Abduction Watch #18


Number 18, February 1999


Don Worley – covering-up abuse


If you think back to AW 16/17, you’ll remember that I took some time to look at the abduction beliefs of the much-published – especially by Gordon Creighton at Flying Saucer Review – US researcher Don Worley, and particularly at his claims concerning one “Reverend David Adams”, and the alleged physical contacts between Adams, his religious group, and the sexually predatory – and violent – alien beings Worley describes as ‘Nordics’. I quoted some of Worley’s assertions regarding “Adams” . . .

“This brilliant, exceptional pastor possesses a number of University degrees, including those in Philosophy and Medicine, and has had many years of successful leadership experience. He carries the title “Most High” in his own religious Order . . his religious group, which numbers in the hundreds of thousands in Canada and the northern European countries, are entirely familiar with the type of alien whom we call the “Nordic” or “the Blond” . . ”

One intelligent commentator suggested similarities with some elements of the Raelian Movement (that is an anagram of ‘Ra’ and ‘alien’, isn’t it?), but I’m not aware of any evidence that their activities include the sexual exploitation of young people. On the other hand nobody, including a couple of the UK cult research groups, came up with any alternative suggestions, though the claims are still being checked. Mind you, another letter from Worley made clear that checking his work is made as difficult as possible, and poses the following . . .

Q. What do you call a man who withholds evidence of the systematic sexual abuse of young people from the Police because he’s afraid of aliens?

A. Don Worley

This is, with only brief and insignificant editing, Worley’s response to my questions. I’ve corrected some quirks of spelling:

“Dear Kevin

I have contemplated your letter and very biased and ignorant arm chair style opinions of me and the ‘abduction world’ in general. Just as I thought you have little or no experience on the scene or you being an apparent normal intelligent person would know better. As I said you certainly have a right to your opinion and the questions you have asked. Casting aside your underlying belligerent approach I will try to relieve some of your ignorance about the down to earth facts of the abduction world.

. . . you print “Don Worley – Talking Dirty”. I suppose you have said this because I have had to touch on such morally repugnant things as all kinds of female violations by the aliens, groups of young boys who had their sperm taken, a reverend who has known total intimacy with his alien keepers etc. Please believe me I and all researchers wish all this were not going on at all. But it is and if an investigator is worth his salt he has to stick to the truth no matter how distasteful.

Further down the page you criticise me for sending my data (only to other willing exchanging researchers – not abductees or anyone else) out. With abductees I send only my questionnaire to determine if they may really be abductees. You believe I am a deterrent to those in need in that to you my approach in articles is brutally factual and I must be putting further fear and confusion into the minds of those I seek to help. It would take too much space to explain how I handle abductees but my approach is to be truthful yet bring forth all the positive factors possible. I am sure I sent you several personal pages from certain abductees telling how much they appreciated my valuable help. My work is with the isolated, bewildered often fearful abductee. I am most grateful to those who guide me for allowing me to do this wonderful, noble, effort in my brief journey in this existence.

In paragraph 7 page 3 in your confusion you have misinterpreted my urging the distraught abductee to make a phone call to me if they are contemplating suicide. Surely you must know I am addressing the victim at home not off in a spaceship demanding to make a call to me. Come on Kevin let’s really be serious now.

Now to the matter of the Reverend David Adams and all the other anonymous names I am forced to use in my articles representing the actual participants. It is the fault of all the would-be prejudiced, emotional persons such as you Kevin who would institute their certain harassment of the already disturbed abductee. The abductee knows this can often happen and the researcher knows it only too well so there is a bond of trust on what can be revealed. So in effect critics such as you ruin this total free flow of information.

It is for this vital reason that I am prevented from answering any of your questions that you listed on pages 8 and 9. In your 11th question (re reporting the sexual abuse of young people to the Police) you amply demonstrate what would happen should you know the real name and address of the reverend. You would mistakenly set the police or child protection agencies on him. You are guilty of idiotic false assumptions again that I see in much of your thinking. Need I tell you that no one controls the aliens. Certainly not the reverend – he is only a helpless observer in any of the incidents I mentioned. In the last incident mentioned he was not even present with the youth group.

Regarding the qualifications and truthfulness of the claims of the reverend – I deemed this case so important that I devoted much of three summer months to his case. I amassed a large file on him and citing my 33 years experience I will firmly state that what the reverend has revealed is the bold truth no matter how unprecedented it is. The very busy reverend positively has no other motive for seeking my expertise and help with his problems and enlightenment began once he had contacted me. It certainly was not spending all that time and expense and effort just to feed me tall, fantastic tales. No, the reverend wanted to try to understand and secondly he sought a source where his amazing situation would be listened to, evaluated and recorded for posterity. The powerful persons who controlled the reverend gave him the go ahead once he had started with me and I met their approval. The reverend was not the ultimate leader of the large group mentioned in my writings.

