Abduction Watch 2

abduction-watch1

A MONTHLY COMMUNICATION: DRIVING A STAKE IN THE HEART OF THE SPACE VAMPIRES!

Number 2, September 1997


Thanks for a brilliant response to AW1. A 100% consensus that this is well worth doing, and some invaluable suggestions and directions for research and investigation. And, wow, is there some bad feeling towards the really awful investigators out there!

A couple of points from AW1 . . . I’m pleased to report that others are looking seriously at Bob Dean and his claims, and grateful for information received. Next question, please . . . Dean claims to have been interested in ufology, and issues raised by what he saw at SHAPE more than 30+ years ago, for most of that 30+ years, but I can’t remember hearing of him till after John Lear and Robert Lazar came up with their proofless ramblings, which Dean’s own claims appear to reflect and complement. I reckon I first saw Dean in print in about 1992 – can anyone place any earlier references to his supposedly amazing discoveries? . . . Re. Harry Harris’s hypnotists, I now know there’s a reference in MIB by Jenny Randles to a ‘Dr Albert Kellar of Manchester’, though I’m not sure when his hypnotic services were used. No ‘Dr Albert Kellar’ is included in the 1997 ‘Medical Directory’ or ‘Medical Register’ nor, it seems, is he listed in the current internal phone directory of any of the Manchester universities. However, that proves nothing at all: can anyone advise further?

David Sivier, an excellent writer and commentator whose work often appears in Strange Daze, suggests links with and commentary from professionals, particularly re the psychological issues regarding regression and the production of abduction accounts. I’m working on this one, and hopefully have a couple of excellent contacts. I’ve also built a fair collection of recent, and highly relevant, material, from which I’ll put together a ‘special issue’ in the next month or two. The material is professional, written by medical and other professionals, publishing in professional and peer-reviewed journals. It isn’t easy reading, and compiling summaries is challenging. But then, we’re dealing with some of the most complex examples of anomalous experience ever reported. It’s worth the effort, though, and if the material is available within ‘ufology’ then denial – of its existence and importance – may just be that bit more difficult for those whose income this material might affect.


The Unnamed Soldier – A Hoax of Importance?

 

In the middle of the irrational muddle of faith and belief that typifies abductions, it’s hard to spot a hoax. So much of what appears in the UK newsstand magazines is so unlikely, so lacking in sense or evidence, you might think that the world of abductions was full of hoaxes.

That probably isn’t so. Tony Dodd, Jon King, David Jacobs, Budd Hopkins and others like them all seem to genuinely believe in what they write about, however far-fetched and incredible that might seem. But their very willingness to believe could make them easy prey for a hoax that matches their own preconceptions, and not only confirms their beliefs, but convinces them they are privileged to be given special and secret information. The total absence of convincing physical evidence of either aliens or abductions results in a desperate search for any form of authority that might suggest the abduction scenario is true.

It’s really only a guess at this stage, but I suspect that such a hoax – an extensive, subtle, and unpleasant one – is currently being conducted. It’s probably been in progress for two or three years, and because the evidence I’ve noted to date relates to the UK, I reckon it’s based here. However, like everything in the abduction mythos, it does have American characteristics.

I’ve called the hoax, or whatever it is, ‘The Unnamed Soldier’, because it’s usually a supposedly ex-military source, anxious to protect his identity and personal details for fear of prosecution by the Government, who provides the information for publication. I’m writing about it now, at an early stage in my own research, to see what additional sources or data anyone else can contribute. It’s much too early to draw firm conclusions. However, it precisely fits the need for a form of “authority” that I referred to earlier. Consequently, all those who have published accounts have done so without reporting any kind of check or verification of their source or sources.

The published material I’ve found so far is in UFO Reality (issues 3, 5, 6 and 7), Sightings (Vol 2 No 2), UFO Magazine (Sep/Oct 1996), The Unopened Files (No 1), Global UFO Investigation Magazine (June/July 1997) and International UFO Library (Vol 3 No 4,1995). This last is a US publication, but the article, on an ‘Operation Aeneid’ in 1970-71, is about supposed defence activities in the UK, derived from anonymous UK sources. (I don’t recall reading about the amazing ‘Operation Aeneid’ before – has Dodd written about it elsewhere?).

All the above articles have sources it is not possible to identify from what appears in print, and in most the impression is given that the author/investigator doesn’t know the source’s identity. A similar article, but giving a name and “RAF number” (Paul Stokes, 1923891 – can anyone check that easily?) appears in Encounters (now Alien Encounters) Issue 3, Jan 1996.

Some of the sources have names of sorts – ‘Mark’, ‘James Prescott’, ‘Alan S’. Others are just ‘a Scottish gentleman’, ‘British Military Personnel’, or ‘An Ex Soldier’. Introducing ‘Operation Aeneid’, Tony Dodd explains that “The sources of information are very keen to keep their names secret for obvious reasons. They have been handing over information in motorway lay-bys, various car parks and Railway Stations”.

