Chapter 20b: Letters II - Problems & Dilemmas - Discussion

I had a brief foray into a computer forum related to UFO's in August of '94, and then a great deal of correspondence in November of that year. I told some of my stories, talked about my feelings and my impressions. For the most part, at least initially, the people I met were welcoming and non-judgmental about it. It's obvious that all these things come off as crazy; I don't really need reminding, and most of the folks didn't feel obliged to do so.

Some of them had been studying this subject for years, and were remarkably well read, rational, and excellent to talk with.

I thought I'd copy you some of the letters. Most of these are from late '94 to '95. They discuss various aspects of communication about the subject, and the subject itself. I thought some of the questions were very good ones.


One of the most fascinating aspects of "abduction," next to the psychology of those getting abducted, is the psychology of those seriously studying the subject. As I hung around the forum, eventually I was exposed to the turnover of people who came into the forum (it's kind of like a social club), and went through their own development on the subject.

The one notable feature of any person who was willing to study the subject -- by this I mean read every book available, from every perspective, that they could lay their hands on, talk at length with people on both sides of the debate, et al, and really use their brain to crash belief systems -- is that they became believers. I think this says something about the subject itself, that even brilliant, educated, scientific, skeptical types were finally forced to conclude that something was going on, and while the details may not be clear, and the meaning muddier still, the outline is quite apparent.

It was fascinating to watch. There was a profile of behavior that accompanied these people, as they studied more and more of the subject. They would go through these cycles of anger and sarcasm, and then they'd get more rational and objective again, and then they'd get interested and more open minded in their interest, and following on the heels of the open minded stage would come another bout of frustrated anger and sarcasm... and so on.

When the reality of all this finally broke through to people -- when their belief systems made the final move to change -- they "hit the wall" as I call it, psychologically, with an intense fear that every person going through "contact" recognizes well. It's that "Oh my god, it's REAL!" terror that finally sinks in. The other option is that they would just drop out of the subject altogether, as if none of it -- their interest or study -- ever happened. Some go straight into denial, and the others go straight into fear. The fear passes, if the person is strong enough psychologically to be able to deal with it.

The result in a group, however, is that at any given time there are at least a dozen people in varying degrees of that anger phase who have nothing better to do with their time and energy than hassle people talking about contact. It's this almost evangelistic trait, disguised as "skepticism," which some obtuse folks think is the equivalent of "objective" (it's obviously not). When it comes to this UFO business, it plays on so much religion and science, and is so challenging to many people's whole picture of reality that they're irrationally attacking. In the more extreme cases, you'd think their entire reason for living were to convince other people they are wrong, stupid, evil, lying, crazy, or whatever the case may be.

In many cases they obviously have contact with this field as well, that they're not consciously aware of; I've seen it enough to begin to recognize it. Like some wanna-be Atheist, they say they don't believe in the subject -- but they spend all their time talking about it. It got frustrating for me.

[Letter to D.M.]

You know, I am so damn tired of having to "prove" anything over and over again I could throw up. Can't even have a conversation without 500 caveats addressing every issue, from theology to metaphysics to science, just to insure the people I'm talking to don't think I'm a moron. It's annoying, this having to be so concerned that what seems "valid" to me will be invalidated by others, because one time somebody else saw Venus and was clueless. I have personal experiences at a considerably closer range; I'm not in doubt.

I respect the search for "truth." But I think that gets a bit skewed when you drag consciousness into things, since "truth" as we know it tends to rely on logic, which tends to be linear, which much of this experience is assuredly not. I suppose the only way to support recognition of literal experience is to be willing to point out fakes when they roll around. But who's to say? How can I know?

And it annoys me that the "flaps" of momentary popularity, no matter how ridiculous they are, are taken as a measure of what all people going through this stuff are claiming. Sometimes it's outright embarrassing.

[Letter to S.D2]

It isn't being objective or even skeptical that I mind. Thing is, there is no point in arguing with tales of the experience. You can ask about it, about things that relate to it, and bring up all the contradictions, inconsistencies, and alternatives you want. That's great.

