Talk:Alien abduction/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sexual reproduction procedures

One view in ufology is that the main purpose of the abduction phenomenon is to create hybrids between humans and the alien type Greys. These hybrids are created through sexual reproduction procedures. During an abduction Greys usually collect eggs from women and sperm from men. They then create hybrids that are half Grey, half human. They may further create hybrids that are one quarter Grey, three quarters human or continue the process so that the hybrid is hardly distinguishable from humans. Under hypnosis there have been abductees that have recalled having sex with hybrids, but not aliens. Barney Hill 00:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Sexual reproduction procedures?

What do you mean by "sexual reproduction procedures"? Do you mean actual sex with the aliens? --User:Angie Y.

Reputedly, the aliens take the human DNA/RNA and splice it into their own DNA/RNA and/or into that of another creature. Martial Law 19:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Angie: In some instances, yes (e.g. the Villas Boas brothers case), but mostly by medical extraction. Some abductees have claimed that they have been told that their eggs/sperm were being utilised to create a slave race on the host planet; others have claimed that they were told that the purpose was to create an enhanced human race to replace us, as we have clearly failed to take proper care of this planet. In at least one case, the abductee claimed he was quickly rejected after being told he was too old to be of any use for breeding. MayoPaul5 23:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Pictures and intro....

I've added pictures and around a paragraph to the intro going into a quick description of basic abduction, What do you think? --Mahoga n y 20:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

DMT

I'd like to see more on the DMT theory. I have heard of it before and I understand there are real scholastic articles on it. I'd like a bit more knowledge of theories relating to effects of this chemical. --Spesek 19:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Famous disappearances

Why has nobody suggested that certain notable disappearances are the result of alien abduction - the Princes in the Tower, Marie Celeste, Lord Lucan etc? (Slightly tongue in cheek). What about the suggestion that (forget which) UN Secretary General was the subject of an alien abduction?

See UFO Casebook, then look for UFO Abducts Woman! Two CIA men, UN Delegate, Millions See it! Martial Law 06:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've seen other reports of this nature in which the reason people "go missing" is that some aliens eat them, especially the Greys, Reptilians. Go to www.maar.us for more as well. Martial Law 07:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Article Request

Can this and this be consolidated into a abduction article ? These discribe a woman who was abducted from her apartment in New York City by aliens. This abduction was witnessed by millions of New Yorkers, incl. two CIA agents, a U.N. Delegate, other VIPs, was investigated by Budd Hopkins. Martial Law 21:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The former link has a pix of the U.N. Delegate. Martial Law 21:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I sugest to add too some info about extrange OBJECTS INSERTED in the body (chips, metal ...). This is probably the MAIN PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of the phenomenon.

Majority of ufo reports are from responsible people.

I added the statement "The vast majority of reports from around the world come from sober, responsible people" to the intro because I have read in several different books that this is so, but cannot remember which specific books. Can anyone help with this source? One thing I read is that the majority of ufo-sighting reports are filed by aircrew, military personnel and policemen - trained observers all, with much to lose in sticking their necks out. Some government ministers including one French minister and at least one US president are amongst those who risked their reputation to file reports of their personal experiences. MayoPaul5 19:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think one problem here is that you have added a statement about reports of UFO sightings, to a paragraph discussing abductions, but you just say "reports". This gives the false impression to the reader that you are talking about abduction reports. Tex 23:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Accept your point entirely Tex, but said nothing of this in the article - only on talk page. MayoPaul5 22:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You say you added it to the intro, and the article history shows the sentence you have in quotes, see version of 05:31, 27 April 2006. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. What is it you are saying you said nothing of in the article? Tex 23:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Tex, I'm getting plain disoriented. Some other editor wiped the whole paragraph anyway, which I had just been trying to tone down, not wipe. MayoPaul5 18:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Ever hear about the Robertson Panel ? This and similar govt. protocol says that people who see/spot UFOs are to be ridiculed. I have a Popular Mechanics magazine that has a UFO on the cover that has some of this protocol in it, saying that, among other things, if you are a kid and see one, you are to be ignored outright. It was initated in 1953 by the CIA. Martial Law 07:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

How many people have noticed that the type of people least likely to see a UFO is an astronamer and amature star gazers?

Could it be because they know what they are seeing when they look into the sky and see something there, or is it just coinicence? (after all, there are very few stargazers in the world).

perfectblue 13:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Notable figures section

In the Notable figures section, under "Fiction," cartoon character "Homer Jay Simpson" is listed.