Which doesn’t seem to allow much scope for verifying that these people are who they say or suggest they are. There are bits and pieces of information, but nothing that could lead any reader to identify or locate these individuals. And the articles do give a strong impression that nobody has thought it necessary to try.

So what are these mysterious sources saying? Well, it’s mostly the recurring themes and key words in this material that lead me to suspect the existence of an organised hoax. Of course, it’s quite possible that there is more than one hoax in operation, the one copying the material presented in the other. If some more information comes in, in due course I’ll see what I can do with some sort of analysis of types of events, and when they were first reported.

The most extreme – and recent – ‘Unnamed Soldier’ account appears in Global UFO Investigation Magazine. Here, a nameless ex-Special Forces (‘Security 580′) soldier talks about “a specially trained elite security task force specially designed to deal with all matters related to UFOs”. There are special cap badges, bases in Scotland, Wales, Germany, Hereford, Aldershot, Sunnybridge(?) and beneath Salisbury Plain. There are armed men called ‘Senators’ in jeeps, guarding secret bases, burnt and twisted trees and, most convincing to the investigators there are, apparently, photographs of burnt, mutilated, tortured and dead humans and animals. I’ve advised those involved in this case that they should take any such photos to the Police.

Global’s informant concludes that all these activities are “to do with reproductive systems and cell research between the Americans and ETs”, so this clearly has something to do with abductions. The investigator and the magazine editor consider that they are being harrassed, followed, subjected to threatening phone calls, and investigated by a counter intelligence group. Whoever is behind this material appears to have a nasty and vindictive streak. And should be made to explain the origin of their ‘photos’ of ‘mutilations’.

Similar themes recur from account to account. Mysterious NATO and US soldiers and airmen, blue berets – allegedly “special operational forces whose mandate is to recover UFOs”, RAF Woodbridge, RAF Machrihanish, distinctive cap badges, massive UFOs, reports of which have been suppressed, the depiction of unspecified parts of Salisbury Plain as a UK Area 51 with secret bases, and possibly alien beings and craft hidden in concealed and well-protected underground facilities. There’s the deeply unlikely North Wales UFO Crash of 1974, of which Tony Dodd says that, “Recently we have been in touch with a retired Army officer who was directly involved in the recovery of alien bodies (both dead and alive) from the UFO crash in North Wales.” There’s “underground military bases where their implant operations are often carried out” confirmed, courtesy of the ever-believing UFO Reality, through some sort of remote-viewing by “M”, “a well-known British psychic”. There’s extraordinary confrontations – unfortunately, supposedly, recalled through hypnotic regression – on the surface of Salisbury Plain.

Oddly enough, the account from “Alan S” in Sightings appears to contradict elements of some other stories, apparently including the Machrihanish encounter recorded in The Unopened Files. (Interestingly, that account is in the same article as an alleged encounter between Larry Warren and ‘blue berets’ at RAF Woodbridge. That account has been repeated elsewhere since but, eventually, Graham Birdsall of UFO Magazine acknowledged that the incident never actually took place). Howsoever, both “Alan S” and his wife do appear to believe themselves to be abductees. It all gets very confusing.

So that’s the themes I’ve sorted out so far. Clear themes, a complete lack of tangible proof, and a bunch of people who really do seem to “want to believe”. I don’t know whether there’s just the one hoaxer – have any of these investigators ever compared notes about their supposed informants? – or several working together, or a succession of individuals, perhaps with a little genuine military knowledge, reading the newsstand magazines and then picking on an investigator who looks ready to be taken in. To do that, they need only read through the lists of UFO groups printed in the popular magazines, or to contact those magazines direct.

Underlying the specific themes there seems to be something nastier, and more pernicious. The abduction mythos feeds on the fear of those who are convinced of its truth, and the unifying factor of all the ‘Unnamed Soldier’ material is fear and helplessness. Fear of governments, of the Americans, of NATO, of all things military, of black helicopters and flying triangles, of underground bases and implants and alien technology, and of the burning and cutting, and coring and the removal of skin – of humans and animals – that is at the heart of the mutilation rumours. This is the stuff that drives the real crackpots in American ufology, and not only them, but the militias, the fascists, and the bombers, too. Someone, it seems, has decided that it’s Britain’s turn to suffer this madness.

As for a culprit, or culprits, I really don’t know. But I do have to bear in mind just how long the crop circle hoax – for barring certain small, rough, simple circles, hoax it certainly is – has persisted. It has gone on for years, taking substantial planning, investigation, information gathering, secrecy, deceit, and an unimpressive willingness to manipulate, confuse and mislead a considerable number of people, many of whom have changed their lives and futures because of the beliefs that they have been encouraged to hold. I don’t believe that ongoing circle hoaxing has any ‘government’ links whatever, but it certainly establishes the extent to which intelligent, organised and sustained hoaxing can be taken.

To progress this investigation, I do need your help, with additional sources, articles, videos, magazines I don’t read (I do my best!) or whatever. Your own interpretations and guesses would also be very welcome. But before I leave the subject for this month, a brief word of warning to those who are publishing this material.