But there is no point to debating it, or "debunking" it, because it's not right or wrong. It's not an objective noun, a literal black/white, a yes/no subject. This isn't the same for everyone, and even if it were there's still no standard of what IS real. It isn't one of those things that a weather balloon can clear up in an afternoon. The fact that anybody has been diagnosed with some long medical label because they saw a non-human entity does not prove that my seeing a non-human entity means I am merely delusional. As for proof, absence of evidence is not proof that something doesn't exist, of course.

...I'm not an evangelist. I don't want or need to convince anybody. I just want to be able to discuss it with reasonable people and those who are curious without being attacked by those who obviously have some personal issues with this subject. I learn about myself in the process of communicating. But having to explain myself personally first, like some kind of job resume of "do I have enough college degrees to indicate I have a brain," is like having to apologize for being a certain race before beginning every conversation -- it isn't logical, and determining someone's internal qualifications based solely on whether they majored in science is ridiculous.'s infuriating to me personally that many people have such assumptions about the inherent intelligence of anybody who claims contact. When people post, or talk, to contactees as if they're slightly irrational children, who really ought to be educated out of believing their invisible friend is real, it does bring out some personal reaction in me -- mainly an urge to kick them in the shins for being not only ignorant, but rude.

It is rare enough to get people who have brains to talk about the subject of abduction or communication at all. But then they have to be thicker skinned than an armadillo to boot, to keep from losing their temper over the attitudes people take toward them and their data, for no reason whatsoever except their own issues. ...

It's a never ending saga of a terminally touchy subject. It's intertwined with psychology, sanity, and personal credibility, and many folks, especially those who are intelligent and accomplished in many areas of life, don't have the patience to bother trying to "re-prove" themselves to people they don't know anyway. Over and over. And over. Discussion is one thing. Self-Defense is another. M. shouldn't have to drag out her impressive string of business, scientific, artistic, literary and computer credentials to demonstrate her intelligence and rational thinking. Talking to her ought to make it obvious. It's the subject that brings it into question for you -- and that's your assumption, and limitation, not hers.

...If you wish this proof, it's up to you to do the research -- it's not up to me to convince you. I'm happy to answer questions with an almost painful honesty, even when it makes me look ridiculous or it's personal, sexual, or concerning insanity -- solely because I want to further the research in this field. I am not, however, willing to talk with anybody who treats me like I'm an idiot. Were we to meet in any circumstance but around this subject, my rational intelligence would be obvious. I'm not willing to beg anybody to treat me like an equal. Either learn some diplomacy, or consider studying a field that uses lab rats instead of people as subjects.

As for quoting old textbooks at me, the lab rules of the current Science Gods have no bearing on personal consciousness. The paradigm of what fits, what works, what is or isn't possible, what is ridiculous or irrational -- this is based on a mode of thinking that is not, at this point in our development, applicable to the abduction field. Besides, science has already run over half the scientists in the world who will still argue repeatable, provable quantum physics experiments as if they never happened.

...The experiences alone are enough to try one's patience, to understate it by light years, and one's sanity, to be more accurate. I guess it just doesn't take much, on top of that, to strike a nerve.

[Letter to E.J.]

<<I'm just wondering what kind of proof it will take to make the general public believe that abductions are real? And should we really try? Or maybe just let them come to their own conclusions?>>

There are a lot of people I know, some scientists and some who've merely studied physics, who will rant, rave, and stomp about "facts" in a textbook making things impossible that in fact, quantum physics has brought up, and years ago and with much publication no less. I'm beginning to think even facts don't have a lot to do with getting a person unready for certain information to absorb it.

It seems to me the only thing that has ever really swayed mankind as a group has been falsified religious garbage. Maybe that's why "aliens" come as "secrets of the night" instead of governmental or scientific ambassadors.

One of my favorite skeptics was a guy named J.R., who was so witty and obviously intelligent you couldn't help but like him. When I began sharing my stories, I addressed most of them directly to him, just for the heck of it, since he was the big skeptic at that time. His profile of growth came to be recognizable in others as time went on, and it helped me be much more relaxed around people that followed this profile later on, as I recognized it for what it was. I developed a little more patience with the emotional swings and pointed anger (usually taken out on people claiming contact) that even the most rational and logical researchers went through on the subject.

