Talk:Alien abduction/Archive 2

A Skeptical Perspective on the Skeptics
May as well be added, because for some reason "skeptics" - not researchers - have culturally and with much too political correctness been allowed to spout preconceived theories that do not engage the strongest cases or the depth of research that is available, instead shoehorning cherry-picked data points into foregone conclusions (not hypotheses). To paraphrase Jacques Vallee, "it's not data that is scientific or unscientific, it's people (and their 'methods')." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.13.90 (talk • contribs)
 * Or not, because the source you cited failed WP:RS as a WP:FRINGE source, therefore violating WP:NPOV; and assumes that the burden of proof is on the skeptics instead of the people making fantastic claims. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

And "Skeptoid" Internet magazine is not fringe? An Internet publication that regularly engages in pseudo-scientific "debunking" of fringe claims? Here is a fantastic claim made by skeptics: sleep paralysis=alien abudctions. Yet it's given top billing among these theories? That is most decidedly fringe!

There is zero evidence that sleep paralysis causes specific hallucinations with the specific subset invariant concomitants of 1) alien beings in the room 2) the immobilization of other sleepers in the room 3) floating, levitating, or passing out through physical structures such as walls and windows 4) into a UFO, with a very specific type of alien figures who 5) communicate telepathically 6) have large, deep black eyes and 7) engage in manipulative telepathic procedures aimed at eliciting or alleviating particular mental states such as 8) extreme fear and 9) sexual arousal and 10) perform semen-procurement procedures or in women gynecological or obstetric examinations 11) with a laparoscope, seemingly accurately described by normal people unfamiliar with this medical procedure who are 12) returned to their bedrooms with an hour or two of missing time and may 13) years later discover or uncover the above incidents, down to a single specific night or multiple specific nights in which 14) strange lights, landed craft, power failures - observable and observed by non-participants - also occur, many of which occurred during the 1960s and 1970s before the resulting invariant event structure was widely disseminated. This specific sleep paralysis event is all that stands in the way of serious consideration, for many people, of the alien abduction phenomenon, much of which is and has been reported by people who were 1) never in bed 2) wide awake the entire time 3) performing tasks, such as driving, that would have life-endangering consequences if sleep paralysis had really been involved. Please supply copious sources, free of speculation, that detail this specific subset of invariant event structures, particularly with reference to a testable and repeatable induction process that satisfies the standards of science so-called. The extraordinary claim that sleep paralysis=alien abduction phenomenon requires extraordinary evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.13.90 (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Source? I don't just mean for the idea that that's something that all skeptics everywhere claim, I mean for the idea that actual alien abduction is a better hypothesis.
 * As for skeptoid, they're actually engaging in the scientific method and go with scientific consensus instead of justifying delusions with various causes by attention seekers. Honestly, if you think they're pseudo-scientific, but think alien abductions are true, you have less of an idea of what science is than Kent Hovind. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they "go with scientific consensus." Unfortunately, the consensus is informed by the consensus, which has not engaged the data but dismisses its implications out of hand and looks the other way. This circular reasoning is based pathetically on a specious argument from authority. The authorities on the issue are in the other camp! This attitude is not scientific. Because there is a paucity of interest in engaging the data in a scientific manner, the investigation has been left in the hands of a few people - largely, a successful and accoladed artist, a history professor, a Harvard psychiatrist, a professor of the humanities who died all too young - that have been willing to be pilloried in public for the sake of engaging the data in a scientific manner. As for the point I wanted to make, it was from Mr. Jacobs, the investigator, and pointed out the modishness (i. e. fadishness) of certain explanations which come, go, while the phenomenon continues, happily ignoring for instance popular culture, which "debunkers" desperately wish it would imitate so it would be obvious (it's anything but) that it's related to whatever is popular in theatres. The point ought to be allowed to stand. Jacobs is on a footing as sound as John Mack, the similarly pilloried professor from Harvard. I intend to make the point again when I have time, without further objection from the other editor. The source for the above is from an open-minded reading of those authors who are credentialed in the subject through - I cannot stress this enough - longstanding engagement with the data. They have reached conclusions opposite to those of the "consensus" - a euphemism for the willfully blind leading the willfully blind. The source for the edit I wanted to make was David Jacobs, who, as I say, is on at least as a respectable footing as Mack - the Harvard professor who was the subject of the academic witch-hunt he called "Kafkaesque." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.13.90 (talk) 02:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wrong, the consensus is informed by "abductees" having no evidence whatsoever for their claims and but often demonstrating problematic traits that make their testimony untrustworthy. It's the pro-adbuction-delusion folks that are living in an echo chamber.
 * If you do not have academic sources from peer-reviewed mainstream journals or similar books, you are of no use to this site and should leave. Wikipedia is not a general discussion forum, nor are we here for you to "right great wrongs" on.  Ian.thomson (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence, corroborated by witnesses of those having missing time, people collateral to the physical event, independent testimony, witnesses to UFO activity at the time of specific abduction events, and physical evidence on the ground. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the material, rather than, again, dismissing it all out of hand while having 0 evidence that an "echo chamber" is responsible for the homogenous reporting of a specific invariant event without having any knowledge whatsoever of the phenomenon. Peer-reviewed work is not a criteria for this article. As for skeptoid as source, I have an example here of http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4270 of a rogue author's being openly mocked for his ignorance of "real" "mainstream" "scientific" work - with a college of interested researchers from a number of countries. If references by interested researchers, by the likes of John Mack, who won academic freedom from Harvard to pursue his investigations, and David Jacobs, a retired tenured professor, cannot stand, this article should be a candidate for deletion. I do not, by the way, see a citation for "but often [sic] demonstrating problematic traits" - a categorical and unfounded claim if there ever was one. Adding citations by the few researchers in the field is anything but "righting a great wrong" - it's called adding references, citations, and NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.13.90 (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Present mainstream peer-reviewed journals or academic books. What part of that do you not understand?  WP:NPOV does not say we give equal validity to all viewpoints, especially if mainstream science says that delusions and lies about alien abductions and faked artifacts are not evidence of anything except human stupidity.
 * Again, present mainstream peer-reviewed journals or academic books, or I will delete all of your future responses and close this thread under WP:NOTFORUM. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Jacobs and Mack are academics. If you censor their work, which I intend to contribute to this article, you will have contravened your own standards. Delusions, lies and faked artifacts - present your peer-reviewed journal articles for each of these claims. I will proceed with the mainstream work of mainstream academics. "Human stupidity" is dismissive, ad hominem, and smacks of censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.13.90 (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Mack denies physical abduction -- his research is into potentially spiritual visions that are rationalized as abductions, not abductions nor any sort of proof of them. Jacobs is not accepted as an academic, thanks to his totally faulty methodology. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

