Sacred Texts  Esoteric & Occult   Mysteries
Buy CD-ROM   Buy Books about UFOs
Index  Previous  Next 

The Scientific Context of the UFO/Abduction Phenomenon

 [Don Donderi is Associate Professor of Psychology at McGill Universitv,
 Montreal, Conada. His basic research interests include human perception
 and memory, and his applied work is in the field of human factors and
 ergonomics. He is a principal of Human Factors North, Inc., a
 Toronto-based ergonomics consulting firm.]
 (IUR, International UFO Reporter, Spring 1996, Volume 21, Number 1;
 Copyright 1996 by the J. Allen Hynek Center for UFO Studies, 2457 West
 Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659, published bimonthly with a
 subscription rate of $25/yr.)
 The purpose of this essay is to explain how to clarify the evidence for
 or against the reality of UFO abductions. Many workers in this field
 have modified the conventional meaning of both the word "reality" and
 the word "abduction." I do not accept these modifications. A UFO
 abduction, if it occurs, is a physical event. A person is taken aboard
 an extraterrestrial spacecraft and interacts with its crew. If this
 event is imagined, then it is not a physical event, it is an imaginary
 one. If the event happened before and it is being relived in the
 present, then it is a reexperiencing, not an abduction. There is nothing
 wrong with either imagining or memory as a description of human
 experience. A reexperiencing is clearly evidence for an earlier
 abduction, if it can be separated from an imagining, which is based on
 the incorporation of other people's experience (through conversation,
 books, or films) into one's own experience. But in no case is an
 imagining evidence of an abduction. By misusing the descriptive
 categories of language, and calling imaginings and reexperiencing
 "abduction reports," confusion is produced which can only bring the
 substantial evidence for the physical reality of UFO abductions into
 What is the UFO abduction phenomenon? To abduct means to "carry off or
 lead away (a person) illegally and in secret or by force, esp. to
 kidnap."(1) Anyone who reports that he or she has been carried away by
 force is reporting an abduction. Since we are obviously only concerned
 with abductions by nonhuman extraterrestrials, the carrying-away must be
 reported as done by nonhuman extraterrestrials. Evidence for the
 nonhumanness of the abductors comes from the appearance of the
 abductors, the tools they use, including the methods of enforcing the
 abduction, the things they do, and the locations to which the abductee
 is taken. If none of these are nonhuman, then we are talking about an
 abduction experience, but one which can be explained as caused by
 humans. "Abduction phenomenon" in this essay means the abduction of
 humans by nonhuman extraterrestrials as described here.
 False, imagined, and real experiences. The second problem in discussing
 the abduction phenomenon is to evaluate the source of the reports. I am
 perfectly capable of reporting an abduction experience on the basis of
 my accumulated knowledge. I know enough background material to report an
 experience which would match very closely other reports made by reliable
 witnesses. Why wouldn't my report be valid? Because, of course, it was
 fabricated out of my indirect experience, as communicated to me by
 conversations, books, films, and television, and not my direct
 experience; that is. through my own senses without the intermediary of
 other humans' spoken, written, or visually portrayed experience. Anyone
 can report an abduction experience. Our problem is to learn whether
 these reports are reports of direct personal experience or whether the
 reports are mediated by the experience of others. If they are mediated
 by the experience of others, they are worthless as evidence of the
 existence of UFO abductions. They are simply repetitions of other
 people's stories, however convincing either to the listener or (as is
 often the case) to the teller.
 There is no a priori reason why the reporter of an abduction experience
 which is entirely mediated by other people's experiences may not also
 report that he or she believes that the experience was direct and
 unmediated. It is very well established that people reporting
 experiences do not always accurately attribute the source of those
 experiences.(2) Spoken or written language, as well as the visual media,
 are efficient ways of conveying information which may be incorporated
 indiscriminately into what the reporter thinks is his or her own direct
 sensory experience. The human mind is efficient at generating and
 storing images or representations of experience, and inefficient at
 retaining and classifying the sources of those same images or
 representations. Suggestible human beings often mistake the sources of
 their information, and they are demonstrably capable of reporting as
 personal experience events and experiences which have been suggested to
 them by others.
 The properly skeptical public. In ordinary conversation, in the
 give-and-take on a sunny afternoon by the lake, or of a dinner party
 with good wine flowing, we do not always - or even often - critically
 examine the sources of our ideas, or of our conversational bons mots.
 Why should we expect something more critical, more detached, from the
 investigators and reporters of abductions? Simply because so much more
 is at stake. Our real audience is not the lakeside or dinner-table
 conversationalists. If the purveyors of ideas about UFO abductions want
 to be treated as entertaining lakeside conversationalists, or as
 slightly outre dinner-table companions, then we can all go on as before.
 Some of what we say will be based on what we know are the reports of
 reliable witnesses, corroborated by circumstances: missing time,
 physical traces, concurrent UFO sightings. Other reports, whether in the
 National Enquirer or in our own publications, will be ambiguous and lend
 themselves to alternative interpretations.