[Letter to P.P.]

I remain (as ever) convinced that the psychological profile of people delving into this subject is as interesting as the subject itself. The strength and bruising of people's response measures the strength of the emotional impact of their denial, and often fear.

That's one thing that having been online for quite awhile has given me that people just can't see from a brief time reading the boards. The personal evolution of folks. It's unfortunate that this subject tends to take creative, insightful, logical people and invoke the worst possible traits in them, which doesn't diminish the former but sure does dim one's awareness of it.

Lately H. has been getting reamed for his behavior over the past months (now see, if y'all had reamed him properly earlier it wouldn't have come to this!), and that's ok.

But it's so familiar, isn't it? Eventually it passes, and the person either falls out of the field and has zip to do with it, or the denial breaks and they freak out for awhile, but eventually settle down and integrate it. It takes some people longer than others. The only real question is whether or not the folks around them can stand them until they get to that point. It's really a psychological version of "the terrible two's," where someone has to undergo a major adjustment in psychology that leaves them kicking and screaming (the ever-unasked for "mine!" changes to "my opinion!"), except in adults it's even more annoying.

I guess I don't see H. as much different than many people here have been in the past. As far as attitude goes, the only difference I see is that now most people around here who began as sarcastically skeptical have already waded through their own issues and gotten to a point of some acceptance. H. went into that phase late, and so seems to be coming out of it late.

When J.R. "hit the wall" as I call it, where it fully sunk into his psychology that all of this was literal, was real and physical, he was furious. He has a family, and children -- he doesn't want to look at the future, or even history, as a nightmare. I really didn't want him to be so miserable about it, which he obviously was. On the other hand, he was correct: he wasn't upset about anything that hadn't been decently documented, or that wasn't logical to extrapolate based on the data. Still, no matter how serious a thing may be, there's no point in ruining your health over it. Having been in that fear-anger stage myself, I tried to talk him out of it.

[Letter to J.R.]

J., I took a few days to think about your post, because it struck me as a fairly important point in "discussion" and the results of discussion on all of us.

<<I'm getting kind of confused here because after a lot of study and changing my world view to take this stuff seriously, all of the sudden it's like you and D.P. are saying, "J., why are you taking this stuff seriously?" It's like you are disappointed that I don't think aliens abducting people is some sort of wonderful spiritually expanding experience. That reading about the Nefilim, and the manipulation of human religions isn't something I consider a happy picture of history.>>

1) I think it's just a matter of defining the word "seriously." I take cancer seriously but I don't worry much about it, despite that it has nabbed members of my family. I'm aware of its danger and of statistical probability, but it isn't something I live in terror of. It's kind of the same with "aliens" and this whole subject.

2) I consider my 'encounters' to be expansive in consciousness. I don't know whether I always infer spirituality/god/religion from this or not. I asked myself what I really felt here, so I could be honest with you... and concluded that I don't necessarily want you to agree with me, I just want you to take any perspective that seems less damaging to your peace of mind.

3) Regarding the Nefilim and their Dastardly Deeds, there is no race of humans who, when their history and treatment of other humans (not to mention animals) is considered, would not be considered maliciously evil; therefore, coming to this conclusion about "other entities" without the same necessary context and perspective we give ourselves seems illogical.

It's distressing that someone I like so well is so distressed, and I'm not saying that it's not perfectly logical. I'm only saying that I felt this way myself for awhile and I HATED it. It's a sucking tunnel vision, like a vortex that drags a person down into terror and helpless rage and frustration and paranoia, and it skews one's whole life and perspective.

After I went through this stage, I went into a "what for?" stage. Why should I give a damn about anything? My job, my education, why plan? Things'll change anyway. The world will explode or aliens will land or what have you. Having a family, a relationship -- why bother? Why bring kids into a world destined for doom? Suddenly everything seemed to pale in significance to this overwhelming emotional reaction to beings capable of physically invading my space and my life. Now I grant I've been having fairly major personal interaction with them, which skews me into the "extreme" zone. But I don't see any of this emotional reaction we get -- even though I perfectly understand it -- as a positive benefit to US.

