Abduction Watch - No 15 1998

Magazine Overview

This issue of AW (Abduction Watch) number 15, dated 15 November 1998, is dedicated to critically examining claims of small objects being implanted into the bodies of people who allege alien abduction. The editor expresses a desire to reach a wide audience, challenging those who promote beliefs of alien control and psychological harm. The issue's technical and scientific input is largely provided by members of ASKE (Association for Skeptical Enquiry), the UK's national skeptical organization.

Alien Implants - A Chiropodist Speaks

The lead article, "Alien Implants - A Chiropodist Speaks," addresses an article by Dr. Roger K. Leir, published in the MUFON UFO Journal and UK UFO Magazine, which reported on the analysis of 'alien implants.' The AW editor contends that while Leir's article appeared in prominent publications without critical context, the implants are likely just unidentified material, not extraterrestrial. The editor notes that AW14's brief mention of Leir's article prompted more professional, scientific responses.

The editor characterizes the 'implant' myth as the "last refuge of the abductionists," suggesting that other abductionist claims have collapsed. Even Whitley Streiber is cited as admitting his 'implant' was not unusual. The article highlights that implants are a consistent element in X-Files narratives, used to persuade believers they are enslaved and controlled, thus needing the help of figures like Derrel Sims.

Leir's article is said to be based on analyses by Los Alamos National Labs and New Mexico Tech, but the report provides little from these institutions, instead offering a "confused apologia from a chiropodist." The editor quotes Skeptical Inquirer, noting that Roger Leir is a podiatrist, not a physician, and was assisted by an unidentified general surgeon for surgeries above the ankle. Leir's description of the first surgeries, involving two candidates with objects in their bodies appearing on X-ray (two from a female's toe, one from a male's hand), is presented. The editor points out these are extremities where splinters or foreign bodies are commonly found.

Comments from Trevor Jordan (Retired GP, ASKE Member)

Trevor Jordan critically examines the description of the foreign matter's encapsulation as a "dark gray shiny membrane" consisting of "a protein coagulum, haemosiderin granules and keratin." He states these are naturally occurring, with haemosiderin suggesting a rusted ferrous object. Jordan believes this is simply tissue developing around retained foreign matter and questions Leir's claim that this combination has never been seen before. He also notes that the lack of "fresh or resolved" inflammatory response suggests the body has isolated the foreign body.

Jordan addresses Leir's claim about the presence of "nerve proprioceptors" not found in deep tissues next to the bone, stating his understanding is that proprioceptors are universally present in all tissues. Regarding "solar elastosis," he explains it is evidence of UV exposure, usually patchy and normal, not necessarily indicating localized or excessive exposure. He concludes that Leir's lesions are likely natural phenomena, better explained than by alien intervention.

Comments from Barry Jones (Managing Director, ASKE Member)

Barry Jones reviews Leir's article, finding it full of "hyperbole and wild and fanciful descriptions," with "supposition and wishful thinking substituted for careful, thorough, scientific analysis." He suggests the article is partly designed to promote "the interests of Leir and others in the Aliens Business." Jones notes that while Los Alamos National Laboratories are mentioned, no direct quotes from their report are provided, implying the findings might not support Leir's claims.

Introduction to Jones' Analysis:

Jones introduces his analysis of the article, which deals with supposed "alien implants" examined by New Mexico Tech and Los Alamos Laboratories. He questions the extent of these organizations' support for the project. His analysis covers sample collection, appearance, physical state, and metallurgical analysis.

Collection of Samples:

Jones questions why results from seven other surgeries are not presented. He notes the first two subjects were described as "subjects of the alien abduction phenomenon" and had objects in their extremities, which he finds to be locations where foreign bodies are commonly found and where damage or detection would be relatively high.

He questions the idea that an advanced civilization would hide devices in such easily detectable places, suggesting that if implants were intended for hiding, better locations would exist. He also notes the reported "violent reaction" to touching the objects and pain experienced before surgery, comparing it to the sensation of having a splinter removed.

Jones dismisses the "lack of inflammatory response" as a subject of "numerous professional debates," suggesting no one else finds it remarkable. He also refutes Leir's "never-before-seen" hysteria regarding materials analysis, stating it's likely "never before reported" and not remarkable for a minor fact about biological tissue. He doubts Leir has a list of elements normally found in such circumstances.

Regarding "solar elastosis," Jones agrees it indicates UV exposure but finds Leir's surprise unwarranted, especially in New Mexico. He states solar-induced skin lesions are often well demarcated, a fact he knows personally from his own experience.

He criticizes the reluctance to name the "eminent scientist" and university that examined an object from a previous surgery, which was found to be "made of earthly material," suggesting this possibility is overlooked.

Appearance:

Electron microscopy photos of the objects show rough, irregular, flaky surfaces, not the smooth appearance expected of high-tech devices. Despite claims of "distinct and interesting features" like barbs and indentations, Jones finds them unremarkable. He notes one object was in two pieces, with a T-shaped part and an indentation, but questions the claimed "precise" fit.

He describes the "dark gray shiny membrane" covering bar-shaped objects, which resisted cutting. Jones questions why they expected to cut through "an ordinary piece of biological tissue" and criticizes the use of "shock" in a scientific investigation. He also dismisses the "complex cladding" of eleven elements as unremarkable, as many materials contain numerous elements. He points out that the membrane was later identified as protein coagulum, haemosiderin, and keratin – natural substances – questioning the build-up and mystery surrounding it.