Can anyone can explain why Homer Simpson is notable as far as the abduction phenomenon is concerned? If not, I would elect to remove that reference. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks. Labyrinth13 18:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Alien Abduction in Science Fiction

Shouldn't these fictional abductions be listed in the article? Reading pulp science fiction mags was very popular in America in the 1920's and 1930. So much so that one Orson Welles terrified the whole nation when he claimed over the radio that the aliens had in fact landed...Colin4C 11:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Numerous massive problems

This is an important and highly notable phenomenon which has an atrocious clunker of an article. It's littered with unattributed or weasel-worded statements of fact on contentious matters. I have abstained from line-by-line tagging because I believe that the majority of article text should not be composed of maintenance tags. In addition, it has ugly and incorrect citation style, rambling and incoherent structure, and constant annoying interjections of "(see below)", "as noted above," etc.

Skeptics tend to doubt that the phenomenon occurs literally...

By definition, skeptics tend to doubt. This reads like an attempt to limit denial of abduction kooks to people like James Randi, it is at least as POV as "anyone with at least a tenuous grip on reality tends to doubt..."

few mainstream scientists believe ... some experts contend

Who?

Stigma and self-doubt may be obstacles...

Who says this? I had the impression that most of these people just love to talk about their abduction experience to anyone who will listen. The random personal stories on this talk page are a case in point.

Emergency room physician Dr. John G. Miller asks...

Prima facie, this is no more notable than what an electrical engineer has to say about particle physics, or what a 2rd-chair violinist has to say about symphonic composition.

Even hearing a tape recording of (or watching a video recording of) a hypnotic regression session can be a chilling experience, leaving little doubt to some observers...

Translation: "I like, totally saw this video tape, and it was crazyness OMG WTF LOL"

some argue that there is a broad, fairly consistent sequence...

Who?

some researchers ... have been accused of excluding, minimising or suppressing testimony or data...

What makes these researchers matter? Who accused them, and to what end did they say the data was suppressed?

"terror abduction" experience is reported mainly in the USA, while in the rest of the world, the ET encounters are said to be largely benevolent

How do we know?

this apparent incongruity perhaps raising a question as to the phenomenon's origins

Obvious original research...

mechanical failure and interference are also common, such as a car radio producing static or behaving abnormally. Such descriptions match that of an EM pulse...

Obvious original research, and I think that "aliens zapped my car" stories predate computer chips in automobiles by decades.

That takes me through the first two sections, maybe 1/3 of the article. I'm going to stop now to avoid spamming the talk page.

Eleland 04:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

A televised "Alien abduction".

A few years back a TV station aired a show that was supposed to be an actual video taping on an alien abduction. This family was video taping their Thanksgiving preparations when a UFO landed in their back yard. The aliens came after them and the family fought back, shooting an alien with a shotgun in the process. During their struggle it was revealed that they were previously visited by these aliens because there were electronic devices placed at the bottoms of the backs of their necks. Ultimately the aliens prevailed and the family was never heard from again; the last footage showing one of the aliens turning off the video camera.

Does anyone else remember this program? If so, what was the name of the family and the program? I would love to know if the were ever found in another state or country.

You're looking for Incident In Lake County, which was a televised fictional drama. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0142074/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.229.35 (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia MALFUNCTION

Wikipedia now accepts edits into the History section ONLY, NOT into the article. 205.240.146.37 (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"Emergency room physician Dr. John G. Miller asks"

What expertise does this person have to be quoted in an encyclopedia? I propose taking his quote out. We have no way to verify this, as its can't be checked out online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwinog2777 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Since no-one needs any qualifications to contribute to Wikipedia, it seems inconsistent to insist that a person quoted in the text should be qualified. In any case, what does it mean to have 'expertise' on this topic? What "emergency room physician Dr. John G. Miller" (whoever he is) has to say is neither more nor less relevant or interesting than anything else in this article, anyway! On the other hand, the context of any quote (a book, a talk show, an interview, a private communication...) in a Wikipedia article needs to be mentioned.(Ericlord (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC))

Hard Science versus Bullshit and Hoaxes

I would like to see all of Wikipedians over time do their best to put up all of the photos of the unclear and the grey and grainy UFO's that are quickly proven and discovered to be lauaghble hoaxes. Against all of the other possible photos tha were taken over the past 70 or more years that have been critically analyzed by experts and the truth and the information concerning those photos has not been confidentlly reconciled nor been boiled down. I remain skeptical about little green men and flying saucers. I think everything here on earth that flies in the air has been made by mortal men. But I figure that in a observable universe of trillons upon trillons of stars. Not every one of those cases can be isolated down to human deception and bull shit. Send e-mail responses to: Summerblynk@Yahoo.com Cuyahoga County, Cleveland, Ohio, 44109-4665, 02:09 AM, 20th July 2006 (UTC)