All I see from the criticism of Jacobs is that Clancy has criticized Jacobs (without examples) and that Jacobs (who, in his books, outlines his experience gained from faulty hypnosis sessions) has criticized Clancy [Wikipedia, by the way, is not a source]. John Mack, according to PBS, has stated that "All of [the abduction phenomena] has a literal physical aspect and is experienced and reported with appropriate feeling, by the abductees, with or without hypnosis or a relaxation exercise." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/aliens/johnmack.html. "Literal physical aspect" seems only to imply that Mack declined to explicitly or necessarily attribute the literal physical aspect to alien agency. Note that Mack cites research "without or without hypnosis" - which Jacobs also states, and which his critics do not realize, understand, or refuse to understand, is constitutive of normal conscious recall. The methods are the same; Mack declined to rule finally on the agency responsible; Jacobs' conclusions are at least as valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.13.90 (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Read WP:FRINGE. You cannot honestly describe the abduction claims are mainstream and/or supported by mainstream science.  That we already have sources indicating that the idea of abductions is pseudoscience, and that we have sources pointing out that advocates of such claims are dismissed as non-academic is not citing Wikipedia, it is pointing out the mainstream assessment on these matters.  In other words, Wikipedia presenting abductionism as either a delusion or lie is already sourced -- it is tendentious to ask for sources again, and then say that those mainstream sources are questionable just because they don't help you push your POV on this site.  It is not tendentious to ask you to present sources for claims completely counter to mainstream science -- it is expected, because you're a useless POV-pusher that can't somehow get through his skull that his opinions are only considered plausible by a questionable minority at most, if not completely rejected by science.  Ian.thomson (talk) 04:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Let the record show that despite arrogating competency to yourself in a field in which you have done little or no reading (notwithstanding the injunctions to others on your personal page) in the subject, you badly misstated Mack's position without adducing any evidence to support your simulated familiarity with the subject. I can honestly say that research, qua research; and data, qua data; are never unscientific in themselves. There is no 'mainstream' assessment on these matters, as far as I can tell. There are a few loud skeptics who refuse to familiarize them with the best cases, and support ad hominem attacks by injecting nebulous obfuscation ("sleep paralysis", when there is no evidence that sleep paralysis produces this striking invariant event, and often,as Mack states (loc. cit.) "These experiences often occur in literal consciousness. Not in a hypnogogic or dreamlike state. The person may be in their bedroom quite wide awake. The beings show up. And there they are and the experience begins. That they're not occurring in any dreamlike state." Where thorough research has been (a handful of researchers have risked real involved with the data - the attacks promote disengagement and contimination by engaging 'taboo' data - they will be cited. I have a day job, but I expect to see no vandalism and censorship (removal of sourced material) when I cite books written by the few researchers willing to be pilloried for engaging the data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.13.90 (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Alien abduction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090921175235/http://www.questia.com:80/googleScholar.qst?docId=77026115 to http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=77026115

