UFO Conjecture(s)

Thursday, January 28, 2016

Alien Abductions or Mind Manipulation? from Nick Redfern. (Should we care?)

http://jimharold.com/alien-abduction-or-mind-manipulation-nick-redfern/

8 Comments:

  • A recent National Geographic airing presented information about mind manipulation experiments by the CIA, one of which involved a man named Foster (not Forrestal) who allegedly "jumped" from his hospital window (like Forrestal years earlier).

    That government agencies tested mind altering drugs on volunteers and unsuspecting citizens of the U.S. and other countries is a given (and documented fact).

    Your books [For Nobody's Eyes Only and Close Encounters of the Fatal Kind] provide relevant information.

    That interference has muddied the UFO topic and should make U.S. citizens livid....it hasn't, because we are "a nation of sheep" as Naval officer and author William Lederer Jr. presented in his book by that sobriquet.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, January 28, 2016  

  • I'll go with the alien abduction scenario. The mind manipulation alternative seems to be excessively out of the box for me... about 200 miles from the box indeed.

    We can easily know that a UFO theory is crazy or extremely unlikely when, being it non prosaic, skeptibunkers do not complain or worry about it, and this is the case of this mind manipulation theory.

    By Blogger Don Maor, at Thursday, January 28, 2016  

  • Don:

    You using "skeptibunkers" -- a ufological word that puts off academics and scientists.?

    It's that kind of silliness that makes UFOs a fringe topic.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, January 28, 2016  

  • I don't think a simṕle union of words (skeptic+debunker=skeptibunker) is what make scientists to flee from Ufology.

    I believe that what makes UFOs a fringe topic is that it IS a fringe topic, in the sense of fringe, edge, border. Edges and frontiers can be frightening, they represent uncertainity and potential lack of control. This problem is inherent to ufology, and therefore only the braver scientists will risk their careers to speak or research about ufology. And then we have these clowns, the UFO debunkers, who deny the UFO reality no matter what. They are also scared to look beyond the edge.

    By Blogger Don Maor, at Thursday, January 28, 2016  

  • Don:

    It's those peripheral attributes that make ufology stupid.....using terminologies that are kid-like (stupid) doesn't help.

    There is a cadre of UFO buffs who like to coin nonsense words (and formulate crazy ideas).

    It's those things, coupled with the lack of a research regimen that is off-putting.

    Skeptibunker is a jerk word, and I was just surprised that you would use it.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, January 28, 2016  

  • All right Rich, while I still don't think the difficulties of Ufology depend on the use of the term "skeptibunker", I concede that it sounds childish.

    Best,

    By Blogger Don Maor, at Thursday, January 28, 2016  

  • Thank you Don:

    I have a great respect for your thoughts and comments, here and at Kevin's blog.

    I hated to see you use a term that UFO quidnuncs use.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, January 28, 2016  

  • I recall Martin Cannon's The Controllers (1990) and Helmut Lammer's MILABS (US edition 1999) already having treated that angle. The presence of this theory was felt heavily in the late 1980's and early 1990's.

    The Preston Nichols and Peter Moon Montauk book series (1992 and onwards) thrived on it. Traces can be found in Report From Iron Mountain (1967) and Were We Controlled? by Lincoln Lawrence (1967). Robert Naeslund caused a ruckus with his stories of forcible implants (also in 1967).

    It is as if some strata of 21st century ufology just reintroduces these old theories and the listeners of today have forgotten or do not even know the historical ufo-debates of the past.

    Best,

    Theo

    By Blogger theo paijmans, at Wednesday, February 03, 2016  

Post a Comment

<< Home