying in Laura's living room with her eyes closed, driving again through that night. Every time she replayed it for Laura, it came out the same. She and her son would be driving on the turnpike, and they would take the detour, and then she was seeing the blue light. Then the skip. The same skip, every time. Suddenly they would be at that traffic light in Waynesboro, 50 miles down the road, and her son was opening the tin of cookies with the knife and cutting his hand.

Laura was determined to find out what had happened during those 50 miles. Frank, videotaping from the corner, already thought he knew. That was why he was so excited.

"This is an alien abduction," he told Laura.

Frank was big on UFOs. He was well aware, as was Laura, that a growing number of Americans -- the exact number remained unclear -- had come forward in recent years with stories of disturbing encounters with creatures that had traveled here from other planets. Many of these people believed, or claimed to believe, that aliens had abducted them from their cars or bedrooms, somehow rendered them helpless, then taken them aboard a spacecraft of one kind or another, subjected them to medical or scientific experiments, then returned them to their lives with all memories of the abductions blocked from their minds. When these people would try to recall what had happened, they would simply draw a blank; their recollections of the aliens typically surfaced later, often under hypnosis.

Frank believed these people's stories demanded attention. So did others who followed the phenomenon, including John Mack, a Harvard psychiatrist who had interviewed some of the alleged abductees.

Laura was not so sure. At Frank's urging, she had been reading about the abduction accounts but had found them unconvincing. Laura was open to believing in many things; her whole life was devoted to considering possibilities in the universe that others found ludicrous. Still, she had trouble believing that little gray men were stealing people away by the hundreds or even thousands and playing doctor with all of them on some fancy mothership in the sky. If it was happening to so many, why was there no proof? Why could no one produce a single indisputable snapshot of one of these aliens or even one of their ships? Where was the video? Why weren't these aliens appearing on Geraldo?

Like many others, Laura found it far more likely that these people had undergone some serious trauma -- possibly sexual abuse, suffered during childhood -- and that now they were subconsciously transforming their buried memories of these experiences into encounters of another kind. Perhaps it was easier for them to imagine an alien illicitly entering their bedroom and violating them, rather than to confront the fact that it was really their stepfather or their mother's boyfriend.

Laura thought she detected an element of mass hysteria in the proliferation of abduction accounts. With the approach of 2000, maybe these people were simply going a little nuts. "Millennial disease," she called it.

All of which explained why Laura was taking such pains to find out precisely what had happened to the woman she was working with this night. Before hypnotizing her, Laura had asked the woman about her childhood, probing for any sign of abuse or family problems or anything suggesting emotional or mental instability. But she had found nothing to account for the missing time in the woman's story.

Laura was undeterred. She decided to take the woman under even deeper, getting her to slow her breathing even more and replay that night yet again. This time, the woman remembered a parking lot. She could see the blue light growing, and feel the car leaving the highway, and now she and her son were stopped in the parking lot of a diner, just off the road, not far from the billboard where she'd first seen the light.

"What happened next?" said Laura.

"I wish that damn light would change," said the woman.

Back to the skip. Whatever it was, it had happened somewhere between the moment in the parking lot and the moment when her son cut his hand.

So Laura tried again, taking the woman as deep as she knew how. Speaking softly, she asked her subject to imagine herself sitting inside a favorite room. Maybe the family room at her home; maybe a study. Anyplace where the woman felt safe. Inside this room she was asked to imagine a recliner. She was sitting in the recliner, resting comfortably, and in front of her was a television. On that television, she was to project the scene from that night, unfolding on the screen, and describe what she saw.

Laura told the woman she had a remote in her hand and could manipulate the action before her. She could fast forward, rewind, turn it off. Whatever she needed to do to feel safe and in control.

Back onto the highway went the woman, her son at her side. They were taking the detour. The billboard was coming up.

Slow it down, Laura told her. Use your remote, and hit pause, and let the tape advance one frame at a time.
The light. She saw the blue light. It was in front of the billboard. It was growing. She was losing control of the car. It was leaving the road. Then they were in the parking lot. They were in the lot, outside the diner. They did not know why. Wait. Someone was coming. Someone was approaching the car.

Laura asked her to describe who it was.

"I can't," said the woman. She was getting agitated again. She was hyperventilating; her upper arms were twitching; she was rubbing her hands, as though she were in pain.

