From Luis R Gonzalez: His extensive "report" on the Bill Chalker/Peter Khoury "abduction" story

Noted UFO researcher Luis R Gonzalez has delved into various UFO sightings, providing erudite and analytical insights about them.

Luis spotted my take on Bill Chalker's account of the Peter Khoury alleged abduction, recounted in detail by Bill in his book Hair of the Alien.

Here is the whole of Luis' earlier report on the purported abduction and analysis of a hair sample deposited on Mr. Khoury and said to be from the extraterrestrial encounter that Bill's book supports:

STRANGE EVIDENCE – Bill Chalker – IUR 24:1 (Spring 1999). Hair of the Alien (2005)

Peter Khoury was born in Lebanon in 1964 (from a priestly line of the ancient Maronite religion (HOTA, p. 303))and migrated to Australia in 1973 where he met his future wife Vivian (with a Greek ancestry) at school in 1981. They married in 1990 and have two children, Stephen (born in 1995) and Georgia (1998). Peter works in the building industry, and has his own business in cement rendering. (As a teenager) he had lived a rough and dangerous life moving with the wrong crowd of tough and belligerent people and had also been in a difficult relationship. He decided to went back to Lebanon for a while and in 1988 had just returned home, reigniting a relationship with his school sweetheart, Vivian. So life was good and heading in the right direction.

Summer 1971.-  After his July 1988 abduction experience, Peter began to reconsider a strange event that occurred to him in his native Lebanon as a child of seven.

He and several other children had gone up onto the flat rooftop of his neighbor’s house to play, an everyday activity for them. Peter was the last to walk through a heavy door leading to the roof and found all his friends “frozen” like statues. Above them was a big ball, very close, a silent egg-shaped craft hovering. Inside the object, Peter could make out the presence of two tall thin people, but the strong light prevented him from seeing more details. The children later found themselves on the ground floor after some time had elapsed, with no apparent memory of coming down. Peter was the only child who remembered the strange object and its occupants.

His mother told him (in July 2003) about many other strange experiences. (HOTA pp. 16-18)

February 1988.- He and Vivian had seen a strange light making extraordinary movements in conjunction with a beam of light. Both also read Shirley MacLaine’s Out on a Limb (1986).

12 July 1988.-

For a two-week period leading up to this incident, the residence was plagued by repeated occurrences of loud footsteps on the driveway, usually in the early hours of the morning.(HOTA, p. 18). He and his brothers searched without luck, these episodes ended with a striking event on July 5. Peter heard the footsteps again, but he found himself paralyzed on his bed, which faced the window to the driveway. He became aware that at the window was the silhouette of a man, something impossible, because the driveway is about 2.40 metres lower. Suddenly the silhouette was gone as well as the paralysis.

Peter, 24 years old, had an experience “that changed my life. At about 23:00, he and his father were watching television. His brother Sam emerged from Peter’s room and asked him if he wouldn’t mind watching the movie in his room and exchanging places. What followed occurred immediately, so it is difficult to link the experience with some sort of sleep-related phenomena. While... lying on my bed, I felt something grab my ankles. As I felt this, a strange numbness, tingling and churning sensation crawled up through my body and right up to my head. I was paralyzed (...) except my eyes. (Panicking...) I looked to my right side and I could see three or four figures wearing dark robes with hoods on their heads. Their faces were very wrinkled and shiny dark black in color. They were only about 3 or 4 feet in height. It was then that communication was made telepathically (...) I was told not to worry and I would not be harmed and to relax (...) As I looked to my left side I noticed two beings who looked so different from the others. These two were thin, tall with big black eyes and a narrow chin. They were gold-yellow in color. Astonishingly the stress was gone immediately The one closest to my head communicated with me telepathically, telling me not to worry, it would be like the last time (1). Peter somehow got the impression that one of these tall figures was male, the other female. He looked at me with those big black eyes (...) you could see the smile in them. In the book, Peter mentions that they wore like small, Band-Aid size “surgical masks” (the “female” on, the “male” down) and whitish gowns.

(Then) I noticed a long needle-like, flexible crystal tube. The being inserted it to the top left side of my head. I blanked out. The next thing I remember I was conscious. I jumped out of bed and walked into the TV room where my dad and brother were. I noticed they were asleep. I woke my brother up –he looked dazed and lost. As he put it, he felt switched off”.

Both of them agreed that only a few minutes had passed, but surprisingly at least one to two hours had passed by (A film was just starting when Peter went to bed and afterwards the TV station was closed) (It would be from about 23:00 PM to something like 2:30 AM). Next day, when he commented the incident with Vivian (his fiancée at the time) he discovered some dried blood and noticed a puncture hole. He commented the mark with his family doctor who laughed at him.

According to Chalker, afterwards Peter also found a biopsy-like puncture mark on his shin. He was not aware of abduction cases and some family members even suggested he had encountered Sr. Charbel, a 19th-century Lebanese Catholic monk, because of the robes.

Months later, while driving, Vivian and Peter were shocked to see a petrol station billboard promoting the paperback version of Strieber’s Communion, with the now familiar gray-alien face. They acquired the book. Vivian read it first. Peter found as much in common and just as much not in common. However, know he had some kind of context to anchor his own strange experience.

Getting further assistance proved difficult. Nobody wanted to hypnotize him.

1991.- Bill Chalker first heard of Peter Khoury. (HOTA p. 22)

October 1991.- The first? “alien hair” incident (as described in a interview taped in late April 1992)

In this event, the women’s roles are reversed (also, both seemed younger, and do not seem to have big eyes, just no eyebrows). It is the Asian looking woman who straddles him, while the blonde takes a passive, apparently observational role. The Asian is naked, but the blonde wears “overalls”, even though Peter also refers to her as having pale skin “all over”. The duration is estimated in 10 to 20 minutes, considerably longer than the second. He then wakes up two hours after. This time he describes much more activity. The Asian woman takes Peter’s hand to her breast, taking it back and forth three or four times, then some eight to ten times she cups Peter’s head to her breast, back and forth, seemingly wanting him to bite her breast area. He did that once, and noted her breast stretching, and then Peter swallows a piece of skin. There is no mention of any hair being recovered

November 1991.- He heard about a UFO group was about to have its first meeting, the UFO Research New South Wales (UFOR-NSW). He went along and entered the world of ufology. Soon he found himself being the group’s “abduction coordinator”, but the issue was too much controversial for them. He stayed with them for about a year, until petty politics took its toll.

1992 (HOTA, p. 93).- When Peter joined the UFO group, he came into contact with a hypnotherapist, who indulged in New Age techniques and asked leading questions. The session was very unsatisfying for Peter, who did not achieve a trance state.

7 March 1992.- (HOTA, note 38, p. 254).- Two others members of UFOR-NSW, Frank Sinclair and Coralee Vickery, undertook an earlier preliminary interview (tape made available to Chalker during 2003). There was some confusion about the date of the first abduction episode, whether it was 1988 or 1989. There is nothing on this basic interview about any other abduction style experience between 1988 and March 1992.

17 March 1992.- (HOTA, p. 89) Peter Khoury’s sister-in-law had gone missing for a day and a half. Unknown to most of the family, she had been involved in an affair with a local schoolteacher. When she had gone to meet him to end the affair, he killed her and then killed himself.

