UFO Trauma or Exploitation?
Copyright 2018, InterAmerica, Inc.
“Trauma may produce mental symptoms in one of two ways.
Either it causes structural injury to the brain, or it causes emotional
disturbances which in one form or another are prolonged for some time … In the
second [instance] the result is usually psychoneurosis.” [The Psychiatric Dictionary, Hinsie/Campell, antea
citatis, Page 783, quoting Henderson/Gillespie, A Text-Book of
Psychiatry, 4th Edition, Oxford University]
One wonders why some persons allegedly exposed to a UFO or
are involved in a UFO event react in different ways, but some not in a way that
is resultant of a trauma; that is, some UFO “witnesses” or participants don’t seem
to be traumatized by what has to be a emotionally volcanic event.
Lonnie Zamora (Socorro, 1964) and Frank Mannor (Ann
Arbor/Dexter, 1966) et al. were seemingly not traumatized by what they
saw, at least not in the neuro-psychotic way, but were chastened by the
official/public aftermath causing them to withdraw from the event they were
part of.
Betty Hill (1961) and Travis Walton (1975) went on to
exploit their “experience” with Betty Hill appearing to assume the
psychoneurotic stance mentioned in the psychiatric note above.
Both Hill and Walton exploited their experience whereas
Zamora and Mannor did not.
One might think Kenneth Arnold exploited his “observation”
but I think Arnold saw something strange that he needed an explanation for and
pursued the matter accordingly.
The farmers Trent (McMinnville, 1950) seemed rather passive
about the flying disk they allegedly photographed, leaving it to dwell in the
camera and on negative for a protracted period of time, indicating they were
neither traumatized nor exploitative about their sighting.
Stefan Michalak (1967), who was burned, on the chest, by
exhaust from a hovering UFO he reported, tried to exploit his tale and “trauma”
but got nowhere according to the Iron Skeptic (Zoam Chomsky aka Aaron
Sakulich):
Examining UFO witness lives after their event can go a long
way to telling ufologists if their story or report has merit.
If an observer or participant in a UFO (flying saucer)
episode has a change of heart or life alteration of a positive or hellish bent,
one might conclude that the witness, indeed, had or thinks they had a real
encounter with a UFO or its crew, in all those humanoid cases cited here.
But if a UFO witness goes flouncing about, after a supposed
incident, trying to gain money or just attention, one can discard their story
as contrived or fabricated for gain of some kind.
This applies as much today as it should have in the UFO
/flying saucer heyday(s).
If a UFO story shows up in news media, a scrutiny of the
characters and their account should get seriously vetted, as is the (ongoing)
case with the Rendlesham (1980) military men who continue to exploit that messy
incident.
Accepting the truth
or even being skeptical of an alleged UFO witness account with or without
photograph/video needs to be supplemented by journalistic and/or psychological
acumen.
Doing anything less is tantamount to facile belief or
superficial skepticism, which is, unfortunately, the nature of ufology now as
much as it was in the early days of the flying saucer mania.
RR
posted by RRRGroup at
Saturday, February 10, 2018
9 Comments:
Let me suggest that concentrating attention, and attempting to draw psychological conclusions about witness perception, on some of the very few celebrated cases you cite, is misleading in the extreme. Take all of the cases you cite, and add others like Travis Walton, Charles Moody, and even Hickman/Parker/ Pascagoula, and we are still dealing with, perhaps, less than .05% of all of the reports world wide over 70 years. Your inference, apparently, is that we can and should generalize from Lonnie and Betty Hill to, say, the recently released gun camera film shot by an experienced Navy pilot in 2004. No way. This isn't even comparing apples with oranges: it's like comparing apples with an apple I Phone. I'm not asserting that Travis and Betty Hill did not have some sort of (yet to be fully explained) experience. But I am asserting that that experience, whatever it was, cannot come close to explaining UFO reports, captured on film or radar, that display objectively some exotic technology that we don't have and can't explain.
By
Dominick, at Saturday, February 10, 2018
Dominick:
What's your point? That film or video such as that proffered by the Pentagon proves what?
My posting is dealing with the psychology of UFO observers, and applies to the pilots who saw that alleged Pentagon UFOs.
How has their "captured" image affected them? (One was astounded, according to news reports.)
Have they come away from the experience and videos attuned to the idea that we are visited by ETs?
Or have they resumed their lives, as if nothing happened?
That's the gist of my concern here.
You have got to step back and look at the phenomenon as a continuing enigma, not a proof that ETs are circling the Earth, willy-nilly.