Leir's claim that six specimens fluoresced under UV light, suggesting they were not metal, is challenged. Jones states many biological matters fluoresce naturally, including fungal growths, which could explain the fluorescence on abductee skin.

Metallurgical Analysis:

Jones criticizes Leir's comparison of objects to an "antique crystal radio set" and his leap into "pure science fantasy" regarding "structures" and "superatoms and neutrinos." He calls this "pseudo-scientific hogwash" with no factual evidence for circuitry or internal structure. He suggests the samples are mostly iron with a protein-based coating.

He describes the elemental analysis as "vacuous," with long lists of elements but no indication of amounts or significance, calling it an attempt to "blind the reader with pseudo-science." He argues that different compositions at different points suggest irregular natural material, not precision-made items.

Leir's surmise that samples might be from a meteorite, despite an incorrect nickel/iron ratio, is called a "baseless assumption." Jones explains that small, irregular fragments naturally show varying compositions, making the analysis meaningless for origin determination.

Leir's summary of findings – one sample with 11 elements, another with an iron core and iron/phosphorus cladding – is described as "hyped like evidence of the Second Coming" without explanation of significance.

Jones questions Leir's use of the term "magnetoconductive" for soft carbon, suggesting it's an attempt at scaremongering. He also points out a contradiction regarding an "iron core" being "harder than the finest carbide steel," questioning if it was indeed iron.

Leir's immediate contact with NIDS after tests, and their weeks-long response, is seen as indicative of a lack of seriousness. Jones senses that responsible scientists are trying to distance themselves from a "crackpot subject and its promoters."

Conclusion of Leir and Colleagues:

Leir and colleagues concluded the objects have a purpose, though not determined. They theorize possibilities like tracking devices, transponders, or behavior-controlling devices for monitoring pollution or genetic changes. The editor notes that details of any electrical engineer's theory are withheld, presumably for amusement.

Jones concludes by stating that the only way to satisfactorily answer these questions is for Leir to allow independent, peer-reviewed analysis of the objects, with public reporting of the results. He offers ASKE's help in facilitating this but doubts Leir will accept.

Comments from Jamie Revell (ASKE Member)

Jamie Revell presents the views of a Fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists and his own professional opinion on Leir's histopathological claims.

Alien Implant - Histopathological Commentary:

The pathologist consulted by Revell addresses Leir's claims of unusual histopathological features:

1. Lack of Inflammatory Reaction: Not unusual; foreign bodies can be encapsulated without significant inflammation.
2. Solar Elastosis: Well-circumscribed lesions are unusual but not unknown. Locations can be unusual but not unheard of.
3. Solar Elastosis Cause: While often linked to excessive UV exposure, it can occur spontaneously or be caused by other radiation forms (e.g., radiotherapy), not just UV.
4. Membrane Composition: The membrane (protein coagulum, keratin, haemosiderin) is consistent with a healed wound. Haemosiderin is a normal breakdown product of hemoglobin. Keratin is somewhat unusual but could be explained by calcified sebaceous cysts or keratin from the skin surface being pushed in.
5. Proprioceptor Nerve Endings: Leir mentions proprioceptor nerve endings found near lesions. The pathologist speculates these could be Pacinian corpuscles, which are widely distributed in subcutaneous tissue, including the periosteum (layer surrounding bones). Revell's research confirms Pacinian corpuscles are found in tissues near bones, such as the periosteum.

Revell also discusses other proprioceptors: Neurotendinous Endings of Golgi (in tendons) and Neuromuscular Spindles (in muscles). He notes Leir omits to define 'proprioceptive,' and questions how such nerve endings could be used to gather information.

Revell's qualifications include a Fellowship of the Institute of Biomedical Science and State registration as a Biomedical Scientist, specializing in histopathology. The consulted doctor was an MD and practicing consultant histopathologist.

Jamie Revell's Conclusion

Revell finds Leir's conclusion that the objects are "structured objects which serve a purpose" to be an inference not clearly drawn. He notes Leir's theories (tracking device, behavior control, pollution/genetic monitoring) are speculative and require scientific proof or disproof. Revell states that ASKE has produced a more comprehensive analysis in months than Sims and Leir have in years. He offers to arrange independent, comprehensive testing of any 'implants' in the UK, provided results are published. He also asks if anyone knows what Los Alamos National Labs and New Mexico Tech actually said about these objects, suggesting Sims and Leir are hiding this information, possibly due to funding from the Bigelow Foundation.

He concludes that people who believe in alien implants will have their lives blighted, and any effort to help them is worthwhile.

Subscription Information

Details are provided for UK subscriptions (£10 for 12 issues) and international rates (£5 for 5 issues in the UK, 4 in Europe, 3 elsewhere, sent by economy air mail). Back issues are available. Payments should be made out to Kevin McClure and sent to 3, Claremont Grove, Leeds, LS3 1AX, England.

Editorial Notes and Future Issues

The editor apologizes for the "dull typeface" due to needing extra space. This is likely the last issue before Christmas and the New Year. Future topics may include the "Nazi UFO" business and the Montauk Project. Thanks are given to Peter Williams and David Sivier for their comments. The editor looks forward to hearing from readers in 1999.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme is skepticism towards claims of alien abduction and associated phenomena, particularly the existence and nature of "alien implants." The editorial stance is strongly critical of sensationalism, lack of scientific rigor, and the promotion of unsubstantiated beliefs. The magazine advocates for independent, peer-reviewed scientific investigation and transparency, contrasting this with what it perceives as the "pseudo-science" and "science fantasy" presented by proponents of alien abduction claims. The issue emphasizes the potential harm caused by such beliefs to individuals.