13 May 1992 (HOTA, p. 23).- Head injuries after being attacked at a job site by 3 guys. Hit in the head with shovels. (HOTA, p. 90 – He required several stitches. He also experienced some brain swelling and short-term memory loss).The doctors put him on a lot of medication (Panadeine Forte and Voltarin), because of a lot of headaches and severe migraines. Because of that he would vomit constantly, particularly in the morning, once about 10 times just while driving Vivian from home to the train station, which is about three minutes away by car. “If I didn’t have what I have as proof for me, I would say that I was on enough drugs, pain killers, etc. to hallucinate maybe” (HOTA, p. 24)

24 May 1992.- (HOTA, p. 41). Nearly four years later there was still a noticeable lump at the site of the puncture mark. The doughtnut-shaped lump seemed to grow intermittently to about the half the size of a marble, and then shrink, but it would never entirely disappear (...) 3 days before his CAT scan for the head injury, Peter was scratching the site, Peter and Vivian could feel something like a very thin “wire” sticking out, but couldn’t see it. He continued to scratch and suddenly felt something pop out and falling in the carpet. It looked dark brown and was about the size of a match head. Even using a vacuum cleaner, he was unable to recover it.

27 May 1992.- (HOTA, note 17, p.251). The UFOR-NWS meeting minutes noted: Peter Khoury recently hit on head with a spade; cat scanned today, results tomorrow.

21 July 1992.- (HOTA, p.93) Peter tries with a much more experienced hypnotherapist, Frank Wilkes. A recollection of an alien presence emerged, but it proved little clarification beyond his conscious recollections.

23 July 1992.- The “alien hair” incident.

Peter drove Vivian to the station about 7 a.m. He pulled over twice to vomit in the way to the station, and five times in the way back (HOTA, p. 95). He returned and went straight back to the bed, clothed with underwear, track suit pants and a sweatshirt. He was totally asleep and about 7:30, all of a sudden....

“I sat straight up. I noticed there were two (naked) females on the bed. (At first) was like I was looking through the back of my head (...) watching myself (...) virtually looking through my image in front of me.

(...) It was a double bed. (There is some indication of a fractured continuity because Peter had gone to bed under the sheets and afterwards, his legs were exposed, the sheets were under him).

The woman directly opposite me (about two feet away) was a blonde-looking woman, in her mid-thirties, skin very light like a westerner, sitting with her legs tucked under her back side. Her hair was curled something like Farrah Fawcett, but to an extreme (...) she had protuding cheeks, very high cheeks. The nose was long (...) Her eyes were two to three times bigger than our eyes and light-colored, maybe bluish, but normal otherwise (...) I knew I wasn’t looking at a human female (...) She looked humanoid, and human in features. Her mouth, her lips were normal in size (...) The shape of the face was longer than usual (...) She had average-sized breasts, well proportioned, quite prominent nipples (...) Her hair came down to about halfway down her back, and like really high up (...) although it looked nicely done, it also looked frail, flimsy. She seemed pretty tall (around 2 m)

The other one was to the right and sitting on the side of the bed, facing us from the side. She had darker skin (like from India), was dark-haired and looked Asian, average height. Her features also weren’t completely human. The cheeks were too puffy, and her black eyes did not show white and once again were too big. She was just there with this concentrated-like look, sitting stiff, staring straight at us, her expression blank.

The blonde one just basically reached out and grabbed me from the back of the head with both her hands (...) and (gently) forced me towards her left breast. I resisted and she forced me again. I resisted a third time and she forced me towards her. She was pretty strong... She pulled me over and my mouth was basically on her nipple and I bit (...) I took a chuck, a little bit off, because I swallowed it and it was stuck in my throat for three days (...) It was if I took a bite out of a plastic dummy, it felt like a rubbery substance. When I did bite her, she didn’t scream, she didn’t cry. There was no blood. Just I’ve pushed back and the expression on her face was like “this isn’t the way” (...) She looked at the Asian one, they looked straight at each other’s face and looked at me. I started coughing, took my eyes of them fro a split second and when I looked up again, they weren’t there any more. The whole time when this was happening I had the feeling as I was a second person looking through.(IUR). “This only lasted a few seconds, then I caught up-my physical body” (HOTA p. 26). Peter corrected me, saying that the duration of the transparency effect was very short-lived, only lasting from when he awoke until he rose from the bed. When he was upright, facing the blond women straddled across his upper legs, his viewpoint returned to normal

He got out of bed coughing. He don’t believe he blacked out. He got a glass of water, had a drink, didn´t do anything, and walked straight to the bathroom to use the toilet. He was using the toilet and felt such a pain in the penis. He pulled the foreskin back and wrapped around the head and part of the penis was a long hair, really tightly wrapped, it wasn’t knotted, just twisted, and there was another little hair that was also intertwined. Wrapped around (my penis) in a coil. That’s why it was so painful (HOTA, p. 35). He eventually untangled it without cutting it, went to his office, grabbed a plastic sachet bag, put it in it, and sealed it. The hair was about 10-12 centimetres in length, and the other about 6-8 centimetres... It was very frail looking, whitish hair

His coughing fit went for hours, for three days. He called her wife at work around 8:30, but did not tell her until August 13 (according to his diary entry).

Because the sexual nature of this experience, Peter did not want to talk about it. He talked to the UFO group he had originally joined but they didn’t seen all that interested. Even within his own support group later, nothing was done about it. During John Mack’s visit to Australia in 1996, Peter was regressed by him. Under Mack’s regression, Peter described the 1988 experience, describing being taken into a room that was lit up. He was on a table with one entity above him speaking with a sound like birds chirping. That was all that came out.

26 August 1992.- Diary entry: “Lack of help from committee” ”Do not discuss the experience”, because of lack of positive feedback (HOTA, p. 42)

 

October 1992.- Hopkins visit to Australia

6 December 1992.-  Peter Khoury and his primary associate Jamie Leonarder formally introduced the support group concept during a public meeting of UFOR-NSW, which Bill Chalker attended. The support group had its first meeting on January 31, 1993. Peter mentioned the hair sample at a subsequent meeting on February 28, but did not show it, focusing instead on his 1998 experience (HOTA, pp. 42-3)

End of March 1993.- Problems quickly escalated and Peter resigned from UFOR. Many in the support group left with him, including Leonarder, and formed a new group, the UFO Experience Support Association (UFOESA), formalized on April 14, and based in Sydney (HOTA, p. 43).Even UFOESA’s own professionals were unsympathetic. Peter learned to be more circumspect about sharing the more bizarre episodes of his experiences. (HOTA, pp. 44-5)

1 November 1993. First long interview with Bill Chalker, mentions the 1988 abduction experience, the rooftop experience during his childhood and the February 1988 sighting (HOTA, p. 22), but NOT the “alien hair” incident.

13 July 1996. The story slipped out in presence of Bill Chalker during a meeting with some independent film producers who were interested. (HOTA, p. 23). He kept in mind the fact that an hair sample had been recovered but could do little about it. Chalker wrote in his diary “Peter described a highly personal experience he had at home about 2-3 years ago”.

After becoming aware of the incident, Bill discussed it informally with Peter on a number of occasions.

