"Abductions" DO NOT exist :They are misinterpreted sleep phenomena

F. Frank LeFever flefever at ix.netcom.com
Wed Apr 15 19:40:23 EST 1998


Please let us follow this fascinating discussion in anoother newsgroup,
more appropriate for it.  Please delete bionet.neuroscience from the
loong list of addresses at the head of this post before responding. 
This discussion is crowding out neuroscience discussions.  It is only
fair to let people find neuroscience discussions when they call up a
neuroscience news group.  Respect your neuroscience colleagues.








In <01bd68cc$418208e0$558dd2cc at default> "Don" <palerm2 at ibm.net> writes:

>
>
>On Wed, 08 Apr 1998 04:48:08 GMT patanie at hotmail.com (Patanîe Pongpâ)
>writes:
>>Le 7 Apr 1998 18:07:38 GMT, (Don P.) esoxlNeodymium at juno.com@ vous
>>écrivîtes:
>>
>>Dear Don,
>>>
>>> (Patanîe Pongpâ) writes:
>>>>
>>>>There is a HUGE difference between Flying Saucers(or:M.O.C)in
Europe
>>>>and in the United-States.
>>>>In Europe we have nearly no reports of the so-called "abductions".
>>>>
>>>>The reason is essentially cultural because "abductions" have been
>>>>created by a money oriented society which sells anything which can 
>>be
>>>>swallowed by millions of gullible Americans.
>>>>
>>>  Yes and No. Yes, there is no question of how gullible amercicans 
>>>are, that is pretty much self evident (the bulk of Americans
anyway).
>>>  
>>>  However you cannot say ALL abductions have been created this 
>>>way.   
>>>
>>I can see no logical reason why advanced ETIs would abduct human
>>beings and,especially,secretely? If they are so advanced,why hide
>>then? 
>>Your opinion?
>
>   I am an alien visitation skeptic. I do not think that aliens
>are either visiting the earth or abduducting  humans.
>
> Although I might be able to contemplate why ETI's would
>do so, and why they would hide that fact that they did, I prefer
>to leave Mr. ET out of the Abduction Phenomenon discussion. 
>
>>>>There are many scientific reasons which preclude such things as
>>>>abductions by ETI(Extraterrestrials)but these reasons are too 
>>complex
>>>>to discuss here and,whatever their rationality,they would not 
>>convince
>>>>the purported "abductees" to believe in their fairy tales anyhow.
>>>>
>>>
>>>  The problem that you have here is equating abductions with
>>>the dreaded *aliens* (as well as many gullible americans do). 
>>
>>I think some flying saucers are real but I think all "abductions" are
>>tales.
>
>   Of the real "flying saucers" that you think exists, do you 
>attribute their existance to aliens, humans or both?
>
>>Abductions follow the pattern of a CULTURAL proces.This should be
>>studied through anthropology.
>
>   Agreed, anthropology should be *one* dicipline that studies
>abuductions.
>
>>Why no abductions let say in my home town of Geneva,Switzerland,and
in
>>Switzerland in general or in Thailand,etc?
>>Perhaps...ETI have their money hidden in our swiss banks!!!!
>
>   I don't believe that ETI's are visiting this planet.
>
>>
>>>
>>>  I am an alien visitation skeptic. However, since I know 
>>>humans have had efficient disc aircraft for at least 43 years,
>>
>>Could you elaborate and give some evidence?
>
>   All circustantial evidence that the UFO phenomenon
>is the result of human creativity and innovation from the
>past 100 years. 
>
>>
>>>the abduction scenario may have a more down to earth 
>>>explanation. 
>>For what reasons?
>
>   That I can not answer. I have not been privy to the 
>reasons why humans would want to abduct other 
>humans.  Although I could ponder and investigate 
>reasons why  humans would abduct humans, I would 
>rather spend my time investigating the possible 
>technology of UFO craft.
>
>>>
>>>  Agreed that some abduction cases can be explained away
>>>with dreams, mental instability, etc., but one can NOT discount
>>>every abduction case as being false. 
>>