You would expect to get clearer pictures considering of the advancment in Camera technology. come on Hoax If there were UFos they would land in hevily denced areas to say were here. most of these people are nutters —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.72.227 (talk) 10:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Inadequacies of this contribution - and some GENERAL REMARKS ABOUT LINKS FROM WIKI ARTICLES

The literature on this topic has now become vast and labyrinthine. Attempts to try to summarise it in an encyclopedia entry are doomed to failure; whoever has attempted it here is to be commended for bravery and self-confidence. The result, unfortunately, is inadequate in very many ways. The references and bibliography in particular are woefully inadequate. (No mention even of Jacques Vallee, or the thought-provoking book 'Angels and Aliens' by Keith Thompson, or the investigations of Nick Pope in connection with his work for the UK Ministry of Defence, et cetera, et cetera [perhaps I'll insert these after I've written this...]), while some of the absurd 'skeptical' so-called 'theories' such as 'birth trauma memories' and 'sleep paralysis' are given undue prominence.

The links from specific words raise a more general problem of Wikipedia policy. The elaborate cross-referencing in Wikipedia ameliorates to some extent the inadequacy of reference lists and bibliographies. But sometimes this cross-referencing is so excessive as to be ludicrous. Surely, links to 'United States', 'university', 'fear', 'automobile', 'asparagus'(!) - to select a few at random - are TOTALLY out of place in an encyclopedia article on 'Alien abduction'. Wikipedia urgently needs a criterion for relevant links. (Ericlord (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC))

So fix it as you see fit. --omtay 38 17:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

OK omtay, I've had a go, but much more's needed on this article to remove bias. (Ericlord (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC))

Image copyright problem with Image:Communion book cover.jpg

The image Image:Communion book cover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I suggest that the article title "Abduction phenomenon" be resolved as "Alien abduction phenomenon" to more accurately denote the phenomenon from other forms of abduction such as kidnapping, hostage taking, and child-custody related abduction. Granted, the term "Abduction phenomenon" has been used in the context of "aliens" since at least the early 1990s. For example, the "Abduction Study Conference" held at MIT in 1992 omitted the word "alien" without causing confusion, perhaps since the event was by invitation only. However, within an encyclopedia context such as Wikipedia, the omission of the word "alien" leads to confusion with other forms of abduction. This would be easily resolved by a disambiguation of "Abduction phenomenon" to "Alien abduction phenomenon". 67.173.251.4 (talk) 03:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Carbamazepine

I believe this was the med that was cited. Anyway, in one part of the article it says there is a woman that was seeing strange beings around her bed every night and that she was given an antiepileptic and stopped seeing it. The author understandably concluded that she must have had epilepsy since she was given an anti-epileptic, but that not all people with epilepsy see beings around their beds. Anyway, it should be explained that anti-epileptics are only referred to as anti-epileptics when being provided for epilepsy, but when they are being provided for something else they are referred to differently. Indeed, many anti-epileptics are prescribed as antiphsychotic medications. In this case, I am assuming that when she told her Dr. about the beings he assumed it to be hallucinations and prescribed the drug as an antipsychotic. He may have told her "this is an antiepileptic" to make it less stigmatizing. Either way, I wouldn't necessarily assume someone to be psychotic for seeing beings around there bed at night. It is common around the world and is probably best explained by sleep paralysis and hypnogognic and hypnopomic hallucinations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.119.52 (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have a source saying that Carbamazepine was the drug given to the woman, please do wp:be bold and add this to the article. :) Abyssal (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Book

Nick Pope has written a book called The Uninvited (book) (I have a copy) and he mentions that the Greys have a rod shaped device, jet black in color, has a blue light on one end, is the size of a US standard No.#2 pencil. The entity uses it on abductees to make them more compliant. Can that be mentioned? Powerzilla (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That kind of thing goes here or here. :) Abyssal (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Forget the "aliens" red herring: recommended avenues of research