November 1996.- Peter was apparently carried late at night through a mirror by teleportation. All four episodes from 1971 to 1996 show a long-term periodicity of 4.25 years, which incidentally is twice that of Mars orbit (2.1 years)(HOTA, pp. 295-6). All four episodes seem to have left direct physical evidence on Peter’s lower right leg, in the form of four punch-biopsies of diameter 8 mm. Such large. Round, hairless scars could not easily be self-inflicted for two reasons. First, punch biopsies are seldom performed by Earth doctors due to the intense pain of taking a core sample, plus the need for tight stitching afterward, and a long time of 2-4 weeks to heal. By contrast, all of Peter’s scars remain unstitched, and one healed itself in 6 hours while his wife watched. (It would be a boon for medical science to elucidate the mechanism of such rapid wound healing). Second, punch biopsies are carried out using a simple cylindrical tube-like blade, that is inserted directly in or out. By contrast, Peter’s punch biopsies show fine-structure around the outer edges, where 6-8 thin wires have been inserted to prevent torsion, while twisting the central tissue as for a corkscrew.

(HOTA, pp. 106-108). Peter had already told Chalker about this consciously recollected episode, but in the 2003 hypnosis he went further.

He was in bed with Vivian and began to feel a sense of creeping paralysis. He tried to touch her in order to break the paralysis he was feeling, but he couldn’t. A whole group of beings, like the little hooded guys, came through the mirrored wardrobe. Without touching him, Peter is getting lifted and floated out towards the mirror and through it, slowly. Afterwards he can just see different shades of light, but no one around him. He is like in something like a conveyer belt, in the middle of a big room. Peter felt like he was there for an hour or two. Then it finally begins to move again. The room is narrowing down. He then starts to feel a lot of static again all around his body. It seems to be becoming very cold. After what seems to him to be a period of about three minutes, it feels like everything is reversing. Everything he experienced before now seems to be playing out again, but in reverse. He then finds himself back in his bed, without feeling himself going through the mirror. He slowly wakes Vivian up  and they discuss what happened. She wasn’t aware pf anything unusual.

8 February 1999. When it became clear that the biochemical analysis was producing some interesting results, Bill conducted an extended interview without finding contradictions or exaggerations. They finally become friends. Bill Chalker needed to establish with some degree of certainty the facts. Peter said that he had made mention of the experience in his diaries, but because of renovations and building at his house, he was unable to find them for several years (HOTA, p. 45)

After the insistence of Bill Chalker, Peter Khoury finally found his diaries in April 1999. He had recorded a brief note on the 1992 incident:

“Thursday July 23, 1992:

 Had a very weird experience this morning with two females. 7.00 AM after dropping Viv off at station got really sick a few times went straight to bed. All of a sudden two females appeared from nowhere. A blonde and a Chinese girl. Very weird looking eyes and color of blond. Both were naked. Blonde push me to her breast a few times then I bit her nipple and started coughing. She showed no emotion, blood or screamed in pain. I went to toilet and found two hairs under my foreskin. I put them in plastic bag. It is in my filing cabinet” (HOTA, pp. 24-25).

Even with the diary’s confirmation, Peter pointed out that 1992 was a turbulent year for him and his family, and therefore he couldn’t be absolutely certain that he made his July 23 entry on the right date. Jamie Leonarder’s association with Peter was established in the middle of 1992, and despite some differences between them, Leonarder recollects that Peter told him about the incident and showed him the hair soon afterwards, confirming those details were there since the very beginning. Also, most of the group professionals had some recollection of Peter’s telling them about the experience. (HOTA, pp. 46-47).

IUR – Mitochondrial DNA sequence.-

In early 1998, Bill Chalker provided this hair sample, a blonde hear hair of length 15 cm. A 2-cm piece of hair shaft (located just above the root) was examined. The sample was extremely thin and almost clear (very little melanin), and its unusual optical clarity, showing a pronounced “mosaic” structure.

(HOTA, pp. 283-293).- The goal of such analysis is to establish a precise DNA base sequence of mitochondrial hypervariable region I, spanning nucleotides 16.020 to 16.400 of the circular mitochondrial DNA

(Late 1998 to early 1999).- Phase One: Hair Shaft Analysis

RESULTS: The blond hair has a strange and unusual DNA sequence, showing five consistent substitutions from a human consensus, found only in a few other people throughout the whole world: a Mongoloid Chinese racial type corresponding to just the 4% in a large group of Taiwanese (and mainland China), one of the rarest human lineages known (family C2), that lies further from the mainstream than any other except African Pygmies and aboriginals (family C1). The principal substitution, extremely rare C-to-T at 16.108. The rest were at 16.129 (G-to-A), 16.162 (A-to-G), 16.172 (T-to-C) and 16.304 (T-to-C) in the entire hypervariable region of 380 base pairs between 16.023-16.400.

By comparison, Neanderthal man differs from modern humans at 27 locations in the same DNA, while the chimpanzee differs from humans at 55.

Phase Two: Hair Root Analysis (HOTA, pp. 76-80 & 294-310)

The procedure was essentially the same, allowing some limited modification that led to the soft root-tissue and hard hair-shaft being extracted separately. The PCR methods remained the same, once again concentrating on the hypervariable region, while one small nuclear region, which contains a special gene (the CCRS gene) was amplified. Other nuclear regions gave no amplification, apparently because the hair DNA was too degraded. There is apparently little contamination in the protocol.

RESULTS: A stunning anomaly, its mitochondrial DNA appeared to be of two different kinds, depending on whether they analyzed the hard hair shaft or the soft root. From the lower hair shaft they again obtained the same rare Chinese mitochondrial DNA substitutions. But from soft root tissue, they obtained a novel Basque/Gaelic type mitochondrial DNA, which had a rare substitution for that racial grouping (16.255 G-to-A) along with several other characteristic substitutions at 16.223 (C-to-T), 16.278 (C-to-T), and 16.294 (C-to-T).

Transfer of blond nuclear DNA to a Chinese hair cell in tissue culture would produce such a result. The other remote alternative is that the hair sample was handled forcefully by someone with the extremely rare C-to-T DNA substitution at 16.108 (HOTA, note 197, p. 283).

The PCR test for Nuclear CCR5 appears to show that the blond alien female might contain two deletion for CCR5, making her viral resistant, and showing no contamination by local DNA.

2000.- (HOTA, pp. 86-116). Trying to track down every detail, Chalker came across some apparently contradictory information Peter had given in an interview with Moira McGhee and Bryan Dickeson, members of the UFO group Peter had originally joined. Apparently he talked about the strange women, but did not mention anything about the hair. Besides, even though the tape was not dated, Moira felt the interview had probably occurred in either late March or early April of 1992, (after the sister-in-.law murder, but before the job site assault) . In the interview Peter suggests that the incident occurred between four or six months previously, making it either October or December 1991, ¡ 7 or 9 months before the alleged date of the incident !  His wife confirms that in the tape

Coincidentally, the only one other account of possible alien hair emerged in Australia, a young Queenslander who reported to Peter Khoury in mid-1996 that a strange encounter had occurred some five years earlier (...) and provided “hair” samples as evidence (HOTA, p. 88). 

