Ann Druffel and 'The Pelican'
Magonia 75, July 2001
In Magonia issue 73 The Pelican wrote about my recent book, How to Defend Yourself Against Alien Abduction [1]. He also addressed a follow-up article in Flying Saucer Review in which I expressed my growing concern about the 'victim mentality' displayed by many so-called abductees [2]. Since certain top-profile abduction researchers in my own United States continue to ignore the subject of resistance techniques against 'alien abductors',
The fact that resisters can rouse themselves from the altered state of consciousness in which 'alien visitations' and 'abduction scenarios' occur points out the probability that the harassing 'creatures' associated with the abduction phenomenon are not physical in our earth space-time. Likewise there is not yet one shred of documented scientific proof that there are any hybrid babies, missing foetuses, 'implants' which display extraterrestrial technology, spaceships filled with alien-human embryos, or any of the bizarre claims being presented as fact by many American researchers.
The Pelican admits the possibility that the ETH hypothesis to explain unidentified flying craft in our atmosphere might be logically possible. I agree on this point; some UFO reports, especially regarding pilot sightings which are confirmed by radar, or objects seen from the ground by groups of credible witnesses such as police officers, or occasional photos taken by reliable people such as the August 1965 photos by Southern California highway engineer, Rex E. Heflin and thoroughly studied by credible investigators [3].
But my working hypothesis at present states that the phenomenon of hundreds (perhaps thousands) of reliable, rational witnesses who claim interaction with abducting, 'otherworldly' creatures is entirely separate from solid reports of unidentified physical craft. Although the abductees describe being taken aboard a UFO there is very little, if any, supporting evidence to prove that this has ever been the case. Since most researchers recognise that the phenomenon which displays itself as 'abducting aliens' displays definite deceptive characteristics, I feel obliged to hypothesise at this time that the abducting phenomenon (which presents itself in various forms) may be posing as technologically and intellectually superior occupants from UFOs. The sad truth is, numerous American researchers and experiencers are being deceived.
As my good friend Erskine Payton, host of the popular radio talk show Erskine Overnight, points out: "What does it matter what the real source of the abduction phenomenon is. Maybe well never find out". But if people caught up in the machinations of the phenomenon can free themselves from it by using one or more of the nine resistance techniques described in detail in my book, isn't that the main issue here? Does it matter what these experiencers believe is happening to them if the harassment they formerly felt from the abducting phenomenon no longer causes conscious stress in their lives') Whatever builds up their confidence to the level where they can feel free of it is surely 'true' for them.
It is in this context that I agree with The Pelican, though I'm having a hard time defining the word 'psychosocial' as he uses it. The word is coming into favour here in America as well, but it's not on my Macintosh thesaurus, neither is it in my admittedly outdated Webster Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, However, a quick call to the reference department of our local library revealed that the American Heritage Dictionary defines it as "involving aspects of social and psychological behaviour; ex. a child's psychosocial development".
Not a big surprise, but hardly clarifying the real source (or reason) for the widespread abduction phenomenon. Psychological tests on abductees in various scientific studies in the USA revealed that the majority are rational and honest, but many of them displayed what is described by various researchers as a 'paranoid tinge'. Not that they are paranoid individuals, for if they were they would no longer test as 'rational'. The paranoid tinge seems to spring from the harassment they undergo at the hands of the abducting phenomenon (whatever that actually is). So I cannot accept The Pelican's view that all abductees have somehow been 'psychosocialised ' to feel they are being harassed by aliens. Something else seems to be going on.
The Pelican writes that the 'abducting' problem is for the psychologists, psychiatrists and neurologists to work on. In a very important sense I agree with this. But my main concern here is that the psychological differences between the resisters on the one hand, and abductees who believe they are helpless victims must also be studied, This is one of the next things I'll set out to do, since there will soon be enough resister cases in my database to conduct psychological and statistical studies. The purpose will be to find out what psychological differences there are between: (A) stout-hearted people who think that the abducting phenomenon's harassment are violating their own individual rights and can break the altered state in which the scenarios occur, and: (B) those who are persuaded by the phenomenon that it's useless to try resistance, or are deceived into believing (without proof) that the interaction is for the purpose of 'spiritually' evolving the human race.