"What do you mean, you can't?" said Laura.

"Because they won't let me."

Laura pressed the woman to tell her what was going on. Who was she talking about? Who was stopping her from saying?

The woman just shook her head.

"I can't tell," she said. "I can't."

That evening, when the woman on the couch grew so upset, Laura decided to end the session. She wanted to keep probing, but for the moment it was too traumatic. So Laura brought the woman out of hypnosis and told her that they would try again, in another session. Laura was left to consider the implications of what her subject had revealed. Was Frank right? Had this woman and her son been abducted by aliens?

At first, Laura remained skeptical. Then, in the weeks that followed, something happened that chipped away at her doubts. The newspaper and TV were reporting multiple sightings of UFOs in the area. From mid to late April in 1993, more than a dozen people in Pasco, Hernando and Pinellas counties said they had seen a large, boomerang-shaped craft moving across the sky. One of the witnesses, a Hernando County sheriff's deputy, said the craft carried no markings, was adorned with blue lights and had a wingspan of at least 200 feet. He watched it for several minutes, he said, before it accelerated away from him at a speed that would have been impossible for any human-made craft.

"Based on what I know now, no, I don't think it's from this planet," the deputy told a St. Petersburg Times reporter. "Nothing on Earth could hover and haul ass like that."

Reading the accounts in the newspaper, Laura was startled to discover that the first alleged sighting of the boomerang-shaped object had been made in New Port Richey on the evening of Thursday, April 15, the same night she was conducting her hypnosis session with the woman in her living room. The person who had seen the object that night lived only six blocks or so from Laura's house; she said she had seen the craft through her bedroom window after 10 p.m. that evening, after L.A. Law came on.

As Laura read the details of the account, she realized something else. The witness claimed that she had seen the giant boomerang at the exact time Laura was deep into her session; in fact, she said she'd seen it hovering over Laura's own neighborhood.

To Frank, this was all more proof that the woman with the missing time had been telling them something dangerous that night, something the aliens didn't want her to share. That's why her memory block was so strong, he said; that explained what she'd meant when she said "they" wouldn't allow her to continue with the story.

Laura still was not ready to buy Frank's theories. As far as she was concerned, the rash of sightings was just another outbreak of millennial disease. One person claimed to have seen the giant boomerang, and the rest had probably heard the claims, then gotten excited and imagined seeing the same object. If there were so many spaceships out there, carrying all these aliens and snatching all these poor earthlings, where was the proof?

"Where's the evidence?" she asked Frank. "Show me a damned alien, for God's sake!"

As it turned out, no more evidence was forthcoming from the woman with the missing time that night in Pennsylvania. After the first session with Laura, she called and said she'd changed her mind. She would not be returning for another session. (End quoted article: The Exorcist in Love, Thomas French, St. Petersburg Times, Feb. 13, 2000)

Yes, I admit freely that my intent was to expose the "alien abduction" phenomenon as a fraud; as the psychodrama I believed it to be. Having the video tape to work from, Tom described the session probably better than I would have.

If ever there was proof that a hypnotherapist with a pre-formed belief cannot influence the recall of a subject, this case is a classic in that regard! I am ashamed to admit my assumptions now, and I freely admit that it was not the proper approach to the problem, but then again, the subject was not claiming to have been abducted by aliens - at least not consciously. And I was going to be very careful not to lead in any way, so the "experiment" would be uncontaminated.

To say that I was puzzled and frustrated is an understatement. I had never encountered a blocked memory that I could not find some way to access. This was one of my specialties. I could find the "back door" of the mind, ease the pain, and get to the root of the problem. But try as I would, nothing worked! She repeated: "I can't! I can't!" So, in frustration I asked: "why?" and her answer raised the hair on my head and chilled me to the bone: "Because they won't let me!"

For a few moments I was completely nonplussed. I had never encountered a "They" who could so effectively block memory and cause pain and suffering when attempts were made to access it.

I realized that I was clearly dealing with a deeply repressed trauma. I wanted to believe that it related to something in childhood, or perhaps even a past life, but I couldn't shake the eerie sensation that washed over me when she cried "THEY won't let me!"