Research road number one: find the "alien" abductors: check geographical prevalences of "alien" abductions against geographical locations of major industrial and academic research facilities which specialize in biotechnology. (Suggested radius of 500 km.) Also against facility locations of transnational corporations which fund or have an interest in biotechnology, pharmaceutical, or genetic areas (examples include DuPont, Monsanto, Novartis, etc. etc.). Research road number two: find the "alien" craft: check geographical prevalences of "alien" abductions against geographical locations of military bases and installations, and locations of facilities associated with transnational corporations specializing in air or sea craft subcontracted to the military (example Bombardier). Research road number three: follow the money, people! How is it that so many skeptics, scientists, psychologists, news reporters, and otherwise intelligent people can continue to ignore this so-called phenomenon and dismiss sane people's claims as "collective hallucinations"?! C'mon people, wake up! No one believed the guy sent to spy on the Nazi concentration camps when he informed the top level government officials who hired him what he saw there. Througout history, whenever there is anything unbelievably evil and weird happening, there have always been human hands involved. Witch hunts, anyone? Gas showers? Slave trade? MKULTRA CIA secret brainwashing experiments conducted on unsuspecting Canadian mental patients, anyone? Wake up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.246.2.9 (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Frederick C. Crews

If anyone is interested, Frederick C. Crews has published a series of reviews of books on ufos at The New York Review of Books - [1] not free unfortunately. There's also some back-and-forth that looks pretty juicy. [2]. This was also spammed at talk:ufology. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sagan Plagiarism?

In the "Some Skeptical Perspectives" section, the text reads, "In The Demon-Haunted World astronomer Carl Sagan (who failed to cite some other authors, including Schnabel[citation needed]) pointed out that the alien abduction experience is remarkably similar to tales of demon abduction common throughout history." Earlier, I added the "citation needed" element, but I feel this is not enough. I visited the website provided in this quotation but it does not provide any evidence for the claim that Sagan failed to cite Schnabel's work or that Schnabel had come up with the idea before Sagan. The website is actually just a personal site where the user can read book reviews and blogs of Jim Schnabel. I find it highly dubious that an unknown young man like Schnabel had his work stolen from him by a then-elderly Ivy League professor like Sagan. If this claim of plagiarism is going to be implied, then I believe it is necessary for commensurate evidence to be provided. Seeing that, as of this writing, there is absolutely no evidence provided, I feel that the claim should be removed until further citations validating its veracity can be demonstrated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darmokandgalad (talk • contribs) 03:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Remove away. Abyssal (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I deleted it. If anyone has the burning desire to put it back up, then PLEASE PROVIDE EVIDENCE. I would like to see a citation that clearly demonstrates the claim before someone goes posting it back up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darmokandgalad (talk • contribs) 04:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I have Demon Haunted World, I'll check the bibliography, but it looks too much like a weasel worded way to criticize Sagan and claim credit. Pointless addition. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Schnabel is actually cited twice in the book. So in addition to being original research, weaselly and critical, it's also inaccurate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was Done. — Aitias // discussion 01:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Abduction phenomenon → Alien abduction — These collections of stories are not universally agreed by all sources to be phenomenological. Some "alien abduction" stories are akin to ghost stories or mythology and are not subject to phenomenological study. Also "abduction phenomenon" is ambiguous since it might be referring to any number of situations where real, actual abductions became rampant (such as in unstable politcal environments or the moral panic that surrounded stranger danger in the 1980s USA. The obvious title for this topic is "alien abduction". Please move it to it's natural home. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC) — ScienceApologist (talk) 04:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Oppose. Abduction phenomenon is the most neutral title. Not all paranormalist interpretations of alleged experiences make claims of aliens; other-dimensional, demonic, and "imaginal" explanations have all been advanced. Alien abduction also implies that aliens are actually abducting people; abduction phenomenon sounds more non-committal when it comes to non-mainstream claims. Abyssal (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Demonic abduction? "Imaginal" abduction? Original research abduction? Claims that "other-dimensional" beings are not "aliens"? You mau wish to rethink your comments as they come across a bit jejune. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  - The word "alien" usually refers to extraterrestrials. Since angels, demons, other spirits, beings from parallel universes, "imaginal" beings, etc. are not extraterrestrial lifeforms, and hence not aliens. Abyssal (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
    - Cite? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
      - I dunno, the definitions of the words perhaps? Demon: "An evil spirit" Angel: "A spiritual being superior to humans in power and intelligence; especially one in the lowest rank in the celestial hierarchy". None of those include any mention of extraterrestrial life forms now do they? Abyssal (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
        "Extraterrestrial" refers to anything that does not originate from Earth. Are you proposing that demons and angels in common understanding are considered to be from Earth? Since when are beings in the "celestial hierarchy" considered terrestrial? ScienceApologist (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
        When have you ever heard angels, demons, etc referred to as extraterrestrials apart from conspiracy theorists who believe the myths were based on sentient aliens coming for a visit? And what does this have to with the topic anyway? Abyssal (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
        You are the one positing that angels and demons are not extraterrestrial. For such a claim, you need a citation. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Support current title does not address the topic of this article, since the act of abduction (kidnapping) occurs all the time (for ransom, etc), and this article is not about those phenomenon, but of other ones. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 05:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Support We have an article on alien abduction titled abduction phenomenon? How does that make sense? The title should be descriptive and as unambiguous as possible. For a casual reader, the current title could be about anything from kidnapping to the Stockholm Syndrome and related conditions. On the other hand, alien abduction leaves no room for misinterpration. As far as policy goes, the current title is clearly ambiguous and not the most easily recognized name for the topic. Phil153 (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- "Alien abduction" itself is a misinterpretation, or at least an over simplification of the broad range of paranormal explanations. Just because the ET one is the most well known doesn't mean it's the only one. Abyssal (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Support The most common usage is preferred. Once moved, an interested editor can create pages for demonic abductions, interdimensional abductions, and imaginary abductions or anything else as long as it is well-cited. Seedless Maple (talk) 10:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Support. Alien abduction is where most readers would expect to find this stuff. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Thanks SA for seeking discussion instead of jumping the gun and such. :) Abyssal (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Could Abyssal's concerns be addressed by keeping this article and moving the alien content to the alien abduction article? If abduction phenomenon (i.e. false memories or fears of abduction, etc) are separately notable within mental health circles, then it could certainly deserve an article of its own with proper discussion of that phenomenon, perhaps with a subheading that links to the alien adbuction article? Phil153 (talk) 07:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think either mental health aspects or alternate paranormal explanations for the abduction phenomenon are seaparately notable. The threads are all too intertwined. Abyssal (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Alien abduction makes it sound, well, real. Alien abduction phenomenon strikes me as most neutral and descriptive. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Possible source