The point is to live this life. Anything that gets in the way of enjoying, expanding, "living" life is in my own opinion detrimental. Studies of UFO phenomenon and aliens are fascinating and valid, but I have finally learned, the moment it starts having a seriously negative effect on my life, I tell it quite bluntly to **** off and refuse to deal with it until I'm feeling more emotionally stable. Then I open back up to studying the experiences again. This obsession with what "might be, could be, may be, may have been," to me is like a focus on religion -- what went before, and what comes after, is a field of academic interest, but we must live in the NOW, and refocusing our attention to the "then or when" is simply not beneficial to our Now.

I am not disagreeing with your acceptance of the facts you've found, nor with your understandable reaction to it. I'm just saying that you might want to consider what is most beneficial for YOU, regardless of facts. You can live in fear, or accept that this seems to be the way it is, and has always been, and get on with life.... so that these studies become an understanding, not an obsession; a fascination and insight, not a source of terror.

The opportunity to communicate on this subject helped me get to know myself. There's a vast amount of thinking and integrating I would never have done without my writing as an outlet. From time to time, people would write me and say they'd been studying the subject for years, but felt they had learned more about contact in a few weeks of my online discussions than they had from all the books they'd read. I think this is because online, some of the best discussions are a result of people who are, if anything, not in agreement; unlike a book that just tells a one-sided story, you get dozens of angles at once, cross-debates, etc.

As for those who debate or question, some are annoying, some are merely questioning, and some are brilliant. All of them tend to inspire in me a desire to answer their questions as honestly as possible, and explain. Occasionally my temper and defensiveness got roused, but for the most part, the discussions were remarkably constructive, and addressed a lot of things I'd never even thought about before. They confirmed the obvious: despite personal experience, I really know almost nothing about this field.

[Letter to S.C.]

Yeah, everybody wants proof: "Ask the visitors for a prediction, so we can prove they're not just your imagination." The thing non-abductees fail to grasp is that the visitors aren't the slightest bit interested in our reality except as it pertains to them. It's a miracle enough just to be lucid during the experience; I assure you, they are not available for brief journalistic sessions where one requests answers to the world of men. You are there for a purpose and they don't give a rip about anything outside that.

Besides, understand they have a completely different conceptual reality. They may or may not understand the stock market (I bet the blondes and bugs and lizards would, but the fragile ones and the various mythical types probably don't). Most things here may be a foreign concept to them. And the point is, they just don't care. (Besides, the few stories I've heard that people say they get out of them related to prophecy are wrong!)

<<Are "they" supposed to have vocal cords capable English speech? Even if their pitch range is on the same order as human speech, it must still be virtually impossible for them to master such a foreign (alien) accent as Earth English.>>

Why assume that communication is merely verbal? Even our own culture refers to "pictures worth 1000 words," "the power of music," and "body language" to name a small sampling. (Even sign language is a recognized language.) Think of it this way: some forms of communication -- visual art, or music, for example -- are communicative not solely through their more tangible effects (the details of the picture, words to a song) but by the emotional impression they create in the person experiencing them. Well, the entities can create pictures, and emotions, directly, and those also have indirect effects.

The communication is plenty clear when they want it to be, and when it's not, it's usually a translation or memory problem, not a communication problem. They use words only once in a great while with me, but it seems to vary with the entity and the person. The only time I've encountered difficulty is when I'm trying to get them to understand some concept that is obviously outside their conceptual experience, or vice-versa. In those cases, I find if I "intuitively search myself" for a geometric shape that "feels right" and include that with the concepts, visuals and emotions, I get the point across. I suspect that in those cases, they have the same result from my communication as I often do from theirs: they get the concepts alright, but they probably can't translate it into words.

One of the biggest difficulties in communication regarding this subject is that language is based on common experience. Without that commonality, the words mean little -- or something different -- to the person I'm talking with. Worse, many words that are necessary for discussion, for instance words like "reality" or "physical," are themselves the carrier of confusion. These words are defined in our language by our existing understanding of the universe and ourselves. The experience I'm talking about doesn't seem to apply to what we have established as knowledge in these areas, and yet, I don't have any new words to use.