 The greater public will get some of both kinds of reports, and will be,
 as always, puzzled about what to believe. The scientific public will say
 to itself: "X has written two books full of interesting information
 about abductions and UFOs. X writes with obvious integrity, and the
 phenomenon sounds plausible. But Y includes as abductions reports from
 people who sit in a trance and stare at the ceiling, and then describe
 the same kind of things X is describing. Isn't the obvious explanation
 to assume that both X and Y's reports have the same epistemological
 status - the same grounding in reality - and that Y's are the more
 representative, because they require the least deviation from present
 knowledge? Witness Z is obviously imagining things, and abduction
 investigator Y reports Z's imaginings as abductions. Therefore,
 abduction investigators are reporting what people imagine, not what
 actually happens to them."
 The leaps of reason in my imaginary quote above are not logically
 convincing, but they are psychologically very convincing. Just because
 one abduction report (A) is imaginary (i) does not mean that all A's are
 (i). But if you are predisposed to reject more complicated explanations,
 and are predisposed not to change your world-view on the basis of what
 the UFO research community is claiming, than your reasoning process is:
 Some A's are certainly i. I cannot look into all of the A cases, and if
 I have found one i case among them, I can say that because I have shown
 that at least one A is i, most-or all-of them might he. And with this
 very big "might be," I escape the need to change my world-view, because
 I can subsume my simpler world-view under the "might be" of the
 imaginary abduction report. Therefore I will defer judgment, or, more
 conservatively, not change my world-view in the absence of a more
 convincing reason to do so.
 I think it helps to make this problem specific because it explains what
 the UFO and abduction community is up against when it seeks to persuade
 the rest of the world - our lakeside and dinner-party neighbors and
 companions, as well as the even more skeptical scientific public - that
 what we have to say should be taken seriously. We have to decide what we
 are trying to convince people of. We know, and they know, that people
 report abduction experiences. If in the interest of accommodating every
 abduction reporter we decide to treat all reports equally, whether or
 not there is corroborative evidence that there was a physical abduction
 by extraterrestrials, then our public will nod politely and discount
 virtually everything we have to say. They will, quite reasonably,
 consider a11 abduction reports as evidence of, at most, an interesting
 psychological aberration or phenomenon.
 What are we to think of an abduction case in which the alleged abductee
 is observed to be present during the entire time she experiences an
 abduction? The evidence in this case is unambiguous. The investigators
 who reported the case were present during the time the woman had the
 experience, and she didn't budge. There was no missing time, and there
 were no abduction corollaries - UFO sightings or physical aftereffects.
 The answer least in need of supplementary explanation is that the woman
 wasn't abducted. There is no reason to think that she may not have been
 reexperiencing a past abduction - the most generous of hypotheses - but
 by any objective criterion she was not experiencing a physical abduction
 and the report of her experience made by the investigators was the
 report of a psychological experience, not a physical one. In my
 already-expressed opinion, this case should not have been presented as
 an abduction report.(3)
 Abduction researchers should screen abduction reports into those which
 are probably based on direct sensory experience, and those which are
 probably based on experience mediated by human language or media. It is
 clear from the proceedings of the 1992 Abduction Conference at M.I.T.
 that not a11 abduction researchers want to do that. And it's a free
 world: there is nothing to stop them from using whatever inclusive
 categories they choose to use in defining abductions. My point is simply
 that this inclusiveness mitigates against anyone with common sense and
 no access to the original data from taking the abduction phenomenon
 seriously. Those of us who are better informed can sort the bad cases
 out for ourselves; but our friends and colleagues in the general and
 scientific public can't. We should be doing it for them. If we don't, we
 suffer the inevitable diminishing of our credibility.
 There is a great reluctance on the part of some investigators to stick
 to a scientific approach to the abduction phenomenon. The argument runs
 something like this. Our systematic understanding of nature is severely
 limited; science doesn't even explain many things about inanimate
 nature, other animals, or the human mind. Not only that, but the
 technical or scientific approach to the mastery and understanding of
 nature has led mankind into grievous errors which threaten to destroy
 the species if not the planet. Therefore, we should abandon science in
 dealing with this new phenomenon, particularly since it is so far beyond
 our comprehension as to make the idea of a scientific theory to explain
 UFOs or abductions meaningless. We can't really decide whether the
 phenomenon is mental or physical; even calling it physical is
 meaningless because the mental and the physical are so completely
 intermixed that separating them, in this instance, is almost impossible.
 Much of this argument rests on a very generalized incomprehension of
 what science means, and an even greater incomprehension about the
 science of psychology. First of all, science is a method as much as it
 is a collection of facts and theories. It is also a very complex social
 process. Boiled down to its essence, the scientific method is a
 prescription that evidence about nature must be presented in a form that
 explains how it was obtained, makes it possible for other people to
 review and criticize the methods used for gathering the evidence, and to
 repeat those methods and obtain the same evidence, so far as is
 practical. It is a social agreement to be honest and transparent in
 presenting data, and to engage in a mutual (sometimes highly
 competitive) effort to cross-check, criticize, and ultimately verify the
 information on which we base our advances in understanding nature.
 The scientific enterprise. Our technological world is built from
 complex, true stories that describe the natural world. How do we know
 that the stories are true? The natural world works the same way for a
 Russian engineer as it does for an American scientist. Bridges designed
 in France will stand in China; airplanes made in America will also fly
 over Brazil or over Australia. There is a consensus about our nature
 stories, at least so far as we can carry them. The civilized machinery
 of scientific education, scientific research, and scientific
 communication shapes a community of knowledge whose products are
 everywhere and whose methods are universal.