I knew that I could not lose the professional "control" and I decided that perhaps she just needed to be in a deeper trance to access this information. But, I was not going to push any further at this moment. Sometimes a subject must be "conditioned," over time. So I started the suggestions that would make her feel good, make her like hypnosis, make her want to do it again, and help her to go into a trance more easily in the future so that a deeper state could be achieved and we could "deal" with this thing. Then, I brought her out.

We discussed a future appointment and she agreed that she would like to try again and that was that, except for the fact that she called and cancelled on the day of the next appointment.

Okay, fine. End of story? Nope.

The reports of the black boomerangs that came in conjunction with this session did not make me happy. In fact, it gave me the absolute creeps!

It also made me think.

If we conjecture that this "alien phenomenon" is part of some deep government conspiracy designed to experiment on people - perhaps to make them think that they are being abducted by aliens so that they will assiduously seek greater controls and protection from "Big Brother" - we have a curious problem with this case. The problem becomes: how could such a hypothesized group engineer the response to this session that did, in fact, manifest?

I was very careful not to mention the word "alien" or "abduction" to the woman on the phone prior to the session. If phone conversations are being monitored, how did this one get selected for special attention? Such monitoring, even for "key words" that would trigger a need for personal attention, suggests a conspiracy of such vast and complex proportions that the logistics of it stagger the mind.

Well, suppose it is a government conspiracy. Suppose that they do have such monitoring capabilities, that they are monitoring my phone, the woman's phone, or the phones of everybody by computer. As a result, suppose they knew I was going to hypnotize her and sent out a flotilla of stealth type aircraft to beam some wave at her (or something like that) which would prevent her from talking to me.

Why would they go to all that trouble?

It seems to me that it would be easier to just send one of those nice white panel trucks we see in the movies to park a block away from my house for their "wave beaming" activities.

Well, okay; maybe they just thought it was a handy time to create a UFO flap at that moment for general purposes: to get everyone all excited, to reinforce the "alien phenomenon" scenario they are creating.

We are still looking at logistics that stagger the mind.

The next question we have to ask is this: since this woman "appeared" in my life at precisely the moment I had been familiarized with the phenomenon sufficiently to recognize the symptoms, how do we deal with that synchronicity? If it is a government conspiracy that was aiming at taking me in by gradual degrees, by creating a series of events in my life that would lead me to give up my "rational explanations" of the phenomenon, what kind of surveillance and "management" does that suggest?

Again, it boggles the mind.

Thinking these thoughts produced a strange feeling in me of being "watched" in ways hard to describe. It was so strange a synchronicity that I couldn't help but think that the appearance of these craft related to our activities.

I tried to sweep this thought under the rug, but it kept coming back.

Well, there was a final article in the Times about this series of sightings and this last article was designed to put it all to rest; it was a suggestion that what had been seen was a "stealth bomber".

It was all just a strange coincidence. My comfort zone was reestablished and I could rest at night.
For a while.

 

[allenb]

And no, we did not investigate to learn the accuracy of their claims. We accepted, at face value, their reporting of their sexual preferences and activities, just as the other abduction researchers have accepted at face value many of the self-reported facts.

Randle admits that he just accepted at face value the claims of sexual preference. Yet, as Anart pointed out, having thoughts about gay sex or experimenting a bit does not a homosexual make. Perhaps 50% of the population really does have some level of homosexual tendencies. Those who have either experienced the trauma of abduction or would be predisposed to self-report on such activities (something outside the norm of consensus reality) might also be more likely to be open about homosexual tendencies than others. In such a case, you'd expect to see such a sample group show a higher percentage of people with self-reported homosexual tendencies than the general population simply due to selection bias.

Also, Randle seems to me to have an issue with sexuality in general. One clue (and perhaps I've completely misread him) is his use of the abbreviation GYN (gynecological) as an a acronym G-Y-N, even using dashes instead of periods. That just struck me as him attempting to keep as much "professional" distance between him and messy sexuality. Again, I could be out in left field with that. Just a hunch.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I just finished reading the first part of The Abduction Enigma. So far my thoughts are mixed. I think the authors succeed in showing some of the faults with abduction research. A lot of the researchers are very unscientific with their analysis, and Randle et al show this. However, I can't help but think they are doing the same thing as those they criticize. Here are a few things that caught my eye in the chapter on sexuality.

