Abduction Watch - No 12-13 1998

Magazine Overview

Title: Abduction Watch
Issue: 12/13
Date: August 1998
Theme: Critical examination of Remote Viewing (RV), UFO research, and the use of hypnosis in alien abduction claims.

GULLS AND GULLIBILITY

This section critically assesses the burgeoning trend of Remote Viewing (RV), spearheaded by figures like Tim Rifat and David Morehouse. The author expresses concern that RV is becoming a fad, particularly among the 'X-Files generation,' and questions its validity, suggesting that the Fraudulent Mediums Act might be applicable in some instances. The article notes that senior figures from BUFORA have been impressed by RV and attended courses, including one run by David Morehouse, who was involved in scrapped US government research. Steve Gamble's article in 'Quest' and Richard Conway's account in 'AE 28' are mentioned, with Conway recounting two of Morehouse's cases involving alleged time travel.

One case described involves viewers travelling back to the time of the TWA 800 crash in July 1996. They claimed to have seen the plane explode and witnessed 'heads explode as well as bodies.' The viewers allegedly discovered through multiple sessions that a microwave weapon had been fired during a test, causing the plane's destruction.

Another case involved viewers travelling back over 80 years to witness the Tunguska incident. While experts suggest a meteorite or space debris caused the event, 17 remote viewers allegedly saw a rip open in the sky from which a structured craft emerged. David Morehouse reportedly described the pilot as a 'learner driver.'

The article points out that if RV claims were true, governments or individuals might pay for training. Tim Rifat is mentioned as charging £160 for a postal RV training course and describes RV's potential for 'human cruelty,' stating that Russia and China have deployed it as psi-warfare against Americans, enabling them to hypnotize, give cancer, or even kill people remotely.

Rifat also claims that American and Russian beam weapons are shooting down alien craft in a secret war to protect mankind, and that remote viewers can psychically spy on these UFOs and aliens, some from 'different dimensions.'

The British Association of Remote Viewing and Paranormal Research is mentioned as developing RV programs for personal development and an 'UFO reporting and investigative network,' commending the writings of Carlos Castaneda, Tim Rifat, and David Icke. They also issue a stern instruction to potential members: 'The Remote Viewing of United States and British security installations is forbidden to our members. We do not recommend the RV of Soviet sites kindly leave them alone to get on with whatever they need to do. You have been warned.'

The author questions why, if RV is a learnable skill, it is not used for straightforward, verifiable tests, such as identifying cars in a car park or the contents of a library shelf. The article suggests that remarkable events are reported only when they cannot be tested or verified, making it impossible for outsiders to prove or disprove the claims. The author posits that if RV were reliable, it would be used extensively to solve crimes, locate evidence, and provide crucial information for investigations, transforming law enforcement and potentially deterring crime.

However, the article concludes that RV claims are based in the 'fringes of the paranormal, in conspiracy theory, in the myth of alien intervention, in fear of a supposed New World Order.' These claims cannot be tested or checked, relying on belief rather than proof. The author suggests treating RV as 'a rather unpleasant and exploitative nonsense' until it can be proven and used for genuinely helpful purposes.

Alison's Balloon update - the GMC responds

This section details a correspondent's inquiry to the General Medical Council (GMC) regarding the use of 'recovered memory therapy' and hypnotic regression, particularly in cases of alleged alien abduction. The correspondent notes that people believing they have been 'abducted by aliens' often describe being taken aboard spacecraft and subjected to examinations, including insemination and the removal of hybrid fetuses.

These beliefs are often developed through regression hypnosis, controlled by abduction investigators who may lack medical or psychological qualifications. The justification for suppressed memories is that aliens implant 'screen memories.' The correspondent recounts an instance where a General Practitioner (GP) used regression hypnosis for an alleged abductee. The GP had attended a hypnosis course 'for dentists,' which the author presumes focused on hypno-anaesthesia rather than memory recovery.

The abductee became 'very distressed and frightened' under hypnosis, recalling being 'taken from her home into a black hole.' The author questions whether this use of hypnotic regression by a GP raises an issue of conduct, especially if the GP was paid for his services. The GMC's guidelines on 'Abuse of your professional position' are cited, stating doctors must not subject patients to treatment they know is not in their best interests.

The article references a British Journal of Psychiatry publication that finds 'when memories are 'recovered' after long periods of amnesia... there is a high probability that the memories are false.' The journal also notes that the creation of memories of alien abduction under hypnosis is suspect, and that individuals reporting such memories may believe them despite their 'semi-delusional nature.'

The GMC's response indicates they license doctors and aim to protect patients and guide doctors but are not positioned to judge the value or effectiveness of medical therapies, nor can they comment on specific cases without compromising future considerations. They do provide guidance on standards of practice and consider actions of doctors who put patients at risk.

The author contemplates whether to make a formal complaint, acknowledging the GP's potential motives and the possibility of genuine belief. However, the author suggests communicating to other researchers that doctors involved in regression for alien abduction may face complaints, and that if it's inappropriate for a doctor, it's certainly inappropriate for an amateur.

The Secrets that you Keep (and the ones you don't!)

This section delves into the 'real evidence' strand of alien visitation belief, focusing on claims of accessed hard information from official sources. In the USA, this is linked to the Roswell incident. The author expresses doubt that the US government holds significant answers.

In the UK, Tim Good, Nick Redfern, and Nick Pope are identified as prominent figures in the 'alien reality' spectrum. They are described as propagating the idea that Earth has been subject to persistent alien visitation, with the UK government possessing extensive knowledge and keeping it secret. The authors suggest these individuals profit from writing books based on this premise.

The quality of evidence used by these authors is criticized as consistently poor, mixing 'official' UFO accounts, anonymous 'unnamed soldier' material, and UFO reports from believers. Nick Pope is noted for his employment with the Ministry of Defence (MoD), which lends him credibility. However, the author questions the extent to which Pope's claims of access to MoD secrets are genuine.

