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.
UFO Contact? Unidentified-Identified and Contact!
530 pages
illustrated with maps, photographs and more
A4 format
B&W
Paperback: List Price:£20.00 £18.00 (excl. VAT) |You Save: 10%
Prints in 3-5 business days
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.