Well, there is a lot more I’d like to go into but will end this with this observation. I thank you Kevin for your thorough layout of your position using my letter and excerpts of my articles. I have not appreciated your put down and belittling of my long time friends such as Gordon Creighton and others. I have enclosed a very good article by another old friend Eddie Bullard PhD of Indiana University and some convincing pages from a few abductees. I still have the faint hope that somehow you might begin to awaken. Awaken from your present gullible state of trying to explain away the huge body of alien activity and have now probably reached the great time change that Jacobs and Bullard cite.

PPS Just got a call from old Gordon in England. He called to tell me not to be in anyway involved with you. You are a well known trouble maker over there.”

So, in much the same way that Tony Dodd operates in the UK, those who whinge most about government secrecy are themselves the most secretive. Worley makes sure that his claims can’t be verified or investigated by, well, not telling the truth, but not admitting to that until challenged. It may be – who can tell – that none of this has any reality outside of Worley’s fantasy world, in which he sees himself as something like ‘Abduction Man’, protector of the weak and confused, the key person to phone if you’re thinking of suicide, the man approved of by the “powerful persons who controlled the reverend”. It may be that all of this is some sort of grim folie a deux between Worley and ‘Adams’. But it does, now, seem more likely that Worley genuinely has evidence of repeated, systematic sexual abuse, which both he and its victims have been deliberately led to believe is caused by aliens, when it is not. Hopefully unwittingly, Worley has become not only an apologist for abusers, but his alleged “33 years experience” may be part of the deceit. If what he says about his three months spent on this group is true, then it is quite likely that he has been used to help persuade the victims of this abuse that their abusers are aliens. It seems that Worley is the sort of person some people trust, and that the victims of this abuse have been encouraged to trust in his crazed pronouncements on alien powers and sexual preferences, thus protecting the real abusers.

Worley’s postal address is 1051 Beech Street, Connersville, IN 47331, USA. I presume that he must, there, have local Police and child protection agencies who I guess would be the first line of contact for somebody to challenge his decision to prevent those agencies from investigating the abuse that Worley asserts occurs within this ‘religion’. I have no doubt that there are also local and regional newspapers who would be interested. Maybe, in view of America’s obsession with aliens, the national media could be involved, too. I’d be very grateful if any US reader could suggest some names and addresses for contacts in the Police, child protection agencies and the media, to test Worley’s claims and, if they are true, to end the violence and abuse Worley has decided should continue.

Malcolm Robinson


A confusing month for me. Robinson has – by the usual essentially undemocratic process – joined BUFORA Council: there are times when BUFORA’s internal arrangements make the Rotten Boroughs system seem fair and open. Apparently, Robinson had to be on Council to becomes the organiser of the London lectures, which I suspect was more habit than necessity, but I am pleased to see him, quite publicly, state that he no longer values hypnotic regression as an investigative technique, and will not use it or facilitate its use in any investigation he is involved in. I guess this proves that there are better people to spend your time with than Billy Devlin.

I do, however, have substantial qualms. Robinson has made it clear that, in organising the lectures, he will be happy to put on hypnosis proponents such as Mack, Hopkins and Carpenter. He mutters about the same issues of censorship that were applied to him, and makes avoiding giving these people a platform sound like something repressive and morally wrong. It’s an easy argument to make, and to justify choosing only speakers who can verify their cases, and who care for the welfare of ‘abductees’ is undoubtedly much harder. Yet I suggest that much more thought should be put into this, before the Santilli and Sims disasters occur again. How many more times can BUFORA take an active, high-profile role in publicising claims clearly founded somewhere between greed and delusion, and still retain any credibility at all?

Let’s bring this issue right home to Robinson himself. He has, through his forceful recommendation of the use of hypnosis in the A70 case, and his fierce support for the reliability of the ‘memories’ so produced, created, Frankenstein-like, his own abductee. Thanks to Robinson’s beliefs and choices of action, a man believes he was abducted by alien beings when he almost certainly wasn’t, and goes round persuading others of the reality of the abduction experience, becoming involved in the ‘Fife’ case among others. From Malcolm’s own account, it seems that the use of hypnosis in that case has changed a man’s life, and not for the better.

Hopkins, Mack, Jacobs, Carpenter, Boylan, Smith, Dodd, Harris and many others have, essentially, done the same. That they may have done so without malice or ill-intent really doesn’t matter. All bear considerable responsibilities, and in Malcolm’s case his responsibility is to try to undo what he has done, and attempt to dismantle the delusion which he has helped create in the A70 witness and others. This could be one of the vital developments in the history of the abduction mythos, and it will be interesting to see how Robinson – and the witness – deal with it.

In the meantime, I suggest that BUFORA leads a serious debate on this most important issue, and then asks its membership – and not by phone – what its public meetings should convey, and what they should not. In my view, BUFORA should not collude in misleading and deceiving anybody at all into believing that they’ve been abducted, or have suffered any of the sick and twisted obscenities that go with that belief. For the time being, at least, I’ll hang on in BUFORA to try and make it so. Anyway, Robinson’s asked me to be a speaker, and I’d just love to tell the Don Worley story on a BUFORA platform!