Anyone interested in expanding the page, They know us better than we know ourselves by Bridget Brown on google books, is a good source, by NYU Press WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Another personal theory

I consider myself an abductee in a sense, but i don't believe this phenomenom has an extra-terestial origin. I had this experience at the age of 8 or 9. Woke up in the middle of the night, feeling a presence in my bedroom. First thought it was my mum checking up on me, if was realy was a sleep and such. The room seemed exceptionally light, and the figure in my room was blurry, long and slim and hard to distinguish, i was sure there was someone/thing there and that is was moving towards my bed slowly. I tried to talk in a "mum?" fashion, but there was no sound coming out of my mouth. Tried to move, then i tried to scream, but nothing happend. The harder i tried, the more i paniced. I realy freaked out that night and slept bad for months. By lack of another explanation at that age i wrote it off as a realy bad nightmare, and after a while the memory faded and eventually completely forgot the incident. You grow up, watch discovery, read science magazines and learn of things like sleep-paralysis and 'electromagnetics fields can trigger out-of-body-, and pressence-in-the-room-experiences' (the experiment with the yellow helmet with spools in it) and such. I remembered my 'abduction' one day, and connected the old digital (always humming) alarm clock standing next to my bed with the results from the experiments mentioned above, enough explanation for me. Only later i realized that my experience matches 90% of the details of most 'abduction' stories i've read, heared and seen on tv. The bright ligt, the vage elongated figure in the room closing in and the absolute terror i found myself to be in.

I've never been abused or such, basically had no traumatic experiences in my life ever (my grandma passing away being the most heavy) and mentally i'm solid as a rock. I really think living/sleeping near electromagnatical sources (digital alarm clock, outlet in the wall, powergrid-lines close to the house, etc) would be a possible (viable) explanation. This is hardly ever mentioned with respect to this phenomenom; it seems explanations always have to have something to do with previous traumatic experiences, mental unstability, etc. Is there any research in this field anyone knows of? I mean, plotting all 'abductions' and comparing them to the powergrid map or something shouldn't be too hard. (disclaimer: no, i didn't do any extensive research, just occasionally read some stuff i happen to 'surf in to', so if there is lots on this, my bad) d_code 05:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you email me: sinamah@gmail.com (sinamah (at) gmail (dot) com) . Anyone else who has experienced an abduction, please email me. I am conducting research for a study and a book. Your confidentiality will be treated with utmost respect. --93.97.181.187 (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh. Soliciting people for emails off of Wikipedia based on anecdotal reports of 'abductions' does not equal research. 155.188.247.7 (talk) 14:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A personal theory