>>Sleep phenomena and logic can show that 100% of these cases are not
>>exoreal.
>
>    I must disagree. This may be true for 99 percent 
>but not 100.
>
>  Do you think that a human has ever been kidnapped
>in the past?? 
>
>  Do you think that a human has ever been kidnapped
>from there sleep in the past.
>
>   For whatever reason, it is possible that humans 
>have abducted humans, and either intentionaly or 
>unintentionaly blamed or made it appear that aliens
>were to blame.
>
>>>
>>>  It is very possible that a some abductions cases are in fact
>>>true, but the abductors were/are humans and not Mr. ET.
>>
>>Humans? Why not! But what would be their motivations?
>
>    I can only guess to the motives, but my guesses are 
>irrelevant.  
>
> >I do not follow you.Please explain your opinion.
>
>  The facts are, that humans have UFO technology,
>and for whatever motives, could (and probably did)
>abuduct other humans in the past. 
>
>  No need for Mr. ET. 
>
>>>
>>>  The alien stigma is a PERFECT scapegoat for this heinous 
>>>act.  
>>>
>>>  Just as the credible sightings are blamed on Mr. ET, so are 
>>>many of the credible abduction cases.  To suggest that ALL UFO
>>>sightings or ALL abductions cases are false is very closed minded. 
>>
>>No.It is a logical deduction.
>
>   How do you figure??
>
>>> 
>>>  The facts are that humans have been working on disc aircraft 
>>>and Unified Field Theories since before WW2.  This human 
>>>endeavor led to disc (and other shaped UFO crafts) that breaks
>>>the KNOWN laws of physics. It was/is a simple task to covertly 
>>>blame the sightings for such craft on Mr. ET. It is also a simple 
>>>task to debunk the alien myth (since in my opinion alien visitaion
>>>is not fact).  
>>>
>>>  The whole UFO and alien visitation realm is blamed on 
>>>everything from Mr. ET to halucinations.
>>
>>I have written elsewhere that flying saucers cannot be explained by
>>"hallucinations".
>>Collective hallucinations,simply,do not exist.Only confabulations or
>>lies can explain the vast majority of M.O.C sightings.
>>You can find my explanations about that in "Conscious Dreaming" at
>>http://dog.net.uk/claude
>>
>  Thanks.
>
>>It is at the end of the lengthy draft.
>>> However, the 
>>>truth, the HUMAN aspects, are NEVER addressed, and for
>>>good reason, because it is classified information.
>>
>>This is the "cover-up" theory very prevalent in the US.Again this is
>>cultural.
>>There is no cover up in France or Switzerland.
>
>    The gvmt, or whoever admit that they have flying
>disc crafts that have capabilities that far exceed all  
>known human aircraft.
>
>  Could you share this info with me please?
>
>>
>>>>Not because the ETI like to abduct US citizens and not french but
>>>>because our culture is different,less hollywoodian,more on the
>>>>Earth...
>>>>
>>>  Or maybe because atfer WW2, france did NOT get any of the 
>>>German engineers who were developing disc aircraft and Unified
>>>Field Theories before and during WW2.
>>
>>Can you elaborate?
>
>   Starting in the 1930's german engineers began development
>on disc craft, Shriever, Schauberger, Dr, Miethe, the Hortens
>to mention a few.
>
> After the war these engineers as well as the engineers 
>from the Jet and Rocket programs were brought over to 
>the US.
>
>>
>>If so why this has neveer gone into mainstream physics?
>>ALL physicists would LOVE to have a theory of everything.
>>Scientists are talkative...they cannot keep secrets for a long
time...
>
>  Because this technoloy would lead to energy autononmy
>for one, and very real security issues also. 
>
>>>
>>>  And maybe because France did not have many physicists/engineers/
>>>inventors, as there were in other countries that stumbled upon some
>>>rather interesting interactions between gravity/electric/magnetic 
>>>fields. 
>>>
>>we know nearly nothing about gravity.
>>How the Germans would have discovered all that within a few years?
>>Impossible.
>
