Secret life: firsthand accounts of UFO abductions (40 page)

If the aliens’ focus is on producing babies, then what do all the physical and mental procedures mean?
Unfortunately, we do not have enough information about the purposes of these procedures to understand exactly how they fit into the larger context of abductions. The mental procedures suggest that the aliens are far more interested in human mental and emotional lives than the production of babies would warrant. It is possible that some Mindscan procedures might utilize human memories to learn about human culture and society. The aliens’ meticulous physical examination of men and women also suggests greater curiosity than what might be assumed is necessary for physiological reproduction. The nonreproductive mental and physical procedures represent one of the more important, and perhaps ominous, mysteries in the abduction phenomenon.

Is it risky to investigate abductions?
No investigator has ever been abducted as a result of his research. Yet, since we do not know the consequences of investigating abductions, it is necessary to proceed cautiously. For instance, the clandestine nature of abductions has
been in effect since the beginning. But if abductions become commonly known through the work of investigators and are therefore no longer clandestine, we do not know what response the aliens might have to that situation.

What does the abduction phenomenon mean?
We have been invaded. It is not an occupation, but it is an invasion. At present we can do little or nothing to stop it. The aliens have powers and technology greatly in advance of ours, and that puts us at a tremendous disadvantage in our ability to affect the phenomenon or gain some control over it. We do not know what is going to happen in the future, just as we do not know what the aliens’ ultimate purposes are. We do know that the effect on abductees’ lives can be devastating. The net effect of the abduction phenomenon on our society and culture at large could very well be the same over a long period of time.

Contact between the races is not taking place in a scenario that has been commonly envisioned by scientists and science fiction writers: two independent worlds making careful overtures for equal and mutual benefit. Rather, it is completely one-sided. Instead of equal benefit, we see a disturbing program of apparent exploitation of one species by another. How it began is unknown. How it will end is unknown. But we must face the abduction phenomenon squarely and begin to think rationally about what to do about it.

When I first became involved with abduction research, it was easy to keep it at arm’s length and treat it as an intellectual puzzle. But the more I learned about the abduction phenomenon, the more frightening it became, both personally and in the larger context of its potential effects on society.

This book is, in one sense, a warning. We must realize that the abduction phenomenon is too important to dismiss as the ravings of prevaricators or psychologically disturbed people. I hope the extraordinary lack of scientific concern to date does not in the long run prove to be a mistake with undreamed-of consequences.

We are just at the beginning of a systematic study of abductions. Amateur investigators and professional therapists are also beginning to do abduction research.
Extreme caution is necessary
. The researcher must protect the abductee from further harm. Abductees can be emotionally fragile, and incompetent memory recovery techniques can cause them psychological damage. The risk of the further victimizing of the abductees by well-meaning but unqualified individuals is high. Special training is required.

Investigating the abduction phenomenon has demonstrated to me how brave and resilient people can be. I am continually astonished to see people who come back from these terrifying experiences and retain their sense of humor and their optimism. I admire their fierce determination to gain control over their lives and the abduction
experiences. It is the triumph of the human spirit that is most remarkable in dealing with the abduction experience. And in the end, I believe, the human spirit will prevail.

I am often asked how I would react if the entire abduction phenomenon should prove to be the internally generated product of people’s imaginations—if there are in reality no abductions and no aliens, and never have been. If that were true, I would weep with joy. I want to be wrong.

If you think you may have been involved with the abduction phenomenon, I would like to learn about your experience. Please write to:

Dr. David M. Jacobs
Department of History
Temple University
Philadelphia, PA 19122

All communications will be confidential.

For the most part, the material in this book is based on anecdotal evidence—stories that people relate. The quality of evidence of this nature has been a point of contention ever since the public began to make UFO sightings. But we must do the best with what we have. Wishing for better evidence does not advance knowledge; dealing with the evidence at hand does. No single book, no matter how much or what quality of evidence it marshals, is going to convince the majority of people that alien abductions are happening as described. Most probably, it will be the accumulation of evidence over a long period of time that ultimately will persuade people of the importance of the abduction phenomenon.

People who have had abduction experiences have come to me in a variety of ways. Some were referred by Budd Hopkins and other UFO researchers, others heard me discussing the subject on radio or television or saw newspaper articles about my work, and still others heard of my abduction work through word of mouth. I have also had abductees referred to me by mental health professionals who had them as clients.

When a person first contacts me and tells me that she thinks something might have happened to her, I first ask a set of twenty-five
questions that enable me to discern whether her memories might be related to the abduction phenomenon. I try to get a “feel” for the person and gauge whether she is motivated by a sincere desire to find out what has happened or is simply inquiring on a lark. If the person demonstrates genuine concern, if she does not have serious mental problems, and if she has had unusual experiences that might be related to the abduction phenomenon, I give her a strong verbal warning about the psychological consequences of finding out that something might have happened to her, and I then send her an abduction information pamphlet that outlines the pros and cons of memory collection. The pamphlet emphasizes the problems that can be engendered from memory recovery and stresses that for some people it might not be the right time to explore these events. If the person still wants to go forward, I give her a second verbal warning detailing more of the problems that she might face. If she still wants to participate, then the memory recovery process begins.