We need a vocabulary developed for this subject. Most people say, either it was physical, or it wasn't, meaning, it was all in your head. They have no conceptual understanding of anything that is a shade of gray. It's easier with people who have studied metaphysics, or Eastern religions, since that "framework" allows one to communicate a little better.

But I meet these skeptics who want me to explain it, and yet insist that there is only one reality, and it's all the physical, measurable world, the same for everybody. When I try to explain at length, instead of talking with me about the concepts, making the slightest attempt to understand, they go look up "reality" in the dictionary and quote it to me. Well how can I explain it, when I have no words, and they have no concepts? For real communication or explanation, I have the wrong language, wrong type of communication, and wrong type of concepts for the entities I'm communicating with, in this case humans. (In most cases, their own complete lack of ability to grasp abstracts doesn't help. I am gradually concluding that these in some cases very educated people are childishly simplistic and rigid in their existing belief systems.) Somewhere down the line, we need to come up with some words that allow, at the very least, people experiencing these things to talk with each other, let alone people from opposite polarities of thought.


That doesn't even start on the psychological and social problems of talking about this.

In groups where the people are not familiar with this, obviously the subject is taboo. Of late I've begun talking about it with everyone, in every setting -- something J.R. experimented with, and as it has turned out for both of us, this tends to bring people with stories and often physical proof right out of the woodwork, so it's fascinating.

My favorite thing is to talk with someone for an hour or so, about anything, until they understand I'm a rational person and they really relate to me -- and then bring up the alien/UFO subject with the casual ease of talking about the weather. It's hilarious, you can see the psychological dilemma playing out on people's faces as they try to somehow align the two perceptions: one, of me being rational and sane, and two, of the subject being irrational and insane. It's probably wicked of me. But you wouldn't believe the people who, if you bring it up calmly like it's a given, end up hanging around you, trying to bring up the subject, and eventually end up telling you their story. People who would never even discuss the subject, would laugh about it, via any other approach to them.

Here Joe Normal, or Mr. Businessman, is suddenly telling the story of how they were almost rejected from the Army (as a pilot) long ago, because the doctor and then a specialist called for the occasion both swore he had scar tissue and evidence of an extremely advanced eye surgery -- when he'd never had any such thing. (And coincidentally, in a family where everybody wears glasses, he and his sister have vision considerably better than 20/20.) Or someone will show an impressive scar and say, "I have no idea where this came from. One day it was just there." Or they'll talk about the time when they and their two kids were on the way to grandma's house, drove straight through yet got there eight hours late and never did figure it out.

It just comes pouring out of this surprisingly large percentage of people, considering how offbeat the subject is. I'm beginning to think that the "abduction" subject is a bit like other things our culture is in denial about, incest/child molestation for example. It's so common it's almost the exception for it not to occur, but nobody talks about it, and due to the personal experiences, even the people involved often forget it, or don't pay attention to it, or just flat out won't mention it, and will deny it if it comes up.


That's just addressing people who are not consciously or actively involved in the subject. Discussion with people who are has its own hazards.

Everybody's got a story. To them, it's not merely a tale of their own experience, it's either a cosmic event, or a victimized event, and god forbid you should do anything but demonstrate unquestioning awe. That would be ok, except that it tends to generate a secondary reaction: you have to agree. I don't just mean you have to agree that you believe them. I mean you have to agree that the way they believe something is absolutely the way it is. If you have stories or ideas that don't validate theirs, they're upset.

If they believe they were medically raped by the Greys, and it was horrible, and therefore aliens are horrible, and then I refer to "the sweet fragile ones," they freak out. I'm brainwashed, they say. Or lying. Or a disinformation agent. If they believe aliens are fallen angels, or demons, and are here to steal as much my soul as my body, and somehow lurk around the astral trying to have sex (as if life on the astral could be half as screwed-up obsessive about the subject as we are) and I say, "Oh, yeah, well I merged with this one critter and..." they nearly have a heart attack. Honest to god I've been concerned some of these people would hunt me down and burn me at the stake or something. They usually accuse me of fraternizing with the "dark side." If they find out I'm part of an occult order, that does it -- now I'm really "bad!" If they find out that my joining this Order seems to be part and parcel of the rest of my experiences, they figure well, I've sold my soul, I'm lost. It's hilarious, frankly.