I'm not really into this stuff but it occurred to me one day while reading an article on Anesthesia awareness that alien abduction scenario's may very well be "inspired" by repressed memories of a surgical operation. A few striking similarities:

complete paralysis while being fully conscious
the operation table as the "metal table" of the aliens
awareness of a presence of beings (surgeons)
green and otherwise masked people performing "experiments"
excruciating pain associated with the operation in question

The impact of anesthesia awareness is obviously related to the degree of consciousness during the operation. There have been numerous reports of people being fully aware but paralyzed during heart or eye surgery. While traumatizing, these people know what has happened to them. But I reckon there are also a number of cases in which anesthesia was only partially obtained. The "victims" might not have been fully aware but left with traumatizing impressions nonetheless. It is possible that at some point or another in their life, these memories resurface and are miscontrued as an alien abduction. --Steerpike 11:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if these seems rude, but there's no need to formulate theories for the article. This is Wikipedia - it's an encyclopedia (of sorts) and so it reports on information. It isn't sopposed to create theoeries or explanations, we leave that to the sources. 67.77.70.139 (talk) 06:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Alien Abduction in Europe

This wiki cited that Alien Abduction phenomena in Europe is interpited as demon possesion, this is not the case since popular culture already caught up a long time ago, most parts of modern europe interpit it as alien abduction, there may be some Christian fundementalist that may interpit it as such but it is more rare so that statement was inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrOuNd ZeRo (talk • contribs) 02:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, most of Europe interprets it as Pure Crazy. 155.188.247.7 (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the old "Christian fundamentalist" slap. it gets old. This is an article on Alien Abductions, not someone's disagreement with a religious fundamentalist group. 67.77.70.139 (talk) 06:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Occult, Demon references

What the hell (no pun intended) is that shit doing here in this article ? The article is about alien abduction, NOT demonic possession. Sounds like govt. meddling in religion to help "debunk", i.e. ridicule people who have been abducted by aliens and insult religious people at the same time. 65.173.104.52 (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Because of that shit, Pat Robertson of the 700 Club, the PTL Club once said that,"Alien abductees should be stoned to death, because they're screwing around with The Devil." 65.173.104.52 (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely a sensitive thing, I think it'd help if the article mentioned only ONCE (instead of three times) that there's a similarity between spiritual hallucinations and UFO-related ones. The point is valid and shouldn't be ignored, but shouldn't be harped on either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Aliens or Demons? Two words for describing the same thing... One of the most difficult kind of alien to identify is the lucent incorporeal being called "Lux". "Lux" is a well and truly parasite, sometimes he/it tries to disguise as your guardian angel or as sillinesses like that. Well... Is it Lucifer a "Lux"? Answer by yourself.

You're clearly batshit insane. 155.188.247.7 (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

WP: Cvilil... right? 67.77.70.139 (talk) 06:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

"pro-abduction researchers?"

What, are there people out there saying "yup, we're looking into this matter, and by God if the Space Friends are kidnapping people and sticking instruments up their butts, we're in favor of it and we're going to help in any way we can?" This merits the lolwut pear, in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.148.105.4 (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the article meant "researchers in favor of the aliens-are-actually-abducting-people hypothesis." Does sound funny, though, doesn't it? Abyssal (talk) 04:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Great article! The Term EXPERENCERS is now used however!

the term Experencers is used now for UFO Abductions/Contacts. Good mention of Dr. Sprinkles research know the good doctor He has alot of interest as well in Paranormal effects there relatioin to the UFO/Abduction "experencie"ANDREMOIMOI (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)(11:24AMPSTCededMnJan4200921stcntEAJ)

Not very good at all

This submission is absolutely terrible. It would be nice if someone who actually knows what they are talking about, like David Jacobs or Budd Hopkins, would come along and rewrite the entire thing. That picture of the gray is especially hilarious. That thing has a broader nose than I do and the reports of Grays consistently indicate that they have basically no noses at all. Where are the truly good abduction cases in this submission? Where are the Allagash http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case466.htm, Kelly Cahill http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case187.htm, and Parker/Hickson abduction cases http://www.nicap.org/pascagouladir.htm? Anyone who takes the time to read an extensive account of any of those three cases and concludes that they are not legitimate is either A:) An idiot, or B:) In denial. There is no option C. Rubbish.