 Unfortunately, many of the scientific nature stories are unintelligible
 to the lay person, who hasn't learned the mathematical methods and
 doesn't have the knowledge or the vocabulary to understand them. Because
 science is also divided into very narrow specialties, many scientific
 nature stories are equally unintelligible to scientists in other
 specialties. Most scientists aren't as successfully gregarious as the
 physicist Ernest Rutherford, who is supposed to have said, "If you can't
 explain it to the barmaid in the Eagle Pub, it isn't good science." Even
 nature stories which fall into the category of "classical" science, like
 the time-travel paradoxes of Einstein's theory of special relativity,
 seriously challenge both the lay and the scientific imagination. The
 sheer volume of detailed knowledge in every scientific specialty makes
 it practically impossible for a lay person or a scientist in another
 field to evaluate the latest development in an area to which he or she
 is a technical stranger.
 Scientific specialization. The scientific community which generates and
 uses accurate stories about nature is specialized and divided. Adam
 Smith praised the benefits of specialization in his famous l8th- century
 example of pin manufacture: A single craftsman, manufacturing entire
 pins, makes not more than twenty per day, while a team of ten men,
 employed in a small manufactory, could produce "upwards of forty-eight
 thousand pins in a day." Men "educated to the trade," each specializing
 in one part of the manufacture, turn out on the average 4,800 per day.
 Thus specialization amplifies the output of a pin manufacturer many fold
 - a lesson which has not been lost on scientists and scientific funding
 The "industrial system" is thoroughly established in science, with the
 same satisfying results. Collegial teamwork of surprising sophistication
 and complexity exists across the entire world. The system consists of
 multiple independent but cooperating research centers which regularly
 exchange information and personnel. Ever since the Middle Ages,
 academicians and researchers have been cooperative and mobile. Their
 greatest pleasure is to visit each other's universities and
 laboratories, and to congregate in large numbers at attractive places
 (Venice, Prague, Paris, Honolulu) to discuss, argue, and criticize each
 others' work. This is their life's blood. The results are poured into
 the research journals which are circulated and read internationally.
 The international scientific community is organized in much the same
 fashion as the modern communication tool which grew directly out of
 applied science: the Internet. The Internet is a system which exists as
 a collection of independent cooperating centers or nodes, each of which
 is administered locally. On the basis of a strictly voluntary
 cooperative organization, each node is configured so as to be able to
 pass messages through the entire complex system to any other node, and
 each node can also act as an intermediary for the transmission of
 messages from one node to another.
 But like the users of the Internet, the scientific community is really a
 collection of sub-communities which for the most part recognize each
 other's legitimacy, within the specialized domains of knowledge they
 claim for their own. And, as with the special interest groups on the
 Internet, it is rare that ongoing work within one scientific
 sub-community is commented on or participated in by workers in another
 sub-community. Scientific guilds. The independent subcommunities of
 science have another trait in common with those honored and medieval
 social organizations, the guilds, which were in some sense the
 progenitors of the very universities that now support many of the
 scientists. The guilds were professionally exclusive and jealous of
 their privileges. In the Middle Ages, work produced by non-guild members
 was proscribed and rejected. In the modern world, a relevant scientific
 advance which is reported from outside the research sub-community is
 likely to suffer the same fate. In the Middle Ages, there were political
 wars between the guilds and non-guild craftsmen, whose products were
 driven outside the towns where the guilds held power, into the
 countryside, where a non-guild worker could sell unlicensed products to
 customers who might later smuggle them back into the town.
 Scientists who produce work outside their specialties, or in areas of
 research that are not recognized as legitimate by their own sub-
 community, risk having their work proscribed or rejected by scientific
 guild members. The modern form of proscription is simply the refusal of
 scientific journals to publish the results. Occasionally the examples of
 guild behavior are egregious and informative. John Garcia, a researcher
 who specialized in radiological research, discovered in 1955 that rats
 could be taught in one trial to avoid the novel taste of a food which
 gave them a delayed, but very severe, stomachache (the food contained a
 nonlethal dose of poison which made them very sick). Garcia's work was
 technically exemplary, but because his findings directly challenged two
 cornerstones of the current theoretical position on learning -(1) that
 a11 learning was incremental, and (2) that delay of consequences reduced
 the effectiveness of learning - his work was kept out of major
 psychological journals for years.(5) While Garcia's findings, and Garcia
 himself, are now completely accepted some forty years after his initial
 work, the hostility and rejection he experienced are object lessons in
 the resistance of scientific sub- communities to outsiders who trespass
 on their intellectual territory.
 Fear of scientific failure. Scientists are afraid of mistakes. The
 public-inquiry structure of science, which proceeds by public
 replication or refutation of previously published findings, is the usual
 antidote to the persistence of unsubstantiated empirical claims and
 unverifiable theories. But it seems that unsubstantiated claims arise in
 every generation, and persist long enough to be an embarrassment to
 science as a whole. N-rays in the 19th century, polywater in the 1960s,
 and cold fusion in the 1980s are examples of scientific discoveries
 which generated a bad press for science because they persisted long
 enough to raise the public's expectations before those expectations were
 doused by the necessary skepticism. They were in fact examples of the
 successful application of the public-inquiry structure of science. Since
 each of these empirical errors was refuted, they represent successes,
 not failures, of this system.