If they talk of the feeling of telepathy/empathy and family, and I just as a note point out that the type of communication tends to inspire that emotion, and I don't take it personally, now I've insulted their family and their identity, what a jerk I am, there goes their reason to be special. If they believe the aliens (of whatever sort) are ascended masters, higher beings, et al, and I refer to them flippantly, not to mention comment on someone being lousy to me here or there, I haven't just disagreed with them, I've insulted God or something, or "my fear" is making me imagine it. If they've bought into the idea that somehow there's only one (or two, or three) types of aliens and for example, "the lizard types with vertical pupils don't exist, anyone who says they do are liars," well obviously that tosses my credibility out, since I've mentioned them. Folks use me as an E-mail therapist of sorts, and then I bring up something they don't believe in -- and now I've not only disagreed with them, but I've shed doubt on everything else we've talked about as well, which infers they are in doubt, and then they're angry at me.

I can't tell you how often people comment on "how casual and believable you are" to me -- and how many people, to one degree or another, have written me saying things like, If you turn out to be a hoaxer or a psycho I'm going to want to kill you. I mean often people have been living in terror for years, thinking they were crazy, and meeting me was like their one thread of hope they might not be, since I seemed so sane, and was talking about the same sorts of things.

And those are the reasonably normal ones, mind you! Then you have the next category of people: those who Know Everything Because The Aliens Told Them So. I love these folks. They know, for instance, that the West Coast is going to be under water -- last week. It isn't so? Well like the religious who keep moving their rapture or end-time date back every time their predictions fail, they have no problem with that sort of thing. I try, in an effort to redirect them to doing something constructive with their life, rather than waiting for The Landing Any Minute, to point out that aliens, even if they are somehow limited to telling the "truth" (a theory I find without logic), have such a different frame of reality (not to mention space and time and culture) that what we interpret may be far from what they meant. Now I'm in for it -- thanks to their channeling Joe Alien or being given Important Messages in abductions, they think they're cosmic, and I'd better not lead their followers astray by suggesting they think for themselves.

I'm not denying it might be true soon, I've been told something similar myself. I just don't see the point in freaking out about it. Either accept the risk or move. Why all the trauma? Sheesh, get a life already.

Then there's the folks who range from contactees to walk-ins (I have yet to meet a walk in who does not say they are also a contactee), who explain to me that my sometimes flippant humor about these subjects, my attempts to be at least occasionally objective about the subjects, or to question my own experiences, is a sign that I obviously don't like my inner self, and that's why I'm "rejecting" this integral part of myself. Others tell me I "betray my own kind." (Sheesh! What is this, a race war?) Still others (in particular men) want to meet me (of course) and save me from myself. Sigh.

The official "contactee" crowd I've encountered, for the most part, clings together fervently in a need for validation, and tends to feel my anti-victimization approach is nothing short of an attack on their principles. They react in a way similar to how a rape victim might if you suggested we let her rapist out of jail and talk to him because hey, he's an interesting guy. From this view, I can see their point.

But I refuse to take these things, even the negative things, personally. Frankly I just don't think I'm that important in the overall cosmic grid, and I seriously doubt some alien traveled through dimensions or space or what have you solely to borrow my personal genetic material. At best, I'm simply one in a herd of life forms rounded up. I don't expect ducks to take it personally that we tag them, so I don't take it personally that someone tagged me. (Anymore. I did at first.) My general discussions of everything from shamanic-type entities to fairly hard core metaphysical experiences leaves them ambivalent; it's outside their tried & true Greys Abducted Me And Stole My Eggs stories. Why is everyone so negative?! I end up being an outsider.

As a result, I end up communicating with the very small number of people who tend to think a lot like I do, and a large number of people who have no experience in this field, and are merely curious. While this has forced me to write out many things, it also brings me back into the first category of communication problems: they don't have the experience to provide them the concepts, and I don't have the vocabulary to provide them the explanations.

[Letter to E.J.]