(Wickerman1972 07:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

Are you a moron? there is no such thing as a gray. Who cares what the picture looks like. You may as well complain about a unicorn picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.39.84.141 (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Implants

I'm very suprised that alien implants are not mentioned in this article. I'm not a believer per se, but I know enough about the popular concept of alien abduction to know how important this is to "proof" of the reality of such phenomenon. --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 00:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a separate article on it. I plan to completely revamp this article sometime in the coming months an would probably write up a section on it. Abyssal (talk) 03:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Scientology reference in theories?

I might be mistaken, but it appears there's a Scientologist explanation on the part about possible explanations, second from the bottom, re: memories of birth. It is lacking citation. It also uses some weasel words like "(one that is gaining widespread acceptance"); this really isn't true. It's not scientifically viable, neo-nates don't have developed enough vision or senses, let alone memories, to encode something like that and recall it as traumatic. I have seen the theory before, but I believe it was a scientologist theory and should be both labeled as such and have the "widespread acceptance" tripe removed - it's psychologically ridiculous. I've deleted it on the grounds that upon rereading it, it's so slanted and unsupported that it simply doesn't belong. It touts itself as "one of the most comprehensive theories" as well, but without any support or scientific rigor. MrKeith2317 05:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

One could say much the same on most content in this article.--Aaronsdavis (talk) 02:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Poor quote

"Emergency room physician Dr. John G. Miller asks "How can a person have any firmly held belief about this when it's so mysterious? The opinions of the true believers are hard to swallow; and the opinions of the die-hard skeptics are not based on reality either. There is some middle ground ... It's clear that this is some sort of powerful subjective experience. But I do not know what the objective reality is. It's as if the evidence leads us in both directions."

Emergency room Physician? Why does his opinion on this matter? He says nothing that his stated field(Physician) would give him any insight into, and the article does not elaborate on why he is any sort of authority in this matter. Why not quote Emergency Sewer Cleaner John Smith:"All Alien Abduction people are nut-jobs."? Pretty much the same thing as far as I'm concerned, except for the fact that John Smith is right and John G. Miller ain't.

Sounds like the Robertson Panel and other govt. sanctioned protocol, such as state they're nuts or lose your job. Martial Law 20:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC) :)

On this topic, anybody's opinion is as valid as anybody else's - as long as it doesn't conflict with the evidence. "Emergency Sewer Cleaner John Smith's" opinion does. It's important for the success of Wikipedia that people learn something about a topic before cluttering Wikipedia's talk pages.(Ericlord (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC))

"On this topic, anybody's opinion is as valid as anybody else's " the implications here for wiki would be horrendous. Encyclopedias are meant to avoid opinion as much as possible. As to whether a statement conflicts with "the" evidence, who's evidence? Most of the content of this article conflicts with evidnece from biologists, physists, psycologists, nuerologists etc. Even if the Emergency Physician had treated abductees, he would still hardly be qualified to comment on such a broad topic, ie. how the whole topic of alien abduction should be analysed.--Aaronsdavis (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

What you've written makes no sense. Actually, it's an appeal to false authority. The fact that he's a doctor (an apparently VERY deluded doctor at that - one that I certainly would NOT want to be visiting) has no bearing on his wacko beliefs, and yet it is presented so that people will say 'OH, a doctor thinks this!' Very manipulative. 155.188.247.7 (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

"the opinions of die-hard skeptics are not based on reality either" this alone is so biased (yet cleverly disguised by the apparent fair tone of the Dr) it should preclude the reference from the article. Ive met professional counselors who believe in the wackiest of conspiracies; their status alone deserves no special attention.--Aaronsdavis (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Sex of "experients"?

The Thoughts about Carl Sagan section of this discussion page includes the following remark:

"This...theory explains...why abductees are 90% female."

I don't recall encountering any reference in the article to distribution between sexes. Whatever the explanation for the purported experience, it would seem to me significant, and it ought to be easy to verify. Can someone who has looked into this provide some sourced data here or just insert it directly into the article? TheScotch (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's more like 60% of abduction claimants are female. There's a definite skewed sex ratio, but I don't remember it confidently off the top of my head and don't have a reference handy. Abyssal (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok people...

What would you do if I can explain whole this phenomenon?--78.30.170.35 (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not accept original research. Abyssal (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts from Carl Sagan

Perhaps this quote could be integrated in the article?: "The aliens seem strangely backward in biology for all their advances in physics, if you take it seriously. Why are they doing breeding one on one at such a slow pace? Why not steal a few humans, sequence our DNA, look at variations and make whatever genetic engineering changes they want. We almost have the ability to do that. It seems naive in terms of molecular biology." - Carl Sagan, Nova On-line 84.48.35.203 (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The "classic" answer is that the aliens are trying to produce a new self-sustaining population so require the generic diversity that only widespread abduction can obtain. An army of clones would be riddled with disabilities by the second or 3rd generation. However the idea that humans can breed with aliens is absurd. Humans can't even breed with fish, so they have no chance with aliens. If the phenomenon is real (big if) then the abductees are being bred with each other, presumably selected for some desirable trait(s).