>  It is PLUBICLY known that we knowm nearly nothing about
>gravity.  I suspect that great gains at unifying gravity and 
>electromagnetisim were made in May of 1928.
>
>>
>>> I suspect three countries began development of disc aircraft 
>>>involving Unified Field Thoeries after WW2, and France is NOT
>>>one of them. 
>>
>>Please elaborate on these discs.
>>Thanks.
>
>    Discs that use the Unified Field Theories (the 
>interactions of gravity and electromagnetisim) for
>propulsion and maybe for power.
>
>    An extension of the work of Nicola Tesla's experiments
>with turbines and rotating magnetic fields. 
>
>>>
>>>>French are more down to earth, less gullible,and not so much prone 
>>to
>>>>mass hysteria!
>>>>
>>>  You say that you are not gullible aye. Let me ask you a question
>>>or three.
>>>
>>>  Do you think that humans could have developed VERY 
>>>efficient disc (and other shaped UFO aircraft) over 
>>>50 years ago?
>>
>>Disc aircraft,why not. Using gravity? NO.It is grotesque.It is a
fairy
>>tale.
>
>   I disagree. 
>
>>
>>I will remind you that the French physicist Dr Jean Pierre PETIT has
>>shown how to make flying discs using MHD technology.
>>The problem is that these discs would need a nuclear power plant for
>>energy production!
>>So it is not an efficient way of flying without conventional engines.
>
>  Interesting. Thanks for this tidbit. Do you have any more
>info on Dr. PETIT efforts?
>
>>
>>Yes it would look science-fiction but it would be useless!
>>Still the French army approached Dr Petit but he refused to work with
>>the army.
>>
>>Petit's work is interesting,however,because it provides a way of
>>creating silent non polluting aircrafts.
>
>    Seems that this type of craft could have real military 
>value.
>
>>
>>These would be disc shaped,would glow in the night and would be sent.
>>Still they would be unable to perform what M.O.C are reported to
>>perform.
>
>    How do you know this? Were you involved with the 
>efforts and improvements of such crafts?
>
>>
>>And,again,coming to the problem of energy:what would be the use of
>>flying discs powered by megawatts of a small nuclear plant?
>>
>>Cumbersome...
>
>   Not if a relatively small device was used to produce the
>megawatts of power, that took NO fuel, as we know it.
>
>>
>>This is more an academic interest than anything practical,at least
for
>>the time being.
>>MHD propulsion is interesting(academically)but over greedy on energy
>>in reality.
>
>   Maybe so. However, humans have been working on MHD 
>for almost 60 years.  There may be some un-disclosed 
>advances in the MHD field that you and I are not aware 
>of.
>
>>>
>>>  Do you think that it is possible that sometime between
>>>1900 - 1930 that humans have made GREAT advances concerning
>>>the Unified Field Thoeries?
>>
>>No.
>>>
>>>  Do you think that this (at least) 50 year old HUMAN 
>>>technology was ever used to abduct a citizen (for 
>>>whatever reason)?
>>
>>I do not know.First present your points.
>
>  I think I did above.
>
>
>>
>>> You say that abduction cases "are misinterpreted sleep 
>>>phenomena", I say a percentage probably are.
>>>
>>I say 100% are!
>
>   I think there is a very real posibility that humans 
>have been abducting humans, for whatever reasons. 
>
>>
>>> You say that abduction cases are NOT the result of Mr. ET
>>>dropping by for a visit and a short ride. I agree, but I will
>>>remain open minded to any physical evidence of Mr. ET.
>>>
>>> Could humans have abducted citizens with their UFO crafts?
>>>The correct question should be, HOW MANY citizens have been
>>>abducted by humans and their UFO crafts?
>>
>>So please give me a motivation.
>>It does not make sense to abduct people..
>
>  Sure it makes no sense to you or I, but this does 
>not take away from the posibility of it happening.
>
> Thanks for the reply
>Don Palermo
>




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list