If anything, the "alien" components are merely one of many components in an overall psycho-spiritual development. The rest of the time I'm working in dreams, astral, OBEs, and other things that better fit the fields of metaphysics, shamanism, et al. Not that I want them to fit there, understand; I don't care. That's just my categorization of what occurs. What all these things and aliens have to do with each other I'm not sure.

One of the difficulties I have in talking about this is that most people have their own paradigm of what's what. Most abduction supporters don't want to hear that I talked to a mythical creature. They're busy trying to prove Greys exist, and my stories about shamanistic type entities only detract, they feel, from a 'serious' subject. Catholic dreams and experiences freak everybody out, including me in particular, since I wasn't raised Catholic. Egyptian or Magical elements disturb non-occultists; scare some people; and most alien elements make occultists roll their eyes (not all, but some) or at the least, put it into their own paradigm.

There are repeating elements, every element possible, through different types of dreams and experiences in my history. I can see some of them, but don't know what they mean. I can't and won't put this in any one category, though, as a result.

My open discussion of things like potential sleep disorders and schizophrenic symptoms disturbed a lot of people. Non-Abductees acted like "see, I knew they were just crazy all along." Abductees acted like I had betrayed and invalidated them.

I don't see the point in pretending any of this is something it's not. I have nothing invested in "proving" other intelligences besides our own exist. In my opinion, they do -- the proof is up to others who need it. I may be wrong, and that's fine, we'll see. I don't see the point in pretending that many of the physiological and psychological symptoms that accompany this don't exist either. I have too much study in mental subjects to ignore them. Really, I'd be an idiot to pretend they weren't there, and there would be no reason to do so except my own insecurity.

I concluded early that I was seriously left of center, and then I concluded it was beside the point. Now my theory is that this is a real phenomenon, whatever it may be, and it's as interesting from a psychological case study vantage as it is from a sci-fi screenwriter, or military, point of view.

I am more than happy to have somebody explain that temporal lobe studies, or certain drugs, bring about similar stories in people. (The former don't, however, come close to the scope of the experience, so far, and so are hardly an invalidation; if anything, they are so desparately far away from comparing that believing they're "the answer" to abduction memories is even more ridiculous than believing aliens are.) And neither of those address physical results or craft.

I don't feel that in any way negates the validity of the experiences; if anything, I feel it's an interesting confirmation. It's not my fault that "science" doesn't think perception has anything to do with reality, when in fact that seems to be the whole key to things. It's not my fault they're a little slow on figuring that out. I'm as interested in those studies as any others, they don't threaten me. What I suspect is that there are a lot of "places" which exist "simultaneously and jointly" with what we call reality; or to describe it more accurately, "reality" is a very large kaleidoscope and we are only aware of a tiny fraction of it.

How we get to a place, or perception of a place, to meet certain entities -- drugs, magick, or physiological effects -- is not particularly relevant; anything able to affect perception can bring about the experience to one degree or another. That just makes me excited. If a drug can bring it on command, hey, I'd like to do some clinical studies with that drug and figure the place out.

This idea that there's nothing outside what we can see and touch is so childish and I wish science would grow out of it already. The most advanced physicists already speculate about things that make this subject seem tame by comparison. While nothing is proven yet, you'd think researchers would at least consider that these things could be possible. They act like they've disproved it -- before they even have the tools able to see it, if it existed.

My view is, we have a group of perception tools, biologically, plus the brain of course, which filters out most everything but a very small band of frequencies. That perception, when expanded, allows the perceiving of a number of elements not normally perceived by humans. This has nothing to do with reality vs. not reality; obviously, what a person perceives and experiences is reality for them. If the whole world perceived that, it would be considered reality. Since when is real science merely a majority decision?

There's a point where our education seems to have crossed the line into indoctrination, and rather than being taught to learn we are simply being given "facts," which we memorize like they matter. History alone ought to prove facts as they're labeled change constantly, and conveniently at that. The biggest danger with learning about a subject is that people start thinking they know it after awhile.

While I still have no opinion of who anybody is, or where they come from, or why they're here, I think I've pretty much accepted that they are here when they want to be, and that they have the ability to bring me there when they want. Sometimes physically, sometimes not, sometimes I'm physical in both places simultaneously, and sometimes their level doesn't have the same sort of physical as we do and it doesn't apply.

