From UFO Contact?
It didn’t take me long to understand why the Lorenzens were called “The Scopolamine Kids”. The “Truth Drug” was experimented with in the early 20th century but because of serious physiological and psychological effects, use was discontinued. If you use a drug that was known to have hallucinatory effects –at one time it was ‘recreationally’ used for just that—then evidence gathered from its use, particularly after discussion of what a percipient remembers of their encounter, is very suspect.
I should be shocked that the Lorenzens were willing to have doctors administer this drug in the 1970s, however, Ufology has no real surprises. That percipients were led to believe, or actually believed themselves, that the drug would make their testimony beyond reproach is, again, not hard to believe.
Similarly, polygraph tests are full of flaws and everything can be down to the polygraphers interpretation. I have read of two polygraph tests (unrelated to UFOs) that yielded exactly the same results. However, one polygrapher interpreted the person being examined as being truthful and credible. The second polygrapher read the results in the opposite way. Even this test is reliant on an “experts” opinion and not facts.
You can learn far more by casually talking to and observing a witness and their body language but even then, people are individuals. What might be taken as body language revealing a person is lying can very well just be the way the normal posture or expression they adopt when they think before answering. It is not an infallible skill that spots liars from honest people –it again relies on the questioner and how they “read” the signs.
A psychologist could prepare a sheet of questions that, when answered by a witness, might indicate a fantasy or hypnagogic prone person. These questions could be a standard for every investigator and they can deal with the witness appropriately –perhaps even subtly suggesting that a doctor might help them.
“Hypnagogic dream” is now being used by many debunkers when they cannot find a solution to a particular case. I believe that some cases indicate hypnagogia, however, debunkers who are not qualified psychologists who have not studied this aspect should not proffer such a solution, especially when they have never met nor talked to the percipient in question. There are ramifications on both sides.
The following procedural guidelines are just that ; guidelines and can be adapted to particular situations, as I’ll note further on.
1. Above all else, the person(s) reporting the incident to the investigator / group has to be guaranteed 100% that said investigators / group will not betray their anonymity in any way.
2. The person(s) involved must be spoken to at the very earliest opportunity. Weeks or months is not acceptable.
3. The investigator must always put the person(s) involved at their ease. Whether this is one or more witnesses does not matter at this point. Just talking to them and establishing their interests and employment or daily life routine is important but will make them feel more at ease : they are not being treated as some kind of freak. Point out that you cannot discuss similar cases or go into detail and that this is because protocol dictates this.
Make it clear that critics cannot say they faked or added bits from cases this way.
You can make it clear that, after testimony is taken, you are slightly more free to do so.
4. There should be no discussion about Ufology in general or local reports, other than to put the person(s) at their ease and show they are not "crazy". CE3Ks/AE cases or reports must not be referred to and only after the interview should an investigator even suggest anything similar has been described as it could taint future statements. Never state "Oh, your case sounds very similar to the Stanford case" or any other case because even an honest witness might be tempted to do an internet search for a "Stanford CE3K" or UFO landing report.
5. At no point should someone who has had a similar encounter be introduced even if to put a witness at their ease. If the percipient(s) is a female then there should be a female investigator present or a female known to the investigator ~wife, girl friend , etc., but only under strict confidentiality.
The ideal situation would be for any investigation team to have both male and female members for such situations.
6. Interviewing the percipient(s) should be on an individual basis. No group interviewing.
7. All interviews should be taped as standard ~note that many digital recorders are of poor quality so make sure any device used records good sound quality. Using one or more recorders is a good idea –I use a tape and a digital recorder.
8. Taped interviews should be transcribed as soon as possible after initial interviews. This ought to allow investigators to pick up on any points they might have missed or not thought much about.
9. Do not ever refer to any object sighted as a "space-craft" / Space-ship” / “scout craft” or anything similar as that leads the witness and critics can later use this to show you have done so even if not intentional. Use the term "UFOB" or even just “UFO” to indicate what is being described as a seeming constructed object.
10. Again do not ever refer to an entity as an "Alien" nor as an “extraterrestrial” and I have heard this done. Use a non-committal, more neutral term such as “Entity”
11. If the percipient(s) were in a vehicle and vehicle interference was noted refer to a manual on Vehicle Interference cases that should provide guidelines.
12. If the percipient(s) report physiological effects during and after an encounter then full details should be noted. It is the duty of the investigators / organization to facilitate some form of medical examination. If organizations cannot do this then the percipients own doctor should be consulted (no reference should be made to a UFOB case but if the doctor involved is part of a UFO organization this is moot).
13. The first interview should enable any investigator to determine whether there is any missing time period during the encounter reported –ascertain that there is no mundane explanation for this such as a car clock being slow or house clock fast as the discrepancy between these two could give a false impression.