6 November 2003, Hypnosis Session.- (HOTA, pp.94-105). By Robb Tilley. (Even in a deep state of hypnosis) it was clear that the session was not going to focus spontaneously on any episode (...) unless directed to it. He recalls the Asian girl talking to him telepathically about babies, that this new baby will join the others (Peter and Vivian had not had children yet). There was nothing sexual there, the blonde one got Peter’s face against her breast and he cannot breath, so he push her away.

“I pull my skin back. I see a hair (...) It’s curled, like an “S”, but more curves than an “S”, just like figure 8’s but not joined, but it’s cutting my penis (...) and there’s two of them. One’s a short blackish, darker and thicker than the other one (...) It’s like embedded, like it’s left a mark there, like a groove”

The other addition was the feeling that there was someone else still in the house. But NO reference to the second incident.

NOTE – The quotes are from an “advance uncorrected proofs” kindly provided by Patrick Huyghe

Questions, more or less in a chronological order

Answers: 3/09/05 -  6/12/05 -  7/12/05 – 8/12/05

>For a two-week period leading up to the July 12th 1988 incident, the residence was plagued by repeated occurrences of loud footsteps on the driveway, usually >in the early hours of the morning (HOTA, p. 18). He and his brothers searched without luck, these episodes ended with a striking event on July 5. Peter heard >the footsteps again, but he found himself paralyzed on his bed, which faced the window to the driveway. He became aware that at the window was the silhouette >of a man, something impossible, because the driveway is about 2.40 metres lower. Suddenly the silhouette was gone as well as the paralysis.

Has this incident been explored under hypnosis?   No.

When did the details surfaced? (you did not mention it in your IUR article)

His brothers and friends knew about it from 1988.  He commented about it in lectures from time to time.  Also please note that the focus of my IUR article from 1999 was the 1992 episode not the earlier milieu.

>12 July 1988 incident.-

Were you able to check the timetable of the movie showing in the TV?

No I did not check this aspect.

Surely, you did ask Peter’s brother and father about this incident, but would like your confirmation that you did interview them. Besides, what is their opinion about Peter’s experiences? Is the family supportive?

Yes.  Sam was confused about the episode, as was his father, but did confirm that Peter described the bizarre details back then. Obviously with the lack of context for them (ie. UFOs etc) it was a period of confusion.  Peter's father believes Peter's story but was puzzled about the nights events. Peter's other brother (middle brother - Peter is the youngest) treats the whole UFO thing as a joke, but this seems to be his way of dealing with his own issues.  He had a "paralysis" episode of his own.  He saw a priest about it who told him to read the Bible.  His experience involved a white ghostly thing..  It never happened to him again, as far as Peter and I have been able to tell.

If Peter commented with his brother and father the insertion part, it is strange they did not check for marks that night. We must assume he did not feel anything. Did you checked with the family doctor, and his opinion on the mark?

As described in the book Peter's doctor was not supportive and put the mark down to a job site injury even though Peter said this was not the way it happened.  She laughed at him when he somewhat naively volunteered the full story to her.  She simply rejected it and rationalised a prosaic explanation.  Peter was very disappointed by this reaction and the lack of serious consideration by his own doctor.

>Months later, while driving, Vivian and Peter were shocked to see a petrol station billboard promoting the paperback version of Strieber’s Communion, with the >now familiar gray-alien face.

I am a bit surprised that there in Australia they use billboards to promote books. Did you ever get a copy of the advertisement? If we suppose this was not an isolate showing but instead was part of a promotion campaign, it really implied a big exposure (thousands of potential customers/abductees).

No. These were large billboards.  I saw some of the campaign myself.  From what I recollected at the time it was only select locations not saturation coverage. While Strieber's "Communion" never sold in great numbers in hard back form in Australia (even I at the time I found it difficult to even find it) it did go well as a paperback.  And no it didn't lead to thousands of abductees coming out of the closet so to speak.

>Bill Chalker first heard of Peter Khoury in 1991. (HOTA p. 22).

Exactly, when did you hear about Peter? I suppose it was after that first meeting of the UFOR-NSW in November, wasn’t it?

Peter was at the first meeting.  I was an unwelcomed attendee as the new group had appropriated my existing group name. There was politicking at the time but I became aware of abductee "rumours" re Peter during 1992 but the politics meant I only heard these indirectly or via public meetings in fragments. I sent Peter a letter in November 1992 because he had put his name down on a list generated at a public lecture of Budd Hopkins.  Budd passed the list  onto me to follow-up. While I continued to hear more of Peter's story, which at this time seemed to really only revolve around the 1988 experience, it wasn't until 9 Feb 1993 I had a long discussion with him. Peter was starting to realise that the group was note for him and the group's committee take on a lot of things, including me, were not particularly accurate. He then started to have more contact with me.  Given that Budd Hopkins’ Oct 1992 visit had generate a list of possible abductees, Peter was just one of these people. Ultimately it wasn't until November 1st, 1993 that I sat down with him to do a formal and detailed interview.  He did not volunteer the 1992 episode during this, although he had to others within the other group and his support group.

And when did you met him in person?

Peter approached me in some of public meetings of the group during 1992, but nothing in detail was discussed because of prevailing group politics until contacts I describe above.  The group actively dissuaded Peter from contacting me, until he finally realised that I was not the "bogey-man" painted by the group.

>October 1991.- The first? “alien hair” incident (as described in a interview taped in late April 1992)

Note the circa Oct 1991 incident did not feature "alien hair" recovery.

Besides the women’s roles reversed, they are described younger and if I am not mistaken, their eyes are NOT as big, just they do not have eyebrows. Correct?

This aspect was not discussed on the undated tape re actual eye size.  The absence of discussion might suggest they were smaller or rather normal, but once again we are uncertain about this aspect because it was not addressed. My reading indicates that the tape of the earlier episode (Oct 1991?) and the details of the July 1992 event reveal a discrepancy of age for the blonde (approximations of 20 in the Oct. 1991 event and 30 in the July episode.  While subjectivity re age estimates might be a factor, something else might be involved.  Given the lack of in depth interviewing or checking re McGhee/Dickeson interview we are much less certain about the details of this apparent earlier episode.  We only have one point of reference - the tape of the interview, whereas for the July 1992 we have multiple confirmations via interviews, public lectures etc.

>1992 (HOTA, p. 93).- When Peter joined the UFO group, he came into contact with a hypnotherapist, who indulged in New Age techniques and asked leading >questions. The session was very unsatisfying for Peter, who did not achieve a trance state.

Can you be more precise about the date of this failed regression?

I did not accurately date this as it seemed worthless to the research process, more a statement about the inadequacies of the hypnotherapist.

Did you check with the hypnotherapist?

I did meet her on a couple of occasions and there was nothing of importance to follow up. Instead I felt she was not very capable.  Please refrain from any public comment about my estimations of her for obvious reasons.

>7 March 1992.- (HOTA, note 38, p. 254).- Two others members of UFOR-NSW, Frank Sinclair and Coralee Vickery, undertook an earlier preliminary interview >(tape made available to Chalker during 2003). There was some confusion about the date of the abduction episode, whether it was 1988 or 1989.

Which are those “diverse sources” that allowed you to pinpoint the date exactly to the 12 July 1988? There was no diary then, wasn’t it?