 But the cost, both to individual reputations and to the public's image
 of science, of these forays into unsuccessful empiricism is very
 damaging. When you combine scientists' real and justified fear of
 embarrassment over mistakes with the traditional hostility and
 conservatism of scientific sub-communities to new ideas introduced from
 outside the specialty, you begin to understand why the entire panorama
 of UFO and abduction evidence presented by part-time scientific amateurs
 like historians, painters, psychiatrists, and social workers, not to
 mention even less scientifically qualified white- and blue-collar
 contributors (military and commercial pilots, policemen, air traffic
 controllers, and just plain folks) is simply ignored by scientists when
 it is not being actively derided by them.
 Almost all scientists accept the judgment of publicly recognized experts
 in fields of work to which they are strangers. As a part of both the
 specialized character of science and the guild mentality of scientists,
 each scientist respects only the authority of the recognized experts in
 his or her field. This raises some important questions: What
 qualifications fit someone to pass judgment on evidence concerning UFOs
 and related phenomena? Whose judgment can be trusted to evaluate the
 evidence? What is the evidence? And what conclusions can be drawn from
 Practicing scientists often assume that all science is about work on
 problems whose boundaries are well-prescribed and on which there exists
 a consensus about method and goals. This is true of the massive efforts
 of institutional science to advance knowledge in areas where it is clear
 that more knowledge, or better techniques, may lead to impressive gains
 in control of nature. I am thinking particularly of molecular biology,
 solid-state physics, and nuclear physics, where advances in
 understanding the construction and maintenance of organisms, the
 organization of communication and information, and the release of power
 are important, immediate goals.
 But this assumption about the scope of science is not entirely correct.
 People who work on even harder problems like the nature of abductions,
 or the existence of extraterrestrial life, can also be perfectly
 respectable scientists, whatever their background or training: history,
 sculpture, psychiatry, social work, sociology, atomic physics, clinical
 psychology or experimental psychology, to name the occupations of just a
 few practitioners in the field. The important thing is that they respect
 the rules of scientific communication. They may not gain immediate
 respect from other scientists for doing so, but if they do respect the
 rules of scientific inquiry - if they do make clear how they have
 defined their terms, how they have gathered their data, what precautions
 they have taken to avoid error in the data, and how they have
 interpreted the data - then, eventually, what they report will be
 respected by other practitioners of science. And if it is ultimately
 respected by the other practitioners of science, then the larger public
 will come to respect it as well.
 When will science pay attention? The answer to this question is
 important, because when science pays attention, both the influential
 public (legislators, newspaper columnists, TV commentators) and the
 ordinary person in the street will also pay attention. Thomas Kuhn, the
 famous contemporary philosopher of science, pointed out that scientific
 revolutions seldom succeed by convincing their older opponents; instead,
 the younger generation is usually instantly converted, while the older
 generation, which cannot deal with the innovations as flexibly, simply
 dies off and the resistance ceases as they leave the field.(7) Abraham
 Pais, Albert Einstein's intellectual biographer, points out the same
 thing with respect to the acceptance of special relativity by older
 scientists of stature when Einstein proposed his theory in 1905.(8) Pais
 also points out that Einstein himself, who was one of the founders of
 quantum theory, himself never accepted quantum theory as it was
 developed by his own contemporaries. Einstein preferred classical
 certainty because he believed until the end of his life that "God does
 not play dice with the universe."
 Does this mean that regardless of what the UFO community does, as long
 as strong and convincing data about UFOs and abductions accumulate, the
 public will eventually accept that these phenomena represent the
 activities of extraterrestrial intelligence? Certainly not - if within
 the community, there is disagreement about what standards should be used
 to study it. The younger generation of intellectuals, scientists, and
 political leaders, which is supposed to be converted while the elders
 die off, is too sophisticated to be converted to a world-view which
 cannot or will not differentiate between psychological aberration and
 extraterrestrial visitation.
 I cannot say what the "core phenomenon" of ET abductions is, and it
 really doesn't matter that much. There is always, even in so-called
 normal science, a halo of less-clear phenomena and less-accepted
 findings which represents the cutting edge of investigation into the
 controversial issues. The existence of these controversial questions is
 not itself a fundamental problem - so long as the methods of science
 provide an ultimate means for their resolution. Typical issues of this
 kind in the abduction field are: what are the "Nordics?" What is the
 meaning of the "staging?" Are there missing fetuses? These issues are
 amenable to investigation and to ultimate resolution. It seems to me to
 be important that there be a consensus in the UFO and abduction field
 that controversial problems must be resolvable - and resolvable using
 those refinements of ordinary commonsense investigation which go by the
 name of scientific method.