The ramifications of the psychological traits I've uncovered so far in resister cases are complex and will be the subject of a longer article which I hope will appear in MUFON UFO Journal and also perhaps in Flying Saucer Review. Suffice it to say here that the personality traits (read psychosocial traits) of resisters include: (A) sufficient self-confidence and self-esteem to demand that the abducting 'creatures' leave thcm alone; and (B) belief (or suspicion) that the creatures are not the technologically superior beings they claim to be. To this 1 might add that many resisters in my database think that the phenomenon, which reveals itself in the form of 'creatures', might be some other order of being in our vast universe which has no right to harass human beings. It is not up to me to tell them that they are mistaken and that they are experiencing psychosocial disturbances. If resistance works for them, they should use it.
I wish to thank Magonia and The Pelican for the comprehensive discussion of my book, How to Defend Yourself Against Alien Abduction. Although we may not agree on all points, the opportunity to present ones views is rare in this troubled field.
References:
1. Op. cit., New York, Three Rivers Press/Random House, 1998. Also published in UK edition, same title, London, Piatkus, 1998.
2. Op cit., Vol 45, no. 3, Autumn 2000, "Victim mentality in abductions: an unacceptable concept". Firs published in MUFON UFO Journal, May 2000, under title "Abductee victim mentality unacceptable".
3. "Reanalysis of the 1965 Heflin UFO photos, by Druffel, Robert M. Wood and Eric Kelson, Journal of Scientific Exploration, vol. 14, no. 4, Winter 2000, pp 583-622
THE PELICAN WRITES:
The Pelican is greatly encouraged by Ann Druffel' s response to his comments in the previous issue of Magonia. He would like to begin his comments by clearing up any confusion about the meaning of the term "psychosocial". This simply refers to the fact that people's reactions to, and interpretations of, certain experiences are strongly influenced by their psychological make-up and their social interactions. So far as UFOs and their alleged occupants are concerned, the notion that some people are constantly being abducted by little grey aliens has gradually developed over the years, particularly in the USA.
This belief has not developed from nothing, however. The experiences which form the basis for such beliefs have always been available. They have a number of causes, such as sleep paralysis, insomnia, somnambulism, temporal lobe epilepsy, migraine, etc. It is, of course, not possible to assign causes to particular cases without studying them individually, with the help of persons who are suitably qualified.
The content of such experiences is obviously strongly influenced by the languages and cultures of the percipients, and in recent years is being even more strongly influenced by the activities of certain high-profile abduction 'experts' such as Budd Hopkins, David Jacobs and John Mack. In this connection it is interesting to note that Mack, the only one of this trio with formal qualifications in psychiatry, does not accept the 'nuts and bolts' theory favoured by the other two. What he does believe, though, remains obscure to the Pelican, as he attempts to convey his ideas in impenetrable and almost certainly meaningless jargon. The Pelican gently pointed out that Ann Druffel employed similar esoteric verbiage in a few passages in her otherwise excellent and useful book.
The Pelican appreciates, though, that it is necessary to reassure people who think they are being targeted by the Greys and to win their confidence before they can be helped in any way. He thus agrees with Ann when she says: "It is not up to me to tell them that they are mistaken and that they are experiencing psychosocial disturbances. If resistance works for them, they should use it."
It is surely possible, however, when writing about this subject, to stick to a more rigorously scientific approach, if only to win the support of mental health professionals with little knowledge of the problem. It should be possible to do this in such a way as to make it clear to abductees that she has a sympathetic and understanding approach to their problems, although The Pelican agrees that it might not always be appropriate in personal interviews with them.
The Pelican wishes Ann Druffel every success in her valiant efforts to relieve the mental distress of people who have come to believe that they are abduction victims.