Even ignoring that point [that by virtue of their intelligence, grays can be considered “attractive” to women], what we have is a belief by the abductees that the alien creatures have traveled interstellar distances, overcoming a variety of scientific and technological problems, just so that they can abduct the victim, usually not once but many times. The victim is so attractive to the aliens, for whatever reason, that these beings have sought him or her out for their continued attention. (p. 96)

It seems Randle, Cone, and Estes (I’ll refer to them collectively as “Randle” in this post) are trying to show that such a “belief” is illogical or unreasonable, but I can’t fully grasp his intent here. Is he trying to show that because it is seemingly absurd to think that aliens would travel such distances to abduct these women, that these abductions must be fantasies? (After finishing the chapter, it looks like this is the case.)

If so, does he have any evidence that female abductees actually believe this? Even if they did, their belief would not affect the reality of the situation. For example, the belief that the creatures are “alien” and have traveled interstellar distances is an assumption. But this might be a reasonable belief for a woman who has had such an experience. Confronted with the reality of being abducted against one’s will, she may construct an egoistic belief as a compensatory mechanism, to put the situation in a more easily accepted (i.e., less traumatic) light.

Randle then quotes studies saying that women who are defined as “high guilt” after engaging in socially unacceptable sexual acts fantasize that “I am so beautiful that men cannot resist me,” and that many men fantasize about being forced to engage in sexual acts (later he also says that 40% of men fantasize about a woman being forced to have sex with them). This is reinforced by the fact that many abductees have a “poor sense of self,” feel like outsiders and are loners. “Now, suddenly, they are important.”

Randle then cites some facts: most abductees come from dysfunctional families, most had poor relationships and sex life as a result of abduction, they include high number of homosexuals, the same number of hypersexuals, half that number of asexuals, leaving only a few with a “normal” sex life.

When we look at these stories in an objective light, there is no reason for the alien beings to conduct their research in such a crude fashion. And once it has been conducted, there is no need to repeat it time and again.

Even Jacobs’s implication that it is the development of the hybrids that has necessitated the continued abduction and sexual aspect fails to make sense. In todays’ [sic] world, genetic material recovered from just two adults would be enough to create hundreds, if not thousands of hybrids. All of it could be done outside the human body, in a laboratory.

It would seem that the recovery of more of these tales has a motivation other than hybrid creation or genetic manipulation. . . . To understand these tales, it is necessary to look beyond the abduction phenomenon and try to understand them in terms of a psychological problem. . . . Their tales of rape and sexual activity on board the UFO are evidences of these sexual problems. (p. 100)

As has been pointed out, Randle does exactly what he criticizes other abduction researchers of doing: finding what he’s looking for – using paradigmatic thinking. It all comes back to the false premise “If abductions are real, they are conducted by an alien race which is technologically advanced enough to travel interstellar distances,” and all the assumptions that go along with it.

So because there is no reason (in Randle’s mind) for aliens to repeatedly engage in sexual relations (i.e. rape) with abductees, these experiences must not be the result of alien abduction. All Randle has shown is that he lacks imagination. Did he consider that aliens might rape abductees because the aliens enjoy it? Does Randle assume that a technologically advanced race is also morally advanced? Looking at the statistics, did he not consider that they abductees show sexual dysfunction BECAUSE of the abduction experiences?

Operating on the hypothesis that the abductees are an ET race (just for the sake of argument), a scientist would ask: why are homosexuals over-represented? Is it because the aliens choose to abduct homosexuals? If so, how do they identify them? If not, is there something about homosexuals that would make them more likely to self-report an abduction? Could signs of sexual dysfunction (like a non-existent sex life) be a result of the abduction?

In short, Randle does not make a strong case for the idea that the sexual dimension of abduction is a result of sexual dysfunction and fantasy. At most, he shows that there are still unanswered questions regarding the subject and that the “ET race of scientists” hypothesis is faulty.

A corollary to Randle’s inability to come up with a good motivation for the seemingly illogical sexual component is a psychologically normal person’s inability to intuit the intentions and motivations for the actions of psychopaths.

