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):

http://www.theironskeptic.com/articles/michalak/michalak.htm

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