Peter's conscious memory.  Both Peter and Vivian were definite.  They discussed this a lot, and it did not seem to me they were simply inventing this to set up a contrived date of occurrence to be later "confirmed" by the diary entry when it later surfaced.

>13 May 1992 (HOTA, p. 23).- Head injuries after being attacked at a job site by 3 guys. Hit in the head with shovels. (HOTA, p. 90 – He required several stitches. >He also experienced some brain swelling and short-term memory loss).

As I myself worked in the construction business with my own small firm, that aspect attracted my curiosity. Does Peter usually work at the building site, or is the firm big enough that he can limit himself to coordination, management, etc.?

His company is a small family type business in which he is hands on, on site and a co-labourer in all activities.

Is there in Australia some kind of public security system that covers for accident victims, covering the medical expenses and maybe some kind of economic help until the person recovers?

Only if it was work related.  This was an assault by people who wouldn't give back Peter's gear in good condition - a situation not covered by work safety practice.  This was a criminal assault matter not an accident during a working situation.

Even if such a welfare measure exists, my own experience shows that small business managers rarely pay for their own social security cuotas, so if the unemployment situation prolongs further than a few days, they run into problems. How long was Peter unable to earn his living? I sincerely hope he is totally recovered.

It was a period of about 3 years, during which time Vivian was the primary income earner.  During this time Peter tried to do work but it was seldom long term. However Peter and Vivian have large and close family ties so there was some support there as well.  His business fully recovered as he did.

Were the attackers identified and arrested?

Yes.  A court case (a rather unsatisfactory one from Peter's perspective) found one of them guilty of "assault causing grievous bodily harm", for which he got a 2 year suspended sentence!  The rest  - fines!

Did Peter ever get some kind of compensation?

In retrospect Peter felt he was badly advised or manipulated by his lawyers. He even suspected collusion with the other party.  Peter wanted to pursue criminal compensation but was advised to go down the civil compensation path which ultimately lead to $20,000 of which $15,000 was consumed in legal costs.  Peter found the process totally frustrating and unsatisfactory.. None of these details should be included in any print report.

On the other hand, with head injuries, the doctors usually make a lot of X-rays, scans, etc. Were you able to check them (looking for any indication of the implant)?

The only pertinent cat scan Peter had was the one taken after the incident when what may have been an "implant" fell out, as described in the book. The earlier cat scans ("the first cat scan") were the subject of some confusion, with Peter being told at the time by medical personnel, after a lot of out of direct ear shot that there was a problem with the scan. Another scan was taken - a repeat scan - it was claimed.  Nothing was forthcoming on that.  Peter had a physicist member of his group examine the scan, who confirmed there was nothing untoward.  Although he is unable to prove it, Peter suspect the first "problem" scan may have actually shown something, but was either dismissed as an artefact or was confiscated, with him being told there was a problem and a "repeat" was substituted.  I saw the "first scan" and the one after the incident of the "implant" coming out. Neither show anything of interest re evidence for a possible "implant". This is one of the complicated and detailed sagas in Peter's experiences, which ultimately due to space consideration (and because it didn't add to the central focus - re DNA mediated forensic approach) - was not described in detail.

ADDITIONS TO THE BOOK (p. 116): Without this physical evidence it would be tempting to attribute the 1992 encounter to perhaps the medication Peter was on. While not generally linked with inducing major sensory disturbances such as hallucinations, some may have had these factors as possible less common side effects in isolated cases.  However, the hair evidence, which supported rather than conflicted with reality of the encounter, was hardly the stuff of hallucinations. During his extended period of medication Peter only had this strange experience once and the apparent 1991 encounter occurred without medication, injury or stress as possible factors.

after "... But why did Peter not remember the 1991 episode?"

Why Vivian didn’t is perhaps understandable.  While supportive of Peter, her priorities during this difficult time revolved around family, not aliens.  Since then, her only reference point was Peter’s clear, consistent and often repeated recollections of the 1992 episode and the hair recovery.

Had you have the opportunity to look at the puncture mark before the disapparition of the implant?

No, because of the circumstances described above, and the head injury from the job assault matter.  However Frank Wilkes & a number of others saw the small "doughnut" mark.

>23 July 1992.- The “alien hair” incident. (Date confirmed by the diaries found in April 1999)

Also strictly speaking the 1992 event is not about sex. As for the event itself there seems evidence of discontinuities in the flow of events, as it
seems to begin with Khoury under the bed cover.  At what he believes was the end of the seemingly brief encounter he recollects he is now on top of the bed cover. "Missing time"? Maybe, but the hypnosis session I reluctantly organised which focused on this event did not highlight anything that would account for this detail.  However Khoury was certain that this experience was somehow related with his earlier experience in 1988.

I have a particular fixation with abductee’s diaries. They provide such an overload of amazing incidents!

I don't know what sort of diaries you are coming across but Peter's diaries are very spartan efforts, not the stuff of elaborate details, just occasional minimalist comments and notes, more often just notes of places, meetings etc with fragments pertinent to his own experience.  This approach started off when he began to full into the UFO fold, namely late 1991.  By then he had started to see the importance of preserving details as he was coming into contact with others who were interested in the UFO subject. Until then his diaries were standard work diaries begun in 1987 when he began working with his father in the cement rendering business.  From 1991 he kept separate "UFO" and "work" diaries.  Both are fairly spartan affairs, mainly to provide prompts  or reminders of work related matters and in the UFO context, things that needed to be remembered - meetings etc - and the occasional personal event or comment. I have scanned all these diaries. There is nothing to me that suggests invention, fabrication etc.  Note that others - his wife Vivian., his then friend and associate Jamie Leonarder etc - all reference a date that coincides with about mid 1992.  The diary simply confirms these estimates. Even though Peter qualifies the entry with a general comment that he sometimes found his work related entries being entered on the wrong date, which he would correct when he was aware of it, he feels the July date is accurate and consistent with the general awareness he, Vivian, Jamie and others had.  There seems no support for fabrication etc.

What kind were Peter’s diaries? Have they got a predetermined space for each day (resulting in a lot of pages not written and others overflowing with details) or it was just a notebook that you keep writing on (without leaving large spaces in blank)?

Predetermined bought type.

What period of time did they cover? Specifically, did they begin BEFORE October 1991?

As described above.  There was a 1991 diary but it doesn't enlighten us on the apparent earlier event.  At best Peter's UFO diaries are sparing occasional records that sometimes cover pertinent events.  Sometimes there were no entries for seemingly significant events.  However Peter is certainly not a conscientious diary writer, at best an occasional, erratic and incomplete diarist. Their role was, when he remembered to use them, were reminders to him of events, dates etc.

Can you provide me with a scan or xerox of the July 23th notes?

Sorry to ask but, have you checked about any possible tampering?

Yes of course, but I saw no evidence of this, nor no need, because other evidence, the recollections of Peter, his wife, Jamie & others put it around mid 1992.  Thus, a number of people confirmed the approximate timing of the event before the diary was rechecked when it was finally located again.  Its entry simply confirmed more accurate with a caveat that mid 1992 was the time of the incident.  Things had been storage due to renovating.  The diaries were not much of a priority for me as the approx. date had already been ascertained.

>Peter drove Vivian to the station about 7 a.m. He pulled over twice to vomit in the way to the station, and five times in the way back (HOTA, p. 95). He returned >and went straight back to the bed, clothed with underwear, track suit pants and a sweatshirt.