Lobaczewski writes in Ponerology:

Pathological egotism is a constant component of variegated states wherein someone who appears to be normal (although he is in fact not quite so) is driven by motivations or battles for goals a normal person considers unrealistic or unlikely. The average person might ask: “What could he expect to gain by that?” Environmental opinion, however, often interprets such a situation in accordance with “common sense” and is thus prone to accept a “more likely” version of the situation and events. Such interpretation often results in human tragedy. We should thus always remember that the principle of law cui prodest becomes illusory whenever some pathological factor enters the picture.

I think it is dangerous to assume one can understand the motivations of an alien race using a “natural worldview,” when there exists on our planet a race for which this principle (cui prodest) has no useful application.

 

[anart]

I think it is dangerous to assume one can understand the motivations of an alien race using a "natural worldview," when there exists on our planet a race for which this principle (cui prodest) has no
useful application.

Very interesting (the post in its entirety, I just snipped it to save
space). I got exactly the same impression from reading the
explanation of his methodology that Laura posted on the forum (I've
not read the book). There is a constrictive limit on his
interpretation of any and all aspects of this subject, due to his own
perception of reality.

From his verbiage, I get the impression that there is no flexibility
of thought - he sees the world through his own restrictive subjective
filter, with no ability to see that what he perceives as the entire
elephant is, in actuality, only the ear. Granted, we all do this to
some extent, but, with him, it is the rigidity of thought that really
seems to shine through. (osit)

I also noticed that this is accented in his remarks about sexuality -
very tight 'blinders' on in that area and this slant seems to skew his
conclusions. I don't mean to 'attack' him, but from his methodology
article and the parts you've represented here, it seems as though
there might be quite an issue with sexuality in general with him -
which speaks to deeper issues. And, that, speaks to a body of work
with serious, deeply ingrained subjective flaws simply because the
author cannot even begin to 'get outside of himself' to address the
issues at hand. fwiw.

a

 

[John G]

Could signs of sexual dysfunction (like a non-existent sex life) be a result of the abduction?... At most, he shows that there are still unanswered questions regarding the subject...

It would have been nice to have additional data like interviews with significant others who might be able to give opinions about the subjects before and after the abduction. For all we know the non-existent sex life/homosexuality could be a "negative introject" program/predator mind influence for the purpose of making abductees less believable, especially for people like Randle, et al.

 

[Laura]

So because there is no reason (in Randle’s mind) for aliens to repeatedly engage in sexual relations (i.e. rape) with abductees, these experiences must not be the result of alien abduction. All Randle has shown is that he lacks imagination. Did he consider that aliens might rape abductees because the aliens enjoy it? Does Randle assume that a technologically advanced race is also morally advanced? Looking at the statistics, did he not consider that they abductees show sexual dysfunction BECAUSE of the abduction experiences?

Some thoughts that went through my mind (and I think it is Cone that is speaking on this subject. I notice that Randle (I think) uses "regressive hypnosis" (incorrect terminology) and the person writing the "psychological" stuff uses "hypnotic regression"):

Since he can't go there on the hyperdimensional idea, he cannot imagine that the sex stuff is either an activity that "harvests energy" or a screen for such activity.

If this activity is either being done for 1) psychopathic enjoyment of torturing people 2) harvesting energy, then one still has to wonder why homosexuals are over-represented.

Operating on the hypothesis that the abductees are an ET race (just for the sake of argument), a scientist would ask: why are homosexuals over-represented?

Exactly.

Is it because the aliens choose to abduct homosexuals? If so, how do they identify them?

That would seem to be the case. But that's just looking at the surface AND making an assumption.

What if homosexuality is a CONSEQUENCE of very early abduction??? And maybe intentional?

What if this is what gives them the very type of energy they need to "harvest" (assuming that is a possible explanation for their activities) ?

If not, is there something about homosexuals that would make them more likely to self-report an abduction?

Well, that might be possible regarding male abductees. I don't think he mentions whether the "preponderance" of homosexual abductees are male or female. Maybe non-homosexual males are less likely to report abduction because of "homophobia"? But then, considering the "screen memory" phenomenon, assuming there was homosexual interaction between the "alien" and the abductee, can we even assume that they would remember the event itself?

Could signs of sexual dysfunction (like a non- existent sex life) be a result of the abduction?

That seems pretty likely to me. After all, if your sexual energy is being "harvested" from you, you might not have a lot left for your own life. Assuming the "harvesting" scenario, that is.