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Alien abduction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060427053131/http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk/arc/90/revis01.html to http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk/arc/90/revis01.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Parallels with false incest memories.
I am some what surprised that the parallels between these two issues has not been discussed: I find it noteworthy that in the late 1980's and early 90's many people who attended sessions with "Analysts" were told that the reason for their unhappiness was that they had repressed memories of being sexually abused as children often by their parents. The "evidence" was adduced under hypnosis. Within a few years, there were hundreds of similar cases throughout the US. Eventually, this came to a halt almost as quickly as it had started when the parents of the accusatory children began suing the analysts, and in many cases, proving that the memories were false. Apparently the professional indemnity insurers started to withdraw cover to defend against malpractice claims.

Within a few years, people who were now attending analysts were again being told that the reason for their unhappiness was due to repressed memories, but in this case, it was because they had been abducted by aliens. Again, this was adduced under hypnosis.

To make my point simply, so far, there are no reports of analysts having been sued by aliens, while cases of repressed sexual abuse memories are just as rare.46.7.85.68 (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * While interesting, Wikipedia doesn't use original research. You would need to cite professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources to support those claims. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The role of hypnosis
The paragraph headed "The role of hypnosis" sounds as if false memories were a far-out explanation and marginalizes its proponents. The article is quoted as if it treated the subject the same way. But actually that article says "False memories can be created with or without hypnosis, and the role of hypnosis in their creation is likely to be quite small." So the misconception "most such memories are not generated under hypnosis" does not lead to the conclusion "therefore false memories are an unlikely explanation" but "that does not matter regarding the reason for the memories.

I would remove the "some skeptics" sentence entirely, because it is misleading in this context. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Beleive term for alien abductions has changed!
Beleive the term now for "Alien Abductions" is "EXPERENICERS"?Not abductions! ThanksSTORMSTILLETO (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia uses the name that's most commonly used, particularly in professionally published mainstream scientific literature, not necessarily "beleive" literature. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Didnt see mention of C.E.R.O. Alien abduction group!
C.E.R.O. Close Encounters research Organization, Founded by Hypnotherapist Yvennone Smith here in Southern California. A "theray" group for Abuctess. Think it may a nationawide group as well! Thank You!Swordandshield (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't mention any specific therapy groups. Why would we mention that one? Meters (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alien abduction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070717124137/http://www.cufos.org/abduct_P1.html to http://www.cufos.org/abduct_P1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alien abduction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130420102608/http://galaksija.com/literatura/jk_oth.pdf to http://galaksija.com/literatura/jk_oth.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

What will it take ?!
Will it take some really famous person, a world leader abducted by aliens for skeptics to accept that someone/something has a interest in humanity, this planet ? Just curious 65.163.112.28 (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC) :D
 * FYI, some physical evidence like a craft or a body would do it for me. I'm afraid celebrity abductions would be just as dubious. Jefffire (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Jeffire, get a STRONG light, 10X+ binoculars and find a "UFO Hotspot". After making sure the target is not some kind of plane, use the light to signal the UFO. Some fishermen had done that and got abducted, examined by "insectoids", then their life went to hell in a handbasket, mainly due to some govt./military programming that is designed to keep them silent and suffering. 65.163.112.28 (talk) 05:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm intrigued by this story about the fishermen. I wish to know where "65.163.112.28" got this fascinating information - I'd like to know more! (Ericlord (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC))
 * I believe he's referring to the Allagash Abductions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.211.235.97 (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