Sincerely, I understand Vivian had to work, specially then that she was the only source of income. But, as a nearly just-married woman, seeing his husband suffering severe vomiting, I would have taken a day out of job to care for him... unless such vomiting was a regular feature during those days. At the very least, for just a 3-minutes drive to the station, I wouldn’t had bothered him to rise from bed.

They only had one car at the time, so the effort and inconvenience and occasional hardship was deemed worthwhile to allow Peter access to the car, in case it was needed.  A bit of vomiting, as far as Peter was concerned, wasn't the worst thing that happened that year.  Beside he thinks the being ill started on the way, so he just kept going despite the problems.  A case of imposed forbearance.  If Vivian took time off every time Peter felt unwell she wouldn't have had a good. Difficult times call for difficult coping decisions.

There are several points that I do not quite understand:

A)      How cold was at the time? If you have to go outside so early in a winter morning, you normally put on much more than a sweatshirt and track suit pants (shorts?).

Long legged & jumper style track suit type.  Sydney's winters are pretty mild, like we don't get snow.

B)      On the other hand, after so much vomiting, the first thing I would have done once at home, would had been to rinse my mouth,

He suspects he probably did?

C)      and maybe eat something before going to bed. All those stoppings would have taken several minutes.

The last think he felt like doing was eating.

D)      I do not quite visualize Peter and the blond woman positions. I suppose he awoke stretched in the bed, and quickly raised his head and torso. The woman is described as sitting with her legs tucked under her back side, at the bottom of the bed, yes, more or less two feet away. But even if she moved her torso forwards, it seems to be too much far away to be able to grab him from the back of his head and put his mouth on her nipple.

Perhaps I should have been more precise, but the blonde was straddling Peter around the upper leg position.  The Asian, with "her legs tucked under her back side" was sitting on the edge of the bed, according to Peter.

In another page, she is described as straddled across Peter’s upper legs (clearly preventing them for moving), something much more natural. Please, clarify.

E)      Curiously, there is no description about any touching sensation. If I were unwillingly forced towards the breast of a woman, I would push her away with my hands either in her torso or pulling of her arms. But in Peter’s narrative there is no mention to any movement of his arms. Was he paralyzed?

He was no paralysed and the book describes Peter pushing her back - hand in torso area.

F)      You suggest the women were some kind of hybrids, etc. but the bitting seems to suggest another possibility. It is scarcely acceptable to admit that such a aggression could be suffered without a cry or a scream, but for any blood and flesh living being, such a tearing would necessarily imply a lot of blood around. The absence of any blood points better either to a virtual experience or to some kind of robot.

Maybe, but Peter was convinced she was real, not virtual, and the DNA seems to support that.  The absence of blood?  Peter puzzles about this and ponders a mannequin type characterisation, but can reconcile this with his perception that otherwise she was quite real in every other sense.

Regarding the “alien hair”, I also have some questions:

>Peter pulled the foreskin back and wrapped around the head and part of the penis was a long hair, really tightly wrapped, it wasn’t knotted, just twisted, and >there was another little hair that was also intertwined. Wrapped around (my penis) in a coil. That’s why it was so painful (HOTA, p. 35).

>“I pull my skin back. I see a hair (...) It’s curled, like an “S”, but more curves than an “S”, just like figure 8’s but not joined, but it’s cutting my penis (...) and there’s >two of them. One’s a short blackish, darker and thicker than the other one (...) It’s like embedded, like it’s left a mark there, like a groove” (HOTA, pp. 102-3)

>The hair was about 10-12 centimetres in length, and the other about 6-8 centimetres... It was very frail looking, whitish hair.

I think my interim response and yesterday covers these points.  However at the time Peter did think there were differences, but he was not absolutely certain, and feels that our more detailed later inspections via microscope etc were more reliable, but recollect these were done about 6 years after recovery.  Then they seemed similar and it was felt the smaller one was part of the longer one.

From the description, it seems that the hair had gone at least twice around the penis shaft. Well, measuring the example I have more at hand, even at a flaccid state, I needed a 16-cms long thread to make two tight rounds around my shaft, not even in a “S” figure. Besides, the experiment allowed me to notice how difficult it is to make a tight loop without any kind of knot. With a hair (I understand neither end was damaged) you will need tweezers, patience, and the complete collaboration of the subject and probably a helping hand.

However given your experimentation it needs to clarified that we are not talking about hair wound around the penis.  I think Peter was not keen to get too specific because of the personal nature of the circumstances.  He is now passed that with me, and perhaps this issue could have been better served by being more clinical and objective.  When the interviews were done over the period 1996 through 1999 elaborating this aspect, Peter was still somewhat reserved and perhaps a bit circumspect and vague.  After all even in publicly speaking about this since 1998, he has chosen to be a bit circumspect and modest, given concerns about the sensitivities of audiences, with regard to age, gender etc.  Again this is another aspect had wished I had clarified better in the book, but I wanted to leave the original interviews etc in tact even if they may have conveyed some confusion on various elements.  The placement of the hair was not really around the shaft of the penis, instead it would have been more accurate to describe them as on top of the shaft, laid out in a curling undulating sine wave fashion. Any description that conveys a different impression is due more to vagueness, being circumspect or just wishing to casually describe this aspect.

The hair was dug deep, but not cutting - did hurt as being removed.

Nevertheless, the big question is: whatever happened to the second hair?

The details in the book on these aspects emerge in two ways - interviews I conducted with Khoury and the hypnosis session. The details that emerge from each provide some small details that are somewhat confusing and even slightly contradictory.  I prefer to put more weight on consciously recollected details rather than those that emerge under hypnosis.  However some of the former can emerge in somewhat circumspect ways, because of the rather controversial and somewhat embarrassing way they emerged.  Khoury had been obviously reluctant to detail the elements of the hair placement on his penis.  Despite these issues Khoury thought perhaps these matters should have been expressed in more detail to clarify what seemed confusing.  I did not do this, but will highlight these matters.

(...)On the matter of the two pieces of hair - "one blond and the other dark". The book is somewhat confusing on this aspect because of the emergence of details from interviews and the recent hypnosis session. My interviews essentially have Khoury describing the hairs consistent with my perceptions that there seemed to be little difference between the two. From my first albeit brief observation of them in 1996 and the more detailed inspections from 1998-1999 I was of the opinion there was little difference between them.  With the biochemist I formed the opinion that the shorter piece was a degraded fragment of the longer piece with had a root. We focused on the latter because we were adapting FBI protocols on DNA testing of hair shafts which needed shaft fragments with roots. Still we did not perceive much difference between the pieces. The smaller fragment without the root was not deemed to be a viable candidate for the mtDNA testing.  Peter Khoury elaborated in his recent hypnosis session that the smaller piece was darker and perhaps thicker. Upon reflection he thinks that this may have been his perception at the time of discovery.  As I indicated these subtle details were not highlighted in our more detailed inspections.