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Saturday, February 10, 2018
But Rich, why should we care how the Navy pilot's "captured" images affected them? Why should we care whether they believed in ET visitation before or after they took gun camera film of an object performing exotic aerial maneuvers? They either have resumed their lives as if nothing happened...or they have not. As Hillary would say: what difference does it make (in terms of solving the UFO enigma)? You seem to believe that how people are affected by encounters somehow allows us to better understand the inherent nature of the phenomenon itself. For me, things ("objects) have an inherent nature and that inherent nature is what we are trying to understand and NOT how the observers of that nature are affected. The Mona Lisa IS the Mona Lisa although there are a universe of ways that people are affected by the actual painting. We know where the painting is, its physical dimensions, and who painted it. The rest is interesting and can occupy hundreds of book and articles but it's all speculation.
And for the record, again, I don't think that what the Navy pilots filmed is "proof" that Ets are circling the earth. But to go back to the Twining memo in 1947, I do think that there is a strong probability the "discs are real" and their "evasive behavior when sighted" leads strongly to the conclusion that they are intelligently controlled. By whom and for what purpose has yet to be determined.
By
Dominick, at Saturday, February 10, 2018
Of course, Dominick, the phenomenon is what we seek to know or explain.
Buy pursuing the mysterious phenomenon requires that we determine whether or not the report of them is sane (real).
That's all we have: the reports, not the "things" themselves (to examine).
Checking out the witnesses is a necessary first step.
As for the Pentagon videos, we need to know who has provided them and if the pilots who allegedly saw the "thing" captured on video or film found them earthshaking or affective to their being.
That would tell us something.
I never suggested that how people reacted would help in determining the nature of UFOs.
I guess I have to dumb down my postings, yes?
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Saturday, February 10, 2018
Dominick: "But I am asserting that that experience, whatever it was, cannot come close to explaining UFO reports, captured on film or radar, that display objectively some exotic technology that we don't have and can't explain."
What evidence is there for "technology"? Is there any reason to believe those objects were ships with pilots?
"...and their "evasive behavior when sighted" leads strongly to the conclusion that they are intelligently controlled."
Pilots and aeronautic engineers see performance characteristics where an entomologist might see behaviors.
AMC was tasked by Twining to create a 'spec' for the discs as aircraft. The engineers said, based on the reports, such a thing could be built given time and money...lots of time and money. It's a case for funding a project.
A clearer example is Ramey, who in his call with Dick Pearce offers that the object the rancher found wasn't a flying disc because there was no place for a pilot or an engine, and a few hours later that the object wasn't a flying disc, but a rawin. That's the first time the public found out what the AF thought they were.
The AF concept of a flying saucer has become embedded in our culture. It is a description not of what was seen but what is believed to have been seen. Big difference.
Regards,
Don
By
Don, at Sunday, February 11, 2018
Thank you, Don...
Summed up nicely (sensibly).
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Sunday, February 11, 2018
In response to you "sensible" fellows: No, there is NO reason to suppose that the bulk of the reported "discs" are "ships with pilots". Who said that they were? Certainly not me. And if you sensible fellows think that dozens of ground and air radar returns and gun camera films (and physical trace cases) can best be explained by flying (?)insects (entomology) rather than by some exotic technology, then good luck with that. Insects that are curious about nuclear weapon storage facilities....interesting.
By
Dominick, at Sunday, February 11, 2018
Dominick:
What is your view?
That is, what are UFOs, in your estimation? What may they be?
RR
By
RRRGroup, at Sunday, February 11, 2018
Dominick, both the advanced technology hypothesis and the cryptozoological hypothesis were first presented by Kenneth Arnold. Your argument is with him, not me.
Dominick: "Insects that are curious about nuclear weapon storage facilities....interesting."
***
"He [Kenneth Arnold] says he believes the objects are intelligent organisms which fly about the upper atmosphere at speeds up to 1800 miles per hour. He thinks they may have been disturbed by recent atomic and hydrogen explosions.
"You throw a rock into a trout pool," Arnold said. "The fish scatter and then return to investigate. The saucers act the same way".
(AP story pub. 6/24/54, dateline Boise)
***
Since then we've learned that insects and birds can be disoriented by, well, many things we humans do. Then there is the matter of nectar guides.
Note: Gerald Heard's hypothesis is different. In it the crew are insects, but the UFO is 'technical'.
Your ridicule of other analogies and metaphors than the one you prefer indicate you have odds of joining the skeptics.
Regards,
Don
By
Don, at Sunday, February 11, 2018
Post a Comment
<< Home