A specific instance is highlighted where Nick Redfern, in his book 'A Covert Agenda,' quotes Nick Pope stating that the MoD has no appreciable 'UFO budget.' Redfern contrasts this with Timothy Good's claim, based on an academic source involved in secret MoD research, that in 1978, £11 million was appropriated for in-depth UFO studies. Redfern extrapolates this to suggest the MoD wanted 'in-depth' studies, a claim not explicitly made by Good or his source.

The author notes that Good cannot substantiate his unnamed source, and Redfern's claim about the £11 million being for studies is presented without proof and appears to be an embellishment of Good's account. The article suggests this is an example of 'self-hoaxing,' where believers build on each other's fears and beliefs.

Nick Pope's claims about his rank and responsibilities within the MoD are also scrutinized. Pope claimed his Executive Officer (EO) rank equated to an Army Captain, and a Higher Executive Officer (HEO) to an Army Major. The author, an EO himself, compares civil service pay scales and responsibilities with Army ranks, finding Pope's comparison misleading. The author suggests that if the government entrusted UFO liaison to a mere EO, it either has significant secrets to protect and hired someone ignorant, or it considers UFOs insignificant and filled the role cheaply.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine adopts a highly critical and skeptical stance towards claims of Remote Viewing, alien abduction, and government UFO cover-ups. It emphasizes the need for verifiable evidence and criticizes the reliance on anecdotal accounts, anonymous sources, and speculative theories. The editorial stance is one of questioning authority and exposing what it perceives as exploitation and misinformation within the UFO and paranormal communities. The publication advocates for rigorous investigation and transparency, particularly concerning the use of psychological techniques like hypnotic regression and the alleged involvement of government bodies in UFO research.

This issue of 'AW' (presumably a magazine focused on anomalous phenomena) critically examines the work and claims of Nick Pope, a former investigator of UFO sightings for the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD).

Nick Pope's Role and Time Commitment

The article begins by questioning the scope and intensity of Nick Pope's role as the 'UFO desk' occupant at the MoD between 1991 and 1994. It highlights Pope's own statements from his book 'Covert Agenda' and 'Open Skies, Closed Minds', where he describes his job as investigating UFO sightings. However, the author points out that Pope stated his UFO work only occupied about 20% of his salary costs, suggesting it was a part-time role, perhaps only one day a week. This would amount to a maximum of around 156 days over three years, reduced further by annual leave to approximately 135 days. The author contrasts this with Pope's claim in 'The Uninvited' that his 'rigorous official investigations' failed to uncover conventional explanations for hundreds of cases each year, deeming it scarcely credible that he could have conducted such a volume of work in the limited time available.

The MoD's Actual Objective

Drawing on a letter from Kerry Philpott, dated 4 November 1996, the article suggests that Pope's job may not have been to 'uncover any conventional explanation for what was seen'. Instead, Philpott explains that the MoD's primary objective was to assess whether UFO reports had 'defence significance'. This meant checking if sightings indicated a potential compromise of the UK Air Defence Region by foreign hostile military aircraft. The reports were examined with the assistance of air defence experts, but unless evidence of a military threat was found, the MoD did not attempt to identify the precise nature of the sighting. This implies Pope's task was more about national security screening than investigating the unknown.

Questioning Pope's Access to Information

The article raises significant doubts about Pope's claims to possess secret and sensitive information regarding UFOs, particularly concerning a potential UFO/RAF confrontation. The author questions how Pope obtained this information, suggesting it's unlikely he would have had the necessary clearance or access, especially after his promotion to Higher Executive Officer (HEO) in 1994 and subsequent move away from the Air Secretariat into Finance/Admin work. The author argues that in a large government department, access to such 'secret' material would be highly restricted, and Pope would likely not have had the 'need to know'. The article dismisses the idea that Pope could have accessed classified information without authorization, comparing him unfavourably to figures like David Shayler, and suggests that any 'secret' material he claims to have accessed since changing jobs should be rigorously scrutinized for its true source.

Source of Pope's Claims

The author posits that Pope's information is more likely to have originated from his 'new-found friends' in the UFO research community, rather than from official MoD sources. Pope's books, 'Open Skies, Closed Minds' and 'The Uninvited', thank numerous prominent figures in the UFO field, including Tim Good, Budd Hopkins, Whitley and Anne Strieber, and Philip Mantle. The article suggests that Pope, by leveraging his MoD background, has helped popularize the beliefs of these researchers, and that his own claims may be influenced by them. The author expresses caution in accepting Pope's information about alien reality or encounters as coming directly from the government.

MoD's Limited Interest

Further evidence of the MoD's limited engagement with UFO reports is presented through an extract from Hansard, August 1998. In response to a question about why the MoD installed an answering machine for UFO reports, Lord Gilbert stated that callers would only be contacted if 'follow-up action is deemed appropriate'. This suggests a passive and selective approach to public reports.

Subscription Information and Editorial Notes

The magazine provides subscription details for 'AW', with different rates for the UK and international subscribers. Kevin McClure is credited with copyright for the material. The editor also notes that he is currently overwhelmed with groundbreaking material from researchers worldwide and is working on a future publication, 'Secrets or Lies 2', which is delayed due to the volume of research.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The central theme of this issue is a critical examination of official narratives surrounding UFO investigations, specifically focusing on Nick Pope's tenure at the Ministry of Defence. The editorial stance is skeptical of claims of government secrecy and extraordinary access to classified information, advocating for rigorous scrutiny of sources and questioning the motivations and credibility of individuals who leverage their past official positions to promote specific beliefs about UFOs. The article emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between official defence assessments and speculative research.