 Obstacles to acceptance. The "general UFO hypothesis" which encompasses
 the existence of extraterrestrial spaceships and the abduction of people
 into them has to overcome a series of barriers to credibility. Each
 barrier is actually the threshold of acceptance among technically
 educated people for a series of isolated ideas which cannot be easily
 assimilated into the current coherent picture of the world. The
 unassimilated picture presented by the UFO hypothesis is much too rich
 for the average scientist's taste. It includes telepathy, movement
 through solids, craft maneuvering at what are for us unattainable and
 dangerous g-forces, and propulsion with no apparent reaction against the
 The average scientist falls back on a much more plausible psychological
 explanation for this rich diet of impossibilities. Memory can be biased
 or faulty; perception is ambiguous and unreliable; social pressures and
 social gain motivate convincing lies; hypnotists can influence
 susceptible witnesses. By relying on any one of these alternatives, the
 overrich banquet of UFO-related phenomena can be dismissed as a
 combination of individual and social psychological aberration. When
 theory is overtaken by data. Pausing to look back just a few years to
 the time when physics was experiencing great upheavals provides an
 interesting perspective on the problem of interpreting UFO and UFO
 abduction data. After 1895 physicists could no longer use the
 mathematics of continuous physical displacements to model the universe.
 Quantum theory required what were then radical changes in assumptions
 about causality. Atoms did or did not emit radiation on a probabilistic,
 not a deterministic, basis; the basic constituents of matter and energy
 were either particles with wavelike properties or waves with
 particlelike properties, depending on how and when you measured them;
 position and momentum could not be simultaneously measured to any degree
 of accuracy; the state of a particle is only determined when you measure
 it, and that measurement also immediately determines the state of a
 related particle which is so far away that information cannot travel to
 it from the first particle. These difficulties do not mean that quantum
 theory is inaccurate; it is highly accurate. But, unlike relativity
 theory, it does not explain the universe in a classically deterministic
 One of the problems that physicists had in understanding and
 assimilating quantum theory was based on the fact that the
 interpretation of all measurement is wholly bound up in theoretical
 assumptions about those measurements. If the assumptions one made about
 measurement at the microphysical (quantum) level were classical
 assumptions, the measurements made no sense. Eisenbud (8) said that
         Ultimately, theory becomes so familiar that we hardly realize
         its importance in the interpretation of observation.... When
         theory fails, however, the familiar connections between its
         constructs and what is observed are broken. We must then return
         to naked observations and their observed interrelations, and try
         to build from them new and successful theoretical structures.
 The UFO community is faced with the same dilemma. The data of abduction
 research cannot be interpreted in a simplistic way as veridical
 descriptions of experience which fit our available theoretical
 framework. We are now forced to "return to our naked observations" and
 develop a new and comprehensive theory to explain the general tendency
 of these observations, and reduce the exceptions to a sufficiently small
 number to justify our confidence in the "naked observations and their
 observed interrelations." If we can build this confidence in ourselves,
 based on an adequate theoretical understanding, then we can certainly
 build it in at least the younger members of both the scientific public
 and the larger public who follow our investigations and our work with
 interest, but who are waiting for us to clarify our own understanding
 before committing themselves to accept it.
 I cannot, myself, overcome all of the obstacles to comprehension of the
 UFO phenomenon from a technical point of view. Explaining how people can
 be moved through solids and explaining UFO propulsion are beyond my
 competence. These observables clearly require a better understanding of
 nature than is provided us by current publicly available knowledge in
 the fields of physics and engineering. But with respect to the
 psychological phenomena, some comments to the general scientific public,
 as well as to colleagues in the UFO field, are in order. They concern
 the plausibility and current scientific status of various events which
 are described in UFO and abduction investigations. Some of these
 phenomena are by no means as empirically far-fetched as they might first
 appear to be.
 The psychology of some reported abduction experiences: Hypnosis and
 memory. Hypnosis has a long and colorful past, and has been, in its day,
 as controversial a scientific topic as UFOs are at present. It is still
 a controversial phenomenon. The most radical - or skeptical - view of
 the phenomenon is that it is nothing but acting, suggested by the
 hypnotist and willingly and knowingly carried out by the patient. On the
 other hand, there are many phenomena of hypnosis which are very unlike
 those which can be produced by voluntary acting. The removal of
 crippling hysterical symptoms with the aid of hypnosis was the clinical
 discovery which triggered Sigmund Freud's interest in the mental bases
 of what were thought to be neurological symptoms, and so led to the
 development of psychoanalysis.(9)
 A great deal of serious research effort has gone into the study of
 hypnotic phenomena, in an effort to determine to what extent there are
 genuine changes in consciousness as a result of the hypnotic process.
 The simplest description of the present evidence is this: hypnotic
 induction in a highly suggestible subject produces a mental state in
 which external instructions (the hypnotist's) can alter the subject's
 conscious mental content, to the extent that both memory of past events
 and perception of the current environment can be influenced in ways that
 cannot be duplicated by suggestion, unaided by hypnosis. It must be
 stressed that not everyone is equally hypnotizable. Highly suggestible
 people need less effort to produce the radical changes of conscious
 content which are characteristic of hypnosis, while some very
 unsuggestible people do not ever experience the extreme changes of
 conscious experience which characterize highly suggestible, deeply
 hypnotized subjects.
 Most of the controversy about the use of hypnosis in abduction research
 is over the question of whether recall facilitated by hypnosis is
 necessarily true. It is not. Extensive experimental evidence
 demonstrates that confabulation is as possible under hypnosis as it is
 in ordinary unaided memory; in some cases, while fluency of memory is
 increased under hypnosis, so is the inclusion of verifiably inaccurate
 recall.(10) However, as students of the UFO and abduction phenomenon
 already know, not all UFO abduction accounts depend on information
 gained through hypnosis. Frequently there is recall, even extensive
 recall, without hypnosis.