In short, Randle does not make a strong case for the idea that the sexual dimension of abduction is a result of sexual dysfunction and fantasy.

I very much agree here. He really puts the cart before the horse. (And again, I think it's Cone.)

At most, he shows that there are still unanswered questions regarding the subject and that the “ET race of scientists” hypothesis is faulty.

Yup.

A corollary to RandleTMs inability to come up with a good motivation for the seemingly illogical sexual component is a psychologically normal personTMs inability to intuit the intentions and motivations for the actions of psychopaths.

That sure fits.

I think it is dangerous to assume one can understand the motivations of an alien race using a “natural worldview”, when there exists on our planet a race for which this principle (cui prodest) has no useful application.

I agree.

But then we still come back to that disturbing idea that there is a preponderance of homosexuals among abductees side by side with that other idea that even our sexual preferences are "programmed" into us. I mean, is there some moment of imprint vulnerability when the majority of people "take on" the heterosexual program because of certain dynamics that are external to them, and then other percentages of individuals have different dynamic experiences at that moment that "set" them on a different path?

Do "alien/hyperdimensional" manipulators have anything to do with this directly, or is it a consequence of just "stuff happens"??

It seems to me that whatever the mode of this imprinting, it's something fundamental - that is, it's not something you "chose" or can change but, at the same time you can't say that anybody is "born that way" either (whether homosexual or heterosexual). (Though, for all intents and purposes, they might as well be!)

Relating it to the theorized imprinting stages, I would suggest that sexual orientation might be a 2nd circuit imprint.

The second stage, or circuit, the famous "anal phase," is concerned with keeping or letting go of experiences in interactions with others. The second circuit determines how an individual will expand their identity to include others. The drive of the second phase is to interact with other selves. It is this drive that either brings about the congregation of groups, or results in paranoid withdrawal from anyone who is "different." Trauma in the formation of this circuit (generally from 12 months to 24 months) can result in a lack of social feeling, a tendency to manipulate and exploit others for one's own gain, and cruelty to others whether conscious or unconscious. This is generally a result of a feeling of non-acceptance, that one is missing out on something that others have, the need for approval from others and basic lack of self-esteem.

"It is during this phase that the "matrix" forms as a "semantic universe" of verbal structures. Language is conceptual, as we have discussed previously, and is one of the things that distinguishes 3rd density from 2nd density. Our concepts are a sort of "framework of perception" that we learn as we learn words. As we are learning our language, things such as "hot" and "cold," we are also learning that one thing is "good" or another is "bad." We can either handle things freely because they are "good," or "don't touch" because they are "bad." There is, in this phase, a tremendous drive in a child to "create order." This drive is aimed at grouping, identifying, correlating and naming everything. And, as this is being done, there is a constant check with the parents and others interacting with the child as to whether this is "bad" or "good" or "real" or "not real." What the child is doing is defining not only himself, but his entire world. It is at this stage that most of our complex belief systems are formed. Everything that surrounds him is raw material for the child. The Matrix is created by the guiding actions and responses from the other minds around him. The matrix is, in reality, a gigantic conditioning system. And we insert our children into it through our own actions."

So, definitely, an abduction at this stage of development - and I think that I remember Jacobs and Hopkins both suggesting that abductions happen this early in a person's life - could "set" a person's sexual orientation.

As to whether the alleged aliens would do this deliberately or whether it is just a side-effect of their overall interaction with human beings, who can say? Maybe they don't care about the sexual orientation of the individual? Maybe it is the individual and their energetic potential that is of primary concern to the "aliens"? This could go back to the idea that the interaction with the aliens may not be "sexual" in the sense we understand it, but rather a "harvesting of energy" activity that is masked or screened as some sort of sexual interaction?

I mean, look at the many efforts to promote the idea that only homosexuals can "ascend"? We've had some of those nutcases on the forum recently. This is NOT new! That's the rant that Val Valerian was promoting years back with his thing about the "Final Incarnation."

Now, why would it be seen as strategic to psy-ops types (that's how Valerian strikes me) to promote this idea?

Way more questions than answers.

 

[Laura]

And no, we did not investigate to learn the accuracy of their claims. We accepted, at face value, their reporting of their sexual preferences and activities, just as the other abduction researchers have accepted at face value many of the self-reported facts.