The 2 "different" hairs needs a quick clarification. I know the language in the interviews in the book, in a more subject environment, and compared to what Peter Khoury says under recent hypnosis seems somewhat confusing.  All of this I have had to weigh against what we were able to accurately determined, based on detailed inspection. When I and the team were able to examine the hairs in 1998 in detail and via video microscopy etc we formed the opinion that we were dealing with a smaller fragment of the longer piece. However Peter Khoury was of the opinion early on and perhaps even now that the smaller one seemed thicker and darker, but none of those perceptions were based on the benefit of close detailed inspection, as we were able to undertake from 1998 onwards. It is perhaps possible that the smaller piece may have been difference, but without a root may have  degraded between 1992 and 1998 to a point where our inspections suggested to us they were related.  We need to consider that by themselves both were hard to see.

Because the larger piece had a root or follicle our DNA protocols meant we need to focus on it to achieve a chance of viable results.

I noted with my brief casual inspection in 1996 that one piece might have been lost, but this it seems was incorrect on my part as they were simply had to see in the brief inspection made at that time.  We certainly not going to take them out at that time for closer inspection, to verify whatever subjective impressions were gained between 1992 and 1998 from casual inspection.

Even if hypothetically the 2 hairs were different, and we suspect they weren't, your hypothesis of the range of results being due to the 2 pieces rubbing against each other leading to cross contamination and hence the "hybrid" DNA results, doesn't explain the absence of such results in the external washings DNA control testing. Such a hypothesis would lead to contamination on the outside of the hair.  They was none of this exotic kind.

The protocols satisfied us that we were getting DNA results from the inside of the hair, not external contamination.  In order for 2 different hair samples to cross contaminate internally, beyond just mere external cross contamination, the 2 hairs would needed to have been very roughly rubbed together to the point of damage.  No such damage was evident in the hair samples.

In conclusion the DNA results came from the internals of the hair and were not the result of cross contamination brought about be physical rubbing or presence together in the same bag. Such contamination effects if they occurred in terms of 2 different hair samples together rubbing up against each other would be evident in the external washings DNA profiles.  They weren't.

It was not tested as it did not satisfy the testing protocol.

You never mentioned it, but curiously it could provide a plausible alternative for the results. Would be possible to argue that all those years (between 1992 and 1998)together inside the plastic bag could have derived in some kind of cross-contamination? That would explain the mixture of Chinese and Celtic features in the findings, they would come from those two different hairs!

However there are two facts that eliminate this possibility.  One, contamination via abrasion of the two pieces to penetrate the shaft would have resulted in an obviously damaged sample. Part of the protocols involved an external washings step. Any contamination or cross contamination would have been very evidence in this and none were evident.  With the controls and washings steps the biochemist was satisfied that the results were due to the internals of the shaft and not due to any externally produced contamination.  If via your suggestion that the smaller sample was different to the larger hair, the scenario should have been evident in the washings step.

As per my interim & yesterday's responses the scenario is not tenable.

>Because the sexual nature of this experience, Peter did not want to talk about it. He talked to the UFO group he had originally joined but they didn’t seen all that >interested. Even within his own support group later, nothing was done about it.

>Peter mentioned the hair sample at a subsequent meeting (of the UFOR-NSW abducteee’s support group) on February 28, but did not show it (HOTA, pp. 42-3)

But he did show it privately to Vivian, Jamie, Aspa (Jamie's partner), etc.

>Even UFOESA’s own professionals were unsympathetic. Peter learned to be more circumspect about sharing the more bizarre episodes of his experiences. (HOTA, pp. 44-5)

So, have you been able to ascertain if anybody (besides Peter’s family and his former associate Jamie Leonarder) did SEE the hairs before 1996? It would be strange that, having commented about the women’s incident, Peter wouldn´t have shown his main proof.

He did show it.  He showed close friends Lyell, Geoff.  Matthew Favalaro saw them in 1994.  John Mack saw them in 1996 a few months before I did.  I saw them on July 13, 1996

>Mid-1996.- A young Queenslander reported to Peter Khoury that a strange encounter had occurred some five years earlier with a bizarre-looking creature and provided “hair” samples as evidence (HOTA, p. 88). In fact, even though he had still not fully revealed his own experience and its related sample...

Must I understand that the “putative yowie sample” surfaced into the public attention BEFORE Peter’s?

This sample was never really public.  It was given to researcher John Auchettl in Brisbane during 1996.

>13 July 1996. The story slipped out in presence of Bill Chalker during a meeting with some independent film producers who were interested. (HOTA, p. 23).

Then, when exactly did you see the hair sample for the first time?

AS stated, 13 July 1996.

Did they finally make the documental? Did they include Peter’s case? If affirmative, please give me the edition data, I would like to order a copy.

They never did the doco as their funding did not eventuate.  Only Peter's 1988 experience has been covered and "re-enacted" in some programmes.  None have done the 1992 event yet.

>November 1996.- Peter was apparently carried late at night through a mirror by teleportation.

Cannot you be more precise about the date?

Had Peter stopped carrying his diary?

No - Saturday 16 November  - extract copied & consistent with recollections.

>All four episodes from 1971 to 1996 show a long-term periodicity of 4.25 years, which incidentally is twice that of Mars orbit (2.1 years)(HOTA, pp. 295-6).

I find this commentary superfluous and even detrimental. Mars orbit takes 687 days. Twice this period would be 1374 days. If we count from the 23/07/1992 date (the only one clearly dated) we have the first column. On the other hand, if we forget about that Mars orbit and count only the interval between the 1998 and the 1992 incidents, we got the third column.

27/12/1969   <-->    1971                <-->            18/05/1968  

01/10/1973            29/05/1972

06/07/1977            09/06/1977

10/04/1981            20/06/1980

13/01/1985            01/07/1984

18/10/1988   <--> 12/07/1988             <-->  12/07/1988

23/07/1992   <--> 23/07/1992             <-->  23/07/1992

27/04/1996   <-->   11/1996              <-->  03/08/1996

NO periodicity, even if we forget that there are no known incidents in 1977-1980/1-1984/5.

This was something the biochemist got interested in.  I never really got into confirming his speculations, which were simply based on casual speculations.

>Mitochondrial DNA sequence analysis

>Phase One: Hair Shaft Analysis

>RESULTS: The blond hair has a strange and unusual DNA sequence, showing five consistent substitutions from a human consensus, found only in a few other >people throughout the whole world: a Mongoloid Chinese racial type corresponding to just the 4% in a large group of Taiwanese (and mainland China), one of >the rarest human lineages known (family C2), that lies further from the mainstream than any other except African Pygmies and aboriginals (family C1). The >principal substitution, extremely rare C-to-T at 16.108. The rest were at 16.129 (G-to-A), 16.162 (A-to-G), 16.172 (T-to-C) and 16.304 (T-to-C) in the entire >hypervariable region of 380 base pairs between 16.023-16.400.

>By comparison, Neanderthal man differs from modern humans at 27 locations in the same DNA, while the chimpanzee differs from humans at 55.

I am not (by far) a genetic expert, but the strangeness of your sample should be put on perspective. How many groups of five substitutions from a human consensus does exist? Precisely, having to use a consensus implies that there is some variation. The question is: what is the distribution of that variation? Which is the average and what the mode in the number of variations known around the human consensus?

Each substitution is rated on its rarity.  Each position 1 to 400 is weighted by its probability of mutation away from human consensus. They look for rarest mutation first - rest are linked.