 Equally extensive experimental evidence demonstrates that hypnotic
 techniques can both induce and remove amnesia. When memories have been
 blocked either by trauma or by previous hypnotic instruction, they can
 be recalled by later, appropriate hypnotic counterinstruction. (11) It
 is possible to establish "hidden experience" in a hypnotically
 susceptible person so that a real experience is actually concealed from
 the experiencer until he or she is later instructed to remember it. This
 is a stock in trade of stage hypnotists: the person who is made to bark
 and run around on all fours, pretending to be a dog, will have no memory
 of that experience if instructed not to remember; the hypnotist may
 provide a cue for later recall of the following kind: "you will remember
 nothing of this session when you wake up, until I place my hand on your
 shoulder." The result is that the hypnotized person undergoes
 experiences which he or she cannot remember until later. So long as the
 hypnotist does not provide the cue, the experience is not available to
 conscious recall. Once the cue is provided, recall occurs.
 Imagine if a hypnotist were to say to a subject under hypnosis: "Under
 no circumstances will you remember this experience," and then simply
 disappear from the subject's life. (12) The hypnotized subject would
 have a gap in his or her memory. Careful questioning might reveal that
 he went to a hypnotist's performance; that he remembers being in a seat
 with his friends who encouraged him to go on stage; and then he came
 home. When asked to account for the show, or his part in it, he would be
 unable to consciously recall his own participation. There would be
 "missing time." Under these circumstances, a second hypnotic session
 with another hypnotist might remove the memory block and reestablish the
 continuity of experience and memory. Or alternatively, the experience
 might simply be recalled after a sufficiently long time.
 Since we know that hypnosis can be used to block experience from
 conscious memory, and since we know that re-hypnosis is one tool by
 which that experience can be made accessible to voluntary recall,
 therefore we also know that the recovery of blocked UFO abduction
 memories by hypnosis is not an impossibility. We do not know that the
 recovered memories are accurate; great pains must be taken to avoid
 leading the hypnotic subject, because hypnotically recovered memories,
 as mentioned earlier, are not necessarily more accurate than memories
 which are recalled unaided.
 Telepathy. Humans can transmit information telepathically. The empirical
 evidence for this is cumulatively overwhelming. Neither current
 psychological theory nor current physiological theory has an explanation
 for the data, but the data are sound. There is too little space here to
 review the history of experimental psychical research, which dates back
 over a century. The evidence for telepathy does not depend on trusting
 mediums, which is always a dangerous business. Starting with the
 experimental work of J. B. Rhine,(13) the experimental reliability and
 repeatability of telepathy has been established by many researchers.(14
 - 16)
 For the most part, the experimental demonstrations of telepathy are
 statistical and relatively crude. The best of them involve remote
 viewing of complex scenes, which are then reproduced visually by the
 telepathic subject in more or less complex detail. Statistical analysis
 of the agreement between scenes and drawings, under experimental
 conditions which preclude collusion, cheating, or biasing the results,
 shows results that are sometimes quite striking and over the long run,
 far, far better than could be ascribed to chance.
 Therefore it is within the realm of current scientific knowledge to
 expect that information can be transmitted telepathically to a human
 being. The descriptions of telepathic communication made by alleged
 abductees are not, then, without a reference in human experience as
 defined by scientific experiment. Visual illusions. Virtual reality is
 created by using two or three- dimensional visual images which give the
 illusion of objects in space. This can be done with wide-screen sound
 and motion, it can be done holographically or it can be done
 stereoscopically. While holographic images currently lack solidity, they
 do not lack detail. Therefore it is within the realm of our current
 scientific knowledge to be able to construct an alternative visual
 reality (sound effects were accomplished long ago) which gives the
 illusion of solidity. This is already done cinematically, and
 large-screen projections like I-Max are quite convincing in conveying
 the experience of motion. Virtual reality is created in aviation
 simulators; its success is indicated by the fact that emotional
 reactions in simulated situations of danger mimic, if they do not
 actually duplicate, emotional reactions recorded in real situations of
 danger. Therefore the experiences of staging as described in the
 abduction literature are not without a reference in human experience as
 influenced by human technology.
 Hallucinations can be induced in an uncontrolled way through the use of
 psychotropic drugs, sensory deprivation, and hypnosis. Remember that
 hypnosis is a powerful hallucinogen. A subject under hypnosis can be
 made to react to hypnotically induced sensory experiences. The very
 suggestibility that defines the earliest stages of trance induction
 ("your eyelids are getting heavier, your hands are together and you
 can't move them apart, your arms are sluggish and you can't lift them
 off the chair") are all hypnotically induced sensory-motor experiences.