There seem to be two alternatives to this extensive body of material being a hoax. Firstly, that everything in these wild, and sick accounts is true, although you haven’t produced a shred of proof for what you’ve published. Secondly that you, the writers and publishers, are working to promote a complex and sustained fiction, presumably for personal gain. But if it turns out that I’m right in guessing that you’re being fooled, conned, misled or whatever, you’ll almost certainly suggest that you were the victim of some kind of conspiracy, probably organised by the government, the New World Order, Bill Clinton, Mother Teresa, or someone else who actually couldn’t give a t-ss what you do or believe.

Let me explain right now that if you’ve been fooled by anybody it’s because your investigations were inadequate, you didn’t ask the right questions of the right people, and you rushed into print without being as certain as you could that your readers were being accurately informed of what, so far as you could possibly establish, was the truth. Now might be a very good time to consider raising your standards, and thus avoid any possible future embarrassments – or tragedies.


The Fife Incident/Falkland Hill Landing

 

Two names, it seems, for one of the most complex series of anomalous experiences ever reported in the UK, also outstanding for the way in which the experients have reportedly been treated by two prominent research organisations, and the variations in the published accounts. Malcolm Robinson of SPI initially sent along one of the “A70″ abductees, his own recall achieved through hypnotic regression (see SPI Enigmas, Nov/Dec 1994), and briefed for two hours on the phone by Linda Moulton ‘Queen of the Mutes’ Howe.

Apparently, Tony Dodd of Quest didn’t undertake the investigation for UFO Magazine himself, but delegated someone who has been described as a ‘Glasgow social worker’. I’d be interested to know more about this person, and his qualifications. I wrote to ask Tony Dodd for further information, but he replied saying that “It is obvious that your admiration for the Social Services is surpassed only by your own ego . . Perhaps you would be better turning your crusade in other directions and leave UFO matters to the experts.” However, Dodd writes at the end of his account

“Our grateful thanks to our Scottish Field Investigator Brian Rooney who did such splendid work at the scene and assisted me throughout this investigation. He is now expertly counselling the families concerned – being qualified to do so by virtue of

his profession”. In view of some of the comments the family is reported as having made, the “expertly counselling” bit may be arguable. And in view of Tony Dodd’s assertion of Rooney’s competence, and his consequent refusal to support that assertion, I think the public should know just what Rooney’s profession is, what knowledge and experience he has, and whether he dealt properly – and in accordance with the rules of professional conduct if he genuinely is a social work professional – with the reportedly serious trauma suffered by this family. If ufologists are – like Eric Morris – going to claim they are qualified to counsel distressed, traumatised and fearful people, then they ought to expect to be asked for evidence of those qualifications. And as Tony Dodd has asserted publicly that Brian Rooney is qualified to provide expert counselling by virtue of his profession, a claim which could lead others to put their trust in Mr Rooney, he really ought to be willing to openly support and evidence that assertion.


Mindbenders – strange tales of hypnotism and hypnotists

 

Following up AW1, I wrote to Nicola Martin, Principal of the London College of Clinical Hypnosis. I had spoken to her last year about Robert La Mont, and she had told me what an excellent hypnotherapist he is, and how serious she considers the abduction situation to be. She was clearly deeply and genuinely concerned, and believed that La Mont was performing a worthwhile service to his ‘abductee’ clients. On the basis of the data La Mont had collected about alien abduction, she had concluded that “it’s very subtle, it’s very clever . . we are being invaded . . something like 2% of the population are being abducted – across the world . . it is horrendously widespread . . they don’t want to claim it’s happened . . it destroys their lives in many cases.”

Mr La Mont has said that he lectures for the ICH, which seems consistent with Ms Martin’s remarks, but he consistently describes himself as a clinical hypnotherapist. The adjective “clinical” usually – certainly by its accepted dictionary definition – means that a person works in a hospital or other medical setting. In my letter, I asked Ms Martin whether La Mont has any formal position as a “clinical” hypnotherapist in a hospital or other conventional medical setting, or any recognised medical qualification, and whether he has any grounds at all for describing himself as a “clinical” hypnotherapist, apart from his qualification from the ICH?

To date, I’ve received no reply, but I note that the ICH notepaper has, at the bottom of the page, the legend “Clinical Hypnosis Limited Registered in England No. 2979586″. Does this mean that if I set up a limited company called “Brain Surgery Limited”, and award myself a qualification, I can fairly describe myself as a brain surgeon? What would you think?

 


 

 

Next issue . . .

we need animal mutilations like we need a hole in the head . . . in AW3, how did mutilations of dumb animals, with no ability to argue, and no opinion to give, ever become associated with the argument for alien abductions? How are mutilations marketed, what is their real significance, and – whisper who dares – have animals suffered and died just to provide evidence, and illustrations, for this oddest and feeblest of beliefs? Plus more on ‘The Unnamed Soldier’, and who knows what else?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>