Origin: CHANNEL1 - 2472 - alt.paranet.a
  From: JOHN POWELL
    To: ALL
  Date: 08/06/93
    Re: Abductees & Dreams - afte
-------------------------------------------------------------------

 na> Someone has to do enough preliminary work with these abductees to
 na> show that there is indeed a problem. Obviously there are people
 na> like you and I who already feel that enough work has been done,
 na> but the "correct" people do not seem to feel that same way, yet.
 na> And so we continue to work with the abductees trying to
 na> substantiate a case.

Using myself as an example there is an obvious first question that has
to be answered. (Maybe this question is too obvious and that's why too
many people race right by it and never notice...)

Should I do _anything_?

I'm not a psychologist. The vast majority of UFO and/or abduction
researchers are not psychologists. I'm also being very strict in my
definitions here: Psychiatric social workers, psychiatric nurses, even
clinical psychologists are _not_ specifically qualified to function
professionally in this area. I am absolutely not qualified to function
professionally in this area.

The real purpose of asking and answering the obvious question is to
cause a definate and specific halt long enough to take the necessary
reality check.

I spoken to a number of people who may or may not be abductees
according to the classic definition. (A few definately fit the
definition, most don't and this is why they are so much more
interesting aside from the fact that they are just interesting people
anyway.) I don't encourage or discourage discussion. I try, very early
on, to determine the specific belief structure regarding the personal
experiences of the individual. There is an extremely significant
difference between a person who believes they were abducted by aliens
in a spaceship and had medical procedures performed on them and
someone who has (for example) some odd memories, memory-like thoughts
that may or may not be dreams, or dream-like, that suggest (to them)
something weird may have happenned to them.

There is no point in arguing over a person's beliefs, but the presense
of those beliefs reduces the chances for investigation.

I also try, very early on, to determine the person's perception of the
effect of the perceived memories or experiences on them. If the
perception of the effect is grossly negative and/or is having a
significantly negative impact on the person's day-to-day life then
I'll do everything possible, except lock them in the trunk of my car,
to get them into professional psychological counselling. Even though I
will listen to anything anyone has to say, for as long as they want to
talk, I will essentially disengage myself, to the extent possible as a
friend, once a person has entered psychological counselling.

I continually emphasize several points that I think are extremely
critical.

First, the memories or dreams, the perceptions, the experiences,
belong exclusively to the individual and to absolutely no one else.
Second, my first words, last words, and everything in between will be
punctuated with personal advice to get a psychological 'second
opinion', to avoid hypnosis no matter what, to generally avoid
persuing psychology-like material on their own, and to generally avoid
the topic of UFOs and ufologists whenever possible.

(The notion that seeing a psychologist for the first time is actually
getting a second opinion, the first opinion being their own, is a
little word trick that sometimes works when you're trying to get
someone onto the couch...)

At _no time_ do I ask questions in order to find out what happenned to
this person - because I'm not qualified to do that. (And becaise I
don't think that method works.) Virtually everything I say, and
absolutely every question I ask, contains only _exactly_ as much
'information' as was disclosed by the person I am talking to. This is
not easy to do, I'm certainly no expert at doing it, and it certainly
isn't any fun, but anything less is totally irresponsible.

I've read hundreds and hundreds of examples that basically read like
the following:

        Abducteee: I felt a shape or presence in the room.

        Abductionist:  What did the alien look like?

This is absolutely unpardonable and if there was any way that I could
help incarcerate the abductionist for asking such questions I'd do it
in a heartbeat. You have to be a perfectly reflective mirror for the
abductee and you can never exceed the specific or contextual limit of
the abductee's information - _never_.

Regarding the example above, most abductionists will persue, in a
direct or even indirect manner, the general 'what did it look like'
angle. This is completely _wrong_. Because we're dealing with
memories, which might not be real at all, that are currently all or
partly unavailable for whatever reason, the _only_ way to get to the
memory is to not try to get to the memory. This is only my opinion but
my approach would be to persue the 'what did it feel like' angle.
Questions about the nature of something, instead of questions about
the specific something, allow the mind to naturally flesh-out that
something; and when that something finally comes up the abductee is
already prepared to examine the 'what did it feel like' avenue to
personally self-test the validity and accuracy of that memory. Since
this is only a conversation, since there is no hypnosis or otherwise
trance-like state involved, since I am being the perfectly reflective
mirror, unconscious confabulation is reduced to the lowest practical
minimum. The abductee actually controls this entire process even
though they sometimes aren't aware that they are controlling it. There
is one real big disadvantage to this method. It is extremely slow in
uncovering the type of detail that is apparently easily published...

I think you're right in stating that someone has to do the preliminary
work but we have to make certain that the results of that work are
acceptable. Scores of hypnotized abductees are basically worthless to
the professional psychological community.

My personal method, generally outlined above, is my best compromise.
It allows me to answer that first obvious question with a 'Yes',
because I do feel compelled to help when possible, yet I'm really not
doing anything except being a good listener (or trying to). I'm not
trying to find out what happenned, I'm not trying to explain what
happenned.

I'm not suggesting that anyone else use my method. All I know is that
it isn't intrusive, it makes no negative contributions, it eliminates
no positive contributions, and it works for me...

I have to quibble with your last sentence. There is no way we can
substantiate a case. Only a professional psychologist can determine,
with a reasonable amount of certainty, that a particular individual
does not currently have other psychological and/or pathological
conditions that may have generated or contributed to the generation of
the abduction (abduction-like) memories. Two or three other such
professionals reviewing the same set of people/histories and making
the same concluding statement prove only what we've all suspected from
the beginning - something currently unexplained is happenning.

We need hard evidence to substantiate any abduction case. Meanwhile,
we owe the victims (of whatever it is that they are being victimized
by) the opportunity to not be victimized by those who mistakenly think
they are helping...

Thanks, take care.
John.

John Powell - via ParaNet node 1:104/422