 Other, more complex experiences can be introduced by a skilled
 hypnotist. Therefore the induction of hallucinatory experiences, as
 reported in many abduction cases, is not unknown to ordinary human
 Abduction reports include illusions, hypnosis and telepathy. The
 characteristic abduction experience described in books by Hopkins and
 Jacobs and in articles by Carpenter may include elements of telepathy,
 hypnosis, and illusion. An alien being communicates telepathically;
 using some form of close physical contact, the same being induces an
 altered state of consciousness in the human, and the human experiences
 ambiguous scenes either as a hallucinatory "virtual reality" or as
 hypnotically induced interpretations of real events in which alien
 actors play a role. As explained in the previous few paragraphs, this
 apparently implausible combination of experiences - telepathy and
 illusions or hallucinations - is by no means beyond the realm of human
 experience. All of the phenomena are known individually, and under
 certain circumstances can be induced or controlled by humans in other
 The reliability of UFO and abduction witnesses. All of science is based
 on observation; and ultimately all science is based on human observation
 and interpretation of even the most sophisticated data from the most
 sophisticated instruments. It is instructive to remember that about one
 hundred and fifty years ago, science was being conducted with much
 simpler instruments, and may fewer of them; that natural science like
 that practised by Charles Darwin required a only notebook and a
 sketchpad; and that however complicated the mechanical or electronic
 gadget into which the scientist peers, the human observer is always
 present to interpret what is seen or recorded. If UFO (and UFO
 abduction) witnesses are intrinsically unreliable reporters, then all of
 the evidence is suspect, because it has been obtained with unreliable
 instruments, whose distortions or biases may be responsible for the
 seeming abnormality of the reports. As a case in point, Bartholomew, et
 al. (17) reported that a study of self- reported biographical material
 from 152 alleged UFO abductees or contactees demonstrated an incidence
 of fantasy-proneness which was higher than the population average. The
 biographical data used in this study were drawn from l6th-century
 sources as well as from current data, and no distinction was reported
 between what UFO investigators would recognize as contactees and more
 credible reporters of abduction experiences. But the best UFO and
 abduction evidence is not suspect. Spanos, et al.,(18) Bloecher, Clamar
 and Hopkins,(19) and Rodeghier, et al.(20) have made it clear that UFO
 reporters and abduction reporters do not suffer from psychopathology;
 therefore there is no a priori reason to reject their reports because
 their personality characteristics make them less reliable than other
 reporters of phenomena.
 Ordinary precautions have to be taken in obtaining reports about
 external events from anyone. Good reporters and good scientists know how
 to listen; how not to lead; how to encourage reluctant or emotionally
 upset witnesses without putting words in their mouths; and in general
 how to avoid biasing the source of the information they are recording.
 The same thing applies to extraordinary methods for obtaining data, like
 hypnosis. Proper use of hypnosis in the forensic field as well as the
 UFO investigation field is necessarily subject to stringent precautions.
 Good hypnosis data will be presented with evidence that appropriate
 precautions were taken; the work of Carpenter and Haines(21-23) is
 exemplary in providing evidence that the requisite precautions have been
 Prior conditions for accepting the abduction phenomenon. Most of us take
 for granted something which our scientific colleagues have neither the
 background nor the confidence to take for granted: that reports of UFOs
 are reports of extraterrestrial vehicles. It is impossible here to go
 into the detail which supports this conclusion. When the evidence is
 assembled and presented coherently, it is overwhelming. It is rarely so
 assembled and presented. Classic works by Jacobs, Hynek, and NICAP on
 the extraterrestrial UFO hypothesis, which precedes the abduction
 phenomenon, are twenty years old. They are respected but not widely
 read, and certainly not known to the scientific world outside the UFO
 It follows that uncertainty about the existence of ET UFOs precludes
 acceptance of the UFO abduction phenomenon. If I'm not sure that ET UFOs
 exist, how can I accept the evidence for UFO abductions? In this case,
 the additional evidence about UFO abductions does not strengthen the ET
 UFO evidence; instead, the uncertainty about the UFO evidence weakens
 the acceptance of the abduction evidence. This is a classic application
 of what is known to statisticians as Bayes' theorem. The probability of
 some event, given supporting evidence, depends not only on the current
 supporting evidence, but on the prior probability of the event: in other
 words, how probable - before the supporting evidence - was the event in
 question. If the ET UFO evidence is either unknown or rejected, the
 prior probability that any reported experience has to do with UFOs is
 bound to be low. This immediately prejudices acceptance of the abduction
 evidence, because it is read in a context where the a priori assumption
 is that UFOs themselves are highly unlikely, and therefore so is a
 UFO-related explanation for the abduction evidence. The answer to this
 problem, to the degree that we can solve it, is to present the UFO
 evidence and the solid UFO abduction evidence together in an
 intellectual contextbook, course, or visual medium - in which the UFO
 evidence establishes the a priori probability for the UFO abduction
 phenomenon. The tendency - certainly reasonable, in light of the
 importance of the phenomenon - has been for recent work to concentrate
 on the abduction phenomenon alone. But the extensive and
 well-investigated body of UFO cases deserve equal time with the
 abduction evidence, because the ET interpretation of the classical UFO
 data is the a priori basis for allowing an ET interpretation of the
 abduction evidence.
 So where are we? We lack certainty in dealing with evidence elicited by
 hypnosis or recall alone. We need corroborating evidence: other people's
 testimony to an observer being abducted (e.g., the Linda case), missing
 or found in a disordered state after a hypnotically recalled abduction
 experience. Or else we need corroborating physical evidence of an
 abduction: evidence that something has been around to confirm the
 abductee's report of being abducted into something. This is no more or
 no less than the kind of evidence we need to corroborate UFO reports.