An American singer from the alternative scene who had a hit in Australia in 1989 claims to have been abducted by aliens. However, I don't know how true that story is, as it only seems to circulate in Australia. I've checked the web for references to it, and I can't find any from outside Australia. Maybe she only tells us because she thinks Australians are gullible! I won't tell you who it is, because of the Australian libel laws. I've told you when she had the hit, you can work it out from there! (I did find the story of an abductee who claimed to have sung lead on a hit single. It might be her, although the first name is different.) Eligius (talk) 06:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a bit ridiculous. If she did make the claim, you should be able to find a source for it.  It doesn't matter if they're just from Australia as long as they meet the reliable source guidelines.  At any rate, the best that we would be able to include is "this person claims to have been abducted."  If you don't have a source, don't bother making the claim and making someone else look for the source, much less make us figure out who the singer is! Ian.thomson (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's a famous person who does admit to having an abduction experience; American musician Sammy Hagar. Make of this what you will; http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/entertainment/wild-rocker-sammy-hagar-says-he-was-abducted-by-aliens/story-e6frewyr-1226025836608 Eligius (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I've found three websites that mention the singer's name, so I shall reveal it - Johnette Napolitano, lead singer of Concrete Blonde and solo performer. Her alien abduction was mentioned in the Australian publications 'Brag' # 377 (30 August 2010), and 'Rave' (12 October 2010). What I can't understand is that the story supposedly ran worldwide, yet I can't find any reference to it outside Australia. After all, this is a prominent singer who when with Concrete Blonde, had seven Top Forty Modern Rock hits in the United States, and is well known in Australia for her song "Joey," her regular touring, and her contributions to the soundtracks of Australian films. She's an established artist as well. You'd think such a high-profile abductee/experiencer would be, literally, "manna from heaven" to UFO researchers. I just wonder if it's possible the author of the Australian article got her confused with Linda Napolitano, another singer who claims to have been abducted? I guess Johnette has her reasons for not capitalising on her UFO experience.

Trash McSweeney, the Australian-born singer of the Los Angeles-based group the Red Paintings, claimed in another Australian publication, 'mX' (08 December 2011), that he can recall alien abductions happening to him between the ages of seven and fifteen. (Hmm - why are singers being abducted by UFOs? Something for you UFO buffs to investigate.) Eligius (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not an abduction (Close Encounter of the Second Kind?), but there's also the story of actor Jackie Gleason, who claimed to have been shown some embalmed extra-terrestial corpses by President Richard Nixon at Homesead Air Force Base in 1973. There's also a story that President Dwight D. Eisenhower showed Gleason proof extra-terrestials had visited Earth, and evidence of their existence. However, I don't think even UFO researchers place much credence in those stories. Eligius (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

American actress Fran Drescher claimed in 'mX,' 30 January 2012, that she and her ex-husband Peter Marc Jacobson had been abducted by aliens. She claimed the experience happened, before they met, in junior high school. They were "doing the same thing, driving on the road with our dads" when it happened. They both have a scar, in the same place. Her husband has a more prosaic explanation for the scar; it came from a drill bit, or from burning herself holding a cup of hot water. Drescher, however, believes the aliens programmed them to each have different explanations for the scars. Drescher also believes she has a alien implant. Interesting how it's always famous people in creative industries who get to be chosen for alien abduction. Eligius (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Singer Kendrick Lamarr claims he saw a UFO and was possibly abducted, although he has no memory of such an experience. http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2017/12/kendrick-lamar-wants-you-to-believe-his-ufo-and-abduction-experience/ Eligius (talk) 04:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Fringe theories noticeboard
This article is currently being discussed at the fringe theories noticeboard. — Paleo Neonate  – 18:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Where can I put this?
In the 1990's the very popular X Files television program featured alien abduction as a central theme.

It was just put up in the later developments section, and seemed out of place there.


 * X-Files is now mentioned as part of a political conspiracy theories section as it was also mentioned by the source used there. — Paleo  Neonate  – 07:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Aliens, Abductions
This subject would predispose two things, first that their were in fact aliens, second that they really were {in fact} abducting anyone. Maybe they think that we're the aliens and we otherwise confuse and confound them? But, alien theories in general would be very good cover stories for all sorts of unpleasent goings on. 


 * I hope that the current state is now better, — Paleo Neonate  – 07:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Testable Alternative Theories
1. Detailed description/drawings from abductees in non-Western countries, preferrable with no/little western media infludence. This should provide a more lucid description of the type of abduction. Perhaps they have simliar experiences, but not by aliens--instead, something feared and unknown by their culture. Drawings would be important.

2. Subject people to hypnosis and "suggest" they were abducted by monsters, or something else than aliens, to see if a desired response can be elicited.

3. Someone mentioned above that perhaps its linked to anesthesia/surgical operations.

4. More research into sleep paralysis as a related phenomina; although similar in some ascpets very different in others.

5. Further studies into possible repressed memories of negative  sexual experiences.


 * We can only write about what reliable sources already reported, these are interesting for inquiry but hypotheses and results should be published in related journals, — Paleo Neonate  – 07:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)