>Phase Two: Hair Root Analysis (HOTA, pp. 76-80 & 294-310)

>RESULTS: A stunning anomaly, its mitochondrial DNA appeared to be of two different kinds, depending on whether they analyzed the hard hair shaft or the soft >root. From the lower hair shaft they again obtained the same rare Chinese mitochondrial DNA substitutions. But from soft root tissue, they obtained a novel >Basque/Gaelic type mitochondrial DNA, which had a rare substitution for that racial grouping (16.255 G-to-A) along with several other characteristic substitutions >at 16.223 (C-to-T), 16.278 (C-to-T), and 16.294 (C-to-T).

>Transfer of blond nuclear DNA to a Chinese hair cell in tissue culture would produce such a result. The other remote alternative is that the hair sample was >handled forcefully by someone with the extremely rare C-to-T DNA substitution at 16.108 (HOTA, note 197, p. 283).

I do not understand your hypothesis. If you put blond nuclear DNA in a Chinese hair cell, all the cells cloned or growing from it will contain both DNAs, so you will never get some cells with only one kind. In other words, cells from the hair shaft should have blond nuclear DNA, and cells from the soft root tissue should have Chinese mitochondrial DNA substitutions. I know nothing about hair growth, but if the cells from the hair shaft grow from those in the hair root, both should contain the same DNA. If this is not the case, maybe the simplest explanation should be some kind of contamination.

Controls eliminate the suggestion of contamination. Beside it would be contamination by very rare DNA substitutions.  Contaminates should have shown up in the control.

Finally, we arrive to the main surprise of the book, curiously burrowed in the Appendix. If the hair sample really comes from the alleged incident, its “alien-ness” is really not so surprising. On the other hand, the following paragraph, if correct, would really be a major breakthrough.

Peter asked me to detail the scoop aspects, but it was not an area I pursued, however the biochemist went through this aspect with Peter.

>(HOTA, pp. 295-6).

>All four episodes (1971, 1988, 1992, & 1996) seem to have left direct physical evidence on Peter’s lower right leg, in the form of four punch-biopsies of diameter >8 mm. Such large, round, hairless scars could not easily be self-inflicted for two reasons. First, punch biopsies are seldom performed by Earth doctors due to the >intense pain of taking a core sample, plus the need for tight stitching afterward, and a long time of 2-4 weeks to heal. By contrast, all of Peter’s scars remain >unstitched, and one healed itself in 6 hours while his wife watched. (It would be a boon for medical science to elucidate the mechanism of such rapid wound >healing). Second, punch biopsies are carried out using a simple cylindrical tube-like blade, that is inserted directly in or out. By contrast, Peter’s punch biopsies >show fine-structure around the outer edges, where 6-8 thin wires have been inserted to prevent torsion, while twisting the central tissue as for a corkscrew.

Have you really documented the progressive apparition of those four punch-biopsies in Peter’s lower leg? I do not think so. In the Spring 1999 IUR article you include a photograph of a single “biopsy-like” mark on Peter Khoury’s shin. So, according to APEG argument, it should be the 1971 one.

No, it was the one from the 1988 episode

But, how did anybody think of taking a photo of it before the 1988 incident?

You are confusing two different things here?  There was only one mark before 1988, but no real context other than mystery. There was no photo of the earliest mark from 1971 taken before 1988.

If taken afterwards, it should show at least TWO marks, or even THREE if we suppose it was taken after 1992.

The 1988 mark photo focuses on the the chin not the knee area

In other words, when did Peter first discover the initial mark? I suppose it was after reading Strieber’s book, as many other abductees.

There was no scoop mark linked to the 1992 episode, but there were  in terms of 1971, 1998, uncertain re 1991?, and 1996.

No. Definitely not. It was discovered the next day July 13 1988 before he was exposed to Strieber etc. The 1971 mark was not put into a UFO context until much later.

Also, in that IUR article, you did not mention anything about such a quick healing, so I must deduce that incident should had happened during his fourth incident (the 1996 teleportation). Did Peter and Vivian think about taking photographs during all the process?

In part this was an area I neglected.  I did not focus on the scoop marks aspects, but later we reviewed these aspects.

What do they mean by that sentence: “a fine structure around the outer edges, where 6-8 thin wires have been inserted to prevent torsion”? THERE you have a “real” alien implant. I sincerely hope you devote some good efforts to elucidate those marks  

This is the biochemists construction on the scoops, based on his limited observation.  Peter saw it differently describing 3 internal indents like a "face" in the main scoop.  As this is an area you have focused on I'll describe the situation.  I have attached an image to describe the marks in proper context.

The top one near the knee was noted as a kid and by Peter's mum at the time. It was noted within a few days the house roof episode and put down to a bad sore.  He was uncertain of its healing rate.

The lowest in the front shin area is the locality of the 1988 mark which you have seen photo of.  It is the most explicit and deepest.  Peter and Vivian saw it in its most obvious raw state.  Peter first noted it early in the morning after the July 1988 episode while in the shower.  As he was drying it started to sting.  It seemed red raw.  Vivian saw it at about 5 to 5.30 am same morning.  It seemed to heal in hours.  Peter dropped Vivian at home and drove to his doctor in nearby suburb - Dr. Hussein (lady).  She was also skeptical of the marks, as well as his story of what happened.   Peter took a somewhat poor photo of it a month or two later.  One of his technical consultants - the physicist - took a clearer photo in 1992

Of the two marks towards the back of the leg in the calf area, the higher one is somewhat uncertain.  There were no marks for the July 1992 event. Peter feels it must be related to the uncertain 1991 episode.  It took Peter's own 1988 experience in conjunction with the 1993 experiences of Kelly Cahill where she found marks, that Peter started to get into a habit of looking for marks.   Hence he is uncertain about the 1991 mark, but certain it was not related to the 1992 event.

The final mark, just below and behind the possible 1991 mark was evident and found on the day following the November 16, 1996 event.  This mark was shown to John Mack shortly after. Peter attempted to photograph it, but it didn't come out very well.  It took about half to one day to heal. So while the biochemist got it essentially correct, he was wrong on the "1992 mark", which Peter thought was earlier, possibly related to the uncertain late 1991 event.

While this sequence may seem somewhat compelling there are still uncertainties.  The biochemists examinations occurred after 1998. I certainly saw the main 1988 mark and attention was drawn to other marks, but because of my own lack of strong interest in marks on abductees I did not do a detailed inventory of these between 1991 to 1996. That was not through any fault of Peter.  He would periodically refer to them, concentrate on the 1988 mark because it was the most obvious. I have taken digital shots recently of each of the 4 marks to at least record their current status (July 31, 2005).

Both the biochemist and I feel it would be very interesting to secure fresh biological tissue samples from a fresh mark that is explicitly related to an abduction episode but we have not yet secured such a sample.

N.B. My papers were in fact research-in-progress material, not a final draft. Besides, the using of different colored letters had a meaning but so many years later even I myself have difficulties to understand why. 

And I worked with a review edition of the book, NOT with the final printed copy so probably some references have the wrong page number or might even not to be there.  As research notes, I quoted extensively from my sources, and probably now I am infringing copyrights. Some of my opinions as well, were private notes, to be weighed and polished in a final draft (that I did published, in Spanish).

Luis R Gonzalez