14. Do not immediately start asking whether the percipient(s) would be willing to undergo hypnotic regression. There must be very strict guidelines as to when any form of hypnosis is used and then only by a qualified professional.
15. Even if not good artist(s) get the percipient(s) to draw any UFOB they saw and then any entity. Once this / these have been made then a more professional set of drawings can be made and to guarantee that the percipient(s) agree this is accurate they should be asked to sign the backs of said drawings.
16. It will also be necessary for investigators to ask the percipient(s) to return with them to the scene of the incident (daylight is best as some percipient(s) may be too fearful to return to the spot at night though if they are willing to then no problem) This way an incident location can be pin-pointed as accurately as possible. At this time the investigators should note anything unusual in the area such as abandoned buildings, factories, etc.. If the visit takes place during daylight then the investigators should return at night, as close to the time of the incident as possible. It could be that something locally was mistaken for a UFOB or even that someone living rough in an old building has a fire, powerful torch/light at night
17. During the day and at night, photographs should be taken of the scene of the incident. Look for any trace evidence etc., as should be standard.
18. Any final version of the whole percipient(s) statement(s) should be read through, approved and signed by the percipient(s).
19. When the investigation is completed the investigator should be able to tell the percipient(s) whether he feels that they have had a genuine experience and those involved may now ask questions but it should be made clear that investigators cannot say where these things originate from.
20. Only now should it be clear whether or not there is any missing time period and ways to help the percipient(s) (not regression hypnosis) to consciously recall what might have happened. If any such methods are unsuccessful then, and only then if the percipient(s) are willing, should regression hypnosis be suggested and, again, this must be by a qualified person not heavily steeped in Ufology. There must be no mention of "Alien agendas" / "breeding programs" etc..
21. At all times a central case co-ordinator should be kept up to date on the investigation. This helps investigators talk through any problems or seek advice. If there is more than one group involved then this must be an evenly split investigation with everyone complying with the established procedure. A central case coordinator could smooth over any problems.
22. The final report should be signed by all involved. A summary should be handed to the percipient(s)
23. Although this should be a conclusion to the investigation it should be made clear to the percipient(s) that the investigator(s) or central co-ordinator can be contacted regarding any developments or recollections.
24. Re. 23, above ; the investigator should make a courtesy call to see how the percipient(s) are doing and any developments after one year. Then after two years and the fact that the percipient(s) can contact investigators in future should be reiterated.
This all seems fair enough and a decent procedural standard to follow. However, and it is a very big “however” ; you will, in genuine cases, be dealing with persons who have had traumatic experiences. They are human beings and that must never be forgotten. Situations will –will— arise in which procedure may need to the changed in situ. By the very nature of the subject and it involving a person, it is guaranteed and this is where a case or central co-ordinator may be able to advise but also note why it was necessary to bend the guidelines.
You, as an investigator, have to be sceptical yet friendly and able to listen and remember that those involved are scared and traumatized –do not ever look at them as future material for a book.
530 pages
Since 1947 it has been claimed that UFOs/flying saucers are evidence of aliens visiting the Earth. Since the 1950s claims of encounters with landed craft and alien beings were talked about but not taken seriously.
In the 1960s the subject of UFO abduction was a "slow-burner" until the whole "Grey" abduction phenomenon and claims made by researchers such as Budd Hopkins, Prof. John Mack and Dr David Jacobs and Whitley Streiber.
But is there evidence to back up any of the claims -and what about those encountering Alien Entities but who were not abducted?
Are these people all hoaxers, psychotic or suffering from some other mental illness as some claim?
Are those people who were exposed by Ufologists against their wishes, people who wanted to report what happened and then just get back to their everyday lives -thrust into the media glare against their will?
And if US authorities were so interested that in one case at least they broke into the home of two abductees and this was later proven -why?
Why did a hard core of these people never want publicity or to make money from what happened to them?
Above all, why did a major UFO landing incident take place on a US Inbterstate road in front of a large number of observers (all willing to talk to investigators) never get investigated? If it were not for a radio presenter interviewing and taking notes we would know nothing of the case -it would be labelled "insubstantial".
James and Coral Lorensen -the Scopolamine Kids; using a very notorious "truth drug" on alleged UFO witnesses and selling stories to newspapers. An investigator (a veteran) showing a witness images of "aliens" encountered in other cases before any memories were retrieved. Worst of all, the constant "pissing competition" and breaches of trust between UFO investigators.
2020 is the time to assess the past evidence and look at the faults within Ufology.
Not everyone is going to be happy -debunkers or ufologists.
Smaller format version:
Pages 530
Binding Perfect Bound
Paperback
Interior Black ink &white
Weight 1.05kgSize 18.9 x24.59cm
£18.00
http://www.lulu.com/shop/terry-hooperscharf/high-strangeness/paperback/product-23822248.html
No comments:
Post a Comment