Roger Leir – Intergalactic Chiropodist

An interesting piece on the Net from John Shirley, who I’ve heard of but can’t quite place. After reading some of the Sims/Leir ‘implant removal’ junk, he commented on an e-mail list about the lack of any real evidence on the Sims website and:

“got a reply from a Dr Lier (or Leir, I don’t care enough about the guy to look it up just now), telling me to shut up as I wasn’t “knowledgeable” in that area. This fellow, I believe, is a podiatrist who found the above implant (or other implants) in someone’s foot and then joined Derrel Sims’ Circus of Implants. I replied that I was thinking of writing about it and if he would like to give me evidence that would contradict my current views, why, I’d publish that evidence. I also asked him if he’d heard of Derrel Sims’ checkered past. The Foot Doctor replied IN FONT LIKE THIS THROUGH THE WHOLE EMAIL that I was obviously not a scientist, not party to the information he had, that I was reacting to rumors and surface information found on the unreliable Internet (I agree about the Internet’s unreliability) and that the real evidence was not being made available to the public so I should, in effect, shut up and go away. So, he claims to have evidence confirming alien implants but won’t give it to us . . And he was going to forward my libellous e-mail, in which I repeated mere gossip, to Sims. And he didn’t want to get any more e-mail from me. I sent him email immediately saying that it wasn’t gossip, there is documentation for his having tried to sell “learn to be a black belt in karate in one hour” snake oil. I of course haven’t heard from the Foot Doctor again.”

If anyone has an address for John Shirley, please let me know and I’ll send him some back issues.

A Consultant Anaesthetist on the Sims/Leir Implant reports

Thanks to the good offices of ASKE and Dr Michael Heap of the University of Sheffield, a consultant anaesthetist collated some professional comments to add to those published in AW15. Many thanks to all those who contributed.

“Re Surgical removal of alien implants

It is a little while since you sent me the photocopy of Dr Leir’s article on surgical removal of ‘alien implants’, so my apologies for not replying earlier. I have spoken to a number of my surgical and medical colleagues in the Derby hospitals, both senior and trainee doctors. None of them have heard of such reports in any of the reputable medical and surgical literature. Not only that, but they have never even heard of such proceedings taking place and having been reported in other journals either, and so they were quite surprised when I showed them the article which you had sent me.

The common thing about foreign bodies, which is the usual term in medical practice for environmental material finding its way inside the human body, is that they are generally found either in hands or feet. This is not surprising as people stand on all sorts of things and also use their hands most of the time, at work, to feed themselves or to help with climbing, etc. Sometimes they can find their way inside the eye, particularly high velocity foreign bodies such as small shards of metal from lathes and other pieces of machinery. The foreign bodies that are described in Dr Leir’s article appear to be of material that is commonly found on the planet earth. He does not state in his article what the definitive analysis of these foreign bodies is as a result of an analysis made by the Institute that he submitted them to. I am not clear as to the professional standing of the Institute that the samples were submitted to either.

I think the point that the elemental composition of the objects was able to be described contains nothing that is not found on earth is useful information. The fact that the small samples could not be definitively described as and said to be this or that is no reason for saying that they are from another world.

In summary, I read the article as saying that some individuals in America have had foreign bodies removed from usual places, ie hand and foot, and that the composition of these when analysed reveals them to have an earthly elemental composition. I would refute the comments in Dr Leir’s last paragraph that the objects seemed to be structured and served a purpose. The fact that they have not been identified does not substantiate his statement and his comments in the final paragraph about a theory of the devices being transponders is certainly dubious and, if I were an alien, I could certainly think of more satisfactory and safe places than to put them into someone’s feet or hand where they are likely to become damaged and of little benefit to me anyway. ”

We should, by now, have done quite enough to show that Leir’s claims for the reality of alien implants are absurd, and devoid of satisfactory verification. He has a book out, or on the way, setting out his beliefs and convictions, and I’ll try to circulate that, too. Yet even then, it will be difficult to communicate this to the believers. The MUFON UFO JOURNAL in particular has become little more than a mouthpiece for the ramblings of Leir and Eve Frances Lorgen – more of her ‘Alien Love Bite’ material, and the increasingly oppressive nature of her pronouncements next issue (if anyone knows where her much-vaunted “M.A. in Counselling Psychology” comes from, that could well be helpful).

We are, I think, in a new age of superstition. Not unlike Glen Hoddle’s belief in disability being a consequence of bad Karma, irrational belief becomes increasingly acceptable among – perhaps particularly among – reasonably educated people. It is a time of easy explanations, quick solutions, and junk science, and in ufology the easy, quick and junk have all been typified by the use of hypnosis. Even more primitive, stupid and unscientific is the ‘animal mutilation’ argument – because Cayton, Howe and a good many others haven’t worked out that if they advertise giving specific parameters for unpleasantly damaged animal carcasses, then that’s precisely what they’ll be given, they presume the mutilations must have been caused by aliens. This level of scientific thinking makes witchfinding look rational.

Kevin McClure retains the copyright of all material published in AW, but if any responsible magazine or e-zine would like to reprint anything, I’m likely to agree if you ask in writing. Thanks.

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>