Abductees have a wide range of conscious recall about any given abduction event. If I am investigating a series of abductions that have taken place over the course of the abductee’s life, the subject may be able consciously to remember bits and pieces of some abductions, virtually nothing of other abductions, and virtually everything about still other abductions. The process seems dependent on the degree of consciousness alteration that occurs during the abduction. When abductees remember entire episodes consciously, hypnosis on that same abduction event often reveals that some of the details might be different and that entire parts are sometimes left out of the conscious recall. The consciously recalled elements of the abduction are often accurate, sometimes even to minute details. Just as often, however, they are untrustworthy because of the problems of screen memories, confabulation, dream material, and the visualization procedures.

When I first begin the memory recovery process with a subject, I obtain a case history of the abductee, outlining many of the “suspicious” occurrences in that person’s life that might be indicative of an abduction. I do not discuss anything about the specific content of abductions with the subject. Then, with the abductee’s accord, I
select a memory to be probed. The abductee then consciously relates all that she remembers about the incident, sometimes in surprising detail. We discuss this and then we begin a hypnosis session to ascertain the origin of the occurrences.

Hypnosis is an indispensable tool in unlocking the memories of an abduction. Ever since 1963, when Dr. Benjamin Simon first used it on Betty and Barney Hill, UFO researchers have employed it to learn about abductions. It is the best method available to gain detailed access to people’s hidden abduction memories. Hypnosis, however, is not foolproof. Some abductees simply do not remember; when they do remember, especially details, it may be an incorrect memory that they are “filling in.” This can be particularly true when the subject is asked to supply details of an event from childhood.

It is easy for a hypnotist to ask (consciously or inadvertently) leading questions that steer the abductee into an answer that may not reflect reality. This can be a problem for suggestible subjects. Confabulation, or the unconscious invention and filling in of memories, can become an easy way of providing information to the eager hypnotist-investigator. In hypnosis, even asking questions about a specific event can put pressure on the subject to invent details of that event to provide the answers to those questions. This problem is compounded by the fact that in abduction research, questions about details are routinely asked in order to gather as much information as possible.

Even the milieu of the investigation might present problems. Certain expectations are inherent in this situation. The hypnotized person might unconsciously invent information about an abduction because that is what is expected. Even the investigator’s beliefs might subtly influence the subject to tell him “abduction” material. Intentional fabrication can be another problem. Even in deep hypnosis, the subject can consciously fabricate stories.

Yet, despite these potential problems, hypnosis is a valuable instrument of data collection. The abduction accounts are recalled in a surprising manner. For many abductees, once the event is tapped into, the memories seem to pour out without much questioning. When the memories are finally out and discussed, they then are contained in “normal” memory and the abductees tend to forget them as they would any other more or less traumatic memory (thus, often these abductees find it difficult to recall details of the events
later on without hypnosis). Other abductees, however, have a very difficult time remembering details of the abduction during the regression. Much of this depends on the specific abduction that they are trying to recall.

The hypnosis I employ consists of light relaxation induction. Basically, I tell the subject to relax in several different ways, use a small amount of visual imagery to “deepen” the trance, and then begin to ask questions. My inductions are usually about fifteen minutes long. The hypnotized subjects have complete control and are free to challenge questions, refuse answers, or get up and go to the bathroom.

I use a calm, informal style of inquiry, especially with those abductees who have had many sessions with me and with whom I have spent enough time to know their reactions to the questioning. When a person comes for her first session, my questioning technique is necessarily cautious and not pressing. With a new subject, I intentionally ask leading questions to ascertain whether she is “leadable” to any degree. The vast majority of the time she is not, demonstrating this by answering a definite “no” to my leading questions.

During a regression session, I try to be as rigorously systematic as I can. I go through the abduction one step at a time, from just before the incident began until the very end. This requires expending a great amount of time on each abduction account. I have developed a technique through which I can move the abductee backward and forward through the event, slowly expanding memories. Sometimes I will go through the event twice, asking questions in a slightly different manner based on what has already been said. If a person cannot remember something, I do not press for recall. Each session lasts between three and five hours, with the hypnosis itself lasting between one and three hours.

I use as nonconfrontational and supportive a manner as I can, often purposely not finishing questions so that abductees can “ease” into the line of questioning that I am developing or interpret the question for themselves. For the most part, I speak in low, conversational tones so that I do not in any way set up an environment that is hostile or suspicious. If I find what appear to be contradictions, I point these out and question them about it (e.g., “If you are lying on your back, how could you feel someone touching your back?”). If they say something that I have never heard before, I again question them very closely to make sure that it is not imaginary. It might appear in some of the transcript excerpts used in this study that a
question is leading. In each case I have found that the abductee was not leadable; often the questions asked are from material that had already been discussed previously in the session.

During a regression, all abductees are quite aware of what is happening on two fundamental levels: (1) the information that they are remembering, and (2) the questions and answers that they are required to deal with while they remember. If possible, the abductees learn to observe and analyze the events from a dispassionate and systematic point of view. When they have had a number of sessions, they become adept in questioning themselves and their remembrances, and they can distance themselves to a greater degree from the event. They become “participant-observers” rather than just helpless victims. This has proved to be invaluable for my own research and for the way that the abductees learn to cope with the problems engendered by the abductions. After I have had a number of sessions with them and am sure that they cannot be led while undergoing hypnosis, I can be more blunt in my questions and they can evaluate their memories for themselves. After I bring them out of the hypnotic state, we engage in a thirty-minute to one-hour “talk down” period when other details may be recalled.