One thing I tried to get across, both to "abductees" and to people merely talking about this issue, is that there is simply no point in wallowing in the emotional fragmentation that the experience creates. People in the midst of this often lose their jobs, their families, their friends, they develop drug and alcohol problems, they even commit suicide. The effects of some of these experiences, especially when they're not taken in context, are simply shattering. (The tendency of modern therapists to tell people they've simply imagined it all doesn't help!) One has to keep a certain focus that allows life as we know it to go on. Taking time out for victimization not only doesn't help us psychologically, but it doesn't help us in the "real world" either.

[Letter to E.J.]

<<I'm curious, from what I can see this experience has not affected you that much. This kind of phenomena often affect the persons in a big way in many ways such as fear etc. In your case you don't seem to associate your experiences to any kind of negative emotions.>>

Understand I was only specifically referring to the cat eyed guys in that post. Many different "types" of encounters; all have their own events, moods, and resultant reactions. They in particular leave me with so little memory of anything that I'm unable to feel much about them either way. Others leave different reactions, depending on the Being and my memories; some good, some bad. It has profoundly affected my life in some ways.

I ignore the emotional associations as much as I can. Partly because I'm trying to maintain a decent level of intelligence and professionalism and keep my job. I've been forced into a mode of not allowing myself to emotionally wallow in any of it.

<<Do you "feel" it or "know" when a experience is going to happen or does this just happen out of the blue?>>

Depends on both me and the experience and the particular 'doons invoking the experience. Sometimes I do, gradually, it builds up prior to a more physical than usual event; but I tend to think this is more about my own state of consciousness or perception. The closer I get to where "they" are (whether they're bringing me there, or what), the more aware of them I am, the more I think about it, the more I encounter it. I don't know if I bring the experiences on by my own changes, or if my changes are merely being made in me as they're necessary for the later event.

Different ones seem to use different approaches, and even then it's possible that my own receptivity, memory, and relationship with that particular folk affect how it works.

<<From what I can see you are adapting very well considering the context!>>

Thanks. Not having any choice is most of that.

<<But do you know or feel there could be a meaning or a goal to what you are experiencing? Or is there no way to make sense of a thing like this?>>

I looked for a meaning and a goal for a while. I concluded that:

(a) looking for a meaning or a goal is a need of my psychology, and doesn't by its existence infer that there IS one.

(b) meanings and goals are subjective, meaning that I can assign them to whatever I want, even after the fact, even custom designed to fit the material.

(c) my psychology, my technology, and my culture are different enough from theirs (whomever the various "theys" are) that my guessing their meanings and goals is a waste of time. (Not that I haven't tried of course.)

(d) even if they told me, I have no evidence besides that they told me, which they might do for their own reasons, or due to my wish to know, and which may or may not reflect the Whole Truth (if there should be such a thing).

(e) if meanings and goals make me feel better, I should design some for myself. They probably don't have any real effect on the actual meanings or goals which anybody else might have, but having a positive outlook and balanced psychology may help me better integrate and understand things overall, which is a positive. I've tried to use this approach.

At this point, when it comes to those some call "aliens," I can't much change their behavior, at least not yet. What I can change is how I feel about it, react to it, and interpret it. Having a right to be paranoid, for instance, is beside the point; letting other people's behavior influence your life is the issue, and one might as well -- if you can't stop the external source -- either learn to ignore the subject, or in the case of regular experiences, learn to learn from them. It's not about "having a right" to hold a grudge or something -- it's about my life, my happiness, first and foremost. I keep that goal in mind.

There is sense in this, but all the sense is context specific. What makes perfect sense in one experience with one group or lesson doesn't in another; not even that it doesn't make sense as that the entire conceptual framework used to determine "sense" becomes "not applicable" to the issue.

Reminds me, the other day we were telling those terrible "How many {X} does it take to screw in a light bulb?" jokes at work, and as we were really getting going this guy says, "Q: How many surrealists does it take to change a lightbulb? A: Fish." I just cracked up -- that pretty well sums up the "comparative realities" of this whole field!

Bewilderness is copyright © 1993 to present to Palyne "PJ" Gaenir ( See