Randle admits that he just accepted at face value the claims of sexual preference. Yet, as Anart pointed out, having thoughts about gay sex or experimenting a bit does not a homosexual make.

Well, here I wouldn't make too much of this because, obviously, if you ask a simple question about a person's sexual orientation, you pretty much assume that they know what they are talking about.

Problem is, we don't know what the exact question was.

Did they, for example, ask something like:

1) "have you ever been sexually turned on by a member of the same sex?"

Or, was it truly the plain question:

2) "What is your sexual orientation" and they can check a box.

I don't think that Randle et al would make their claim if they had asked a "trick question" like number 1 above. It is much more likely that they framed the question like number 2. In that case, who can gainsay what a person says about their own sexual orientation? That strikes me as wasting time on the wrong issue.

So, let's just assume, for the moment, that Randle asked a clear question and that the percentage is what it is. (Maybe somebody will go to his blog, find the recent article, and ask him how the question was framed and report back?)

Also, Randle seems to me to have an issue with sexuality in general. One clue (and perhaps I've completely misread him) is his use of the abbreviation GYN (gynecological) as an a acronym G-Y-N, even using dashes instead of periods. That just struck me as him attempting to keep as much "professional" distance between him and messy sexuality. Again, I could be out in left field with that. Just a hunch.

What page was that on?

 

[allenb]

What page was that on?

It was in his blog entry that you posted, above.

 

[anart]

I don't think that Randle et al would make their claim if they had asked a "trick question" like number 1 above.

I see your point and agree, but what if he would not consider that a trick question? What if, to his understanding, any sexual thoughts/feelings/ideas or actions about or with the same sex means someone is homosexual? I don't think we have enough information to tell either way at this point .

However, given the other flaws in his methodology I think giving him the benefit of the doubt on this one - while he has evidenced slants on sexual issues with the sample to begin with (from the comments hkoehli brought up) I don't think it follows logically to just 'take his word on it' and assume that, in reality, 50% of his sample is classically homosexual.

If he had not evidenced slants in thinking on other sexual aspects, then I might not be so reticent to accept that he just said, "are you homosexual" - and, also, his use of the word 'tendencies' is a red flag that it was not that straight forward - however - unless we find out exactly what was asked and how it was asked, I suppose we cannot know for sure.

For me, at this point at least, his methodology does not appear to be robust enough in general to just 'take his word for it' on this issue - especially when such a stastically significant part of the sample is indicated. fwiw.

 

[Laura]

For me, at this point at least, his methodology does not appear to be robust enough in general to just 'take his word for it' on this issue - especially when such a stastically significant part of the sample is indicated. fwiw.

True. That's why we need an answer to that question. I'll go over and ask.

There's a whole lot of argumentation in the book that is just plain ham-handed, too. Yeah, I know what he was "trying to do," but he ended up just turning a lot of sincere people off and giving ammo to loopers.

 

[Laura]

What page was that on?

It was in his blog entry that you posted, above.

That explains it. I didn't read it the way allen did so it did not register for me the way it did for him. I read it as though the writer were writing G-Y-N.

That is, you say the letter G, then you say the letter Y, then you say the letter N... which is often the way people in the medical profession to refer to a gynecological exam. In fact, many women I know refer to it this way - using the letters - rather than pronouncing the entire word. They don't say "gyn" as "gine", they say G-Y-N.

Notice that the reference is to recounting a hypnosis session. "Harder asked her if it had been a G-Y-N examination" One wonders, of course, if this was merely reporting what was said during the session - that is, that Harder asked this question by using the letters in that way, or if it was, as Allen perceived, the result of some "issue about sex" with Cone and Randle.

So, my impression of this is simply that it is a non-issue.

 

[adam7117]

Having had first-hand experience with all sorts of gayety – I can now confirm once and for all that “gines” are not gay and that gay – much like straight – does not necessarily mean “multitalented in crocheting skills”.

Also, there is that amazing revelation that gay means being closer to the other sex than meets the eye. Kinda like ooh, it’s like devouring a man and a woman in a single kebab.

In summary, if my favourite past-time – as an alien – was to eat equal amounts of estrogen and testosterone, I’d probably eat a gay person.

Or a hermaphrodite – if I could.