 After all, a UFO report is no less a report of personal experience than
 is an abduction report.
 Even book-length compendiums of single or multiple cases need to respect
 the scientifically educated public's requirement that the methods of
 investigation be explained clearly enough so that the techniques can be
 both criticized and repeated by others. Understandably but
 unfortunately, the current practice (for obvious financial and personal
 reasons) has been for each serious and productive investigator to
 present his or her own findings in a maximally attractive public
 package, in order to reap the personal rewards for the effort made,
 since there are absolutely no academic or "establishment" financial or
 social rewards for being a conscientious and intelligent UFO or
 abduction researcher which would compensate anyone for the time and
 effort expended. There is now, however, both a place for and an
 intellectual demand for a methodological and empirical synthesis of
 current good abduction research, just as there is a similar need and
 demand for an equivalent review and synthesis of the past thirty years
 of UFO research. Such a synthesis would have to address the
 methodological issues raised in this essay, as well as the rich store of
 excellent abduction and UFO data which have been collected, weighed, and
 evaluated by the current generation of UFO and abduction researchers.
 1.  The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition,
     Unabridged (New York: Random House, 1987).
 2.  Elizabeth Loftus. Eyewitness Testimony (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard
     University Press, 1979).
 3.  Gilda Moura, "A Transpersonal Approach to Abduction Therapy," in
     Andrea Pritchard, David E. Pritchard, John Mack, et al., eds. Alien
     Discussions: Proceedings of the Alien Abduction Study Conference
     (Cambridge, Mass.: North Cambridge Press, 1994), 485- 92. See also
     Loftus, I 95.
 4. Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations [l776] (New York: Modern Library,
    1937), 4-5.
 5. John Garcia, "Tilting at the Paper Mills of Academe," American
    Psychologist 36, no.2 (1981): 149-58.
 6. Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (University of
    Chicago Press, 1962).
 7. Abraham Pais, Subtle is the Lord: The Science and Life of Albert
    Einstein (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982).
 8. L. Eisenbud, The Conceptual Foundations of Quautum Mechanics (New
    York: Van Nostrand Reinhold,1971 ).
 9. Ernest Jones, The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud (New York: Basic
    Books, 1953), 1:226-230.
 10. Jane Dywan and Kenneth Bowers, "The Use of Hypnosis to Enhance
     Recall," Scieuce 222 ( 1983):184-85.
 11. M. E. Miller and Kenneth Bowers, "Hypnotic Analgesia: Dissociated
     Experience or Dissociated Control?" Journal of Abnormal Psychology
     I02, no.l (1993): 29-3 8.
 12. Or, as is possibly the case with some abductees, to reappear
     regularly and repeat the instruction.
 13. J. B. Rhine and J. G. Pratt, Parapsychology: Frontier Science of the
     Mind (Springfield, Ill.: Thomas, 1957).
 14. Charles Honorton, "Relationship between EEG Alpha Activity and ESP
     Card-Guessing," Journal of the American Society for Psychical
     Research 63 ( 1969): 36574.
 15. William G. Braud, "Relaxation as a Psi-Conductive State," Bulletin
     of the Psychonomic Society 3, no2 ( 1974): 115-18.
 16. H. Eisenberg and Don C. Donderi, "Telepathic Transfer of Emotional
     Information in Humans," Journal of Psychology 103 ( 1979): 19-43.
 17. Robert E. Bartholomew, Keith Basterfield, and G. S. Howard, "UFO
     Abductees and Contactees: Psychopathology or Fantasy Proneness?"
     Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 22, no.3 ( 1991 ):
     215- 22.
 18. Nicholas Spanos, P. A. Cross, K. Dickson, and S. DuBreuil, "Close
     Encounters: An Examination of UFO Experiences," Journal of Abnormal
     Psychologoy 102, no.4 ( 1993): 624-32.
 19. Ted Bloecher, Aphrodite Clamar, and Budd Hopkins, Final Report on
     the Psychological Testing of UFO "Abductees" (Mount Rainier, Md.:
     Fund for UFO Research, 1985).
 20. Mark Rodeghier, Jeff Goodpaster, and Sandra Blatterbauer,
     "Psychosocial Characteristics of Abductees: Results from the CUFOS
     Abduction Project," Journal of UFO Studies, new ser. 3 ( 1991 ):
     59- 90.
 21. John S. Carpenter, "Double Abduction Case: Correlation of Hypnosis
     Data," Journal of UFO Studies, new ser. 3 ( 1991 ): 91-114.
 22. Richard F. Haines, "Multiple Abduction Evidence - What's Really
     Needed?" in Andrea Pritchard, David E. Pritchard, John Mack, et al.,
     eds. Alien Discussions: Proceedings of the Alien Abduction Study
     Conference (Cambridge, Mass.: North Cambridge Press, 1994), 240245.
     See also Richard F. Haines, "Novel Investigative Techniques," in
     Alien Discussions, 468-69.
 23. Richard F. Haines, "Hypnosis: Problems and Techniques." Paper
     presented at the National Conference on Anomalous Experience, Temple
     University, Philadelphia, 1990.

Next: Protocol 5