A rather complicated multi-generational theory of abduction could be produced in which an initial group is abducted and genetically engineered to have some traits in a "switched off" form (genes not expressed.) This first group would be released into the human population and a few generations later when there are hundreds of thousands of "carriers" these are rediscovered by random abduction (and area saturation abduction when a carrier is found to locate all his/her relatives) and these descendant abductees are being bred with each other, with the switched off genes being re-enabled during the in vitro fertilisation stage. Fetuses are either raised entirely outside the base human population, or perhaps allowed to gestate in abductee human females for a few days/weeks before being harvested.

This multi-generation theory explains UFO flaps; explains opportunistic abduction and explains why abduction seems to run in families, and of course also explains why abductees are 90% female.

Then all you need is a theory to explain why a "new-human" population is required, especially a population which is large enough to breed true rather than being genetically swamped if it co-habits with base humans.

One might also speculate that the existing human population came about by the same process. Darmot and gilad (talk) 13:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Some researchers claim some people with Rhesus Negative blood carry alien genes, the result of their ancestors being spliced with extra-terrestial DNA in the past. Some researchers have noticed it is common for UFO contactees to have Rhesus Negative blood, suggesting aliens are coming back to check on their "work." Or so some people believe ... Eligius (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge Main History Article

The bulk of the main History of alien abduction claims article is already a copy-paste of this section. Suggest merging the additional information which has been added there back to the section here, and redirecting. --Haruth (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Image need caption?

Hi, I think the image (of the UFO abducting a human) needs a caption, as it is currently un-captioned.

Charon77 (talk) 11:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Sleep apnea

I don't see any discussion about sleep apnea here. If I didn't know any better, I would have thought that I was abducted when I woke up unable to move or even open my eyelids... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.236.132.225 (talk) 08:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

what total bullshit

The fact that this article treats alien abduction claims with even a modicum of seriousness, is a good reason why so many parents steer their children the hell AWAY from Wikipedia. The discussion page is even worse.

The article should state, right up front, that this is a bogus, nonsensical topic, right up there with the Flat Earth hypothesis. That is not POV. It's just sanity.

YES I AGREE, this article should just redirect to "Sleep paralysis". 105.236.132.225 (talk) 08:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

68.198.150.179 (talk) 05:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)captcrisis

Gee, maybe we should put text in the article to the effect of "Few mainstream scientists believe the phenomenon literally occurs as reported." Perhaps write that suppossed abductees "claim" things happened, but give more definate authority to those mainstream scientist's rejection of abduction by using words like "explain". And it'd be a great idea to give the skeptical view of alien abduction it's own section. Oh, wait, all this is already in the article. Hm... I wonder if people with half a brain are going to be able to read this and still be able come to the conclusion that there is no evidence for alien abductions on their own? No, of course not.

Explaining what people believe, even if it is wrong, is not advocating that belief. Showing how this belief is incorrect without bluntly putting "This is stupid, derp dur dur" is not the same as saying "this belief is true, derp dur dur."

Also, if you want the right to bitch about Wikipedia, YOU FIX THE ARTICLE. That is something Wikipedia has over encyclopedias, something wrong with an article will be fixed. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

As the primary contributor to the article, I agree with Ian. I don't believe that aliens are anal probing people, but that doesn't mean claims made by proponents of the idea cannot be thoroughly and impartially documented. If you think that the mainstream scientific perception of the abduction is underrepresented, then add more information. I was adding info piece-by-piece and sentence-by-sentence from a single, generally pro-ufo source, so of course the skeptical position is generally lacking. However, I added info from the skeptic's chapter early on to provide some balance. There may be some minor neutrality issues as well because I stopped adding as many "allegedly"s and "claims to have been"s as I should have as they became tedious and were significantly slowing my progress.

Beyond that, I think my coverage was thorough and objective. Overall, I got through about 140+ pages worth of information until I decided to discontinue editing paranormal and pseudoscience related articles because people like yourself demanding that article quality and comprehensiveness be compromised because it documents claims you personally do not ascribe to. Sadly my decision to discontinue working on paranormal-related articles happened prior to my having a chance to add information from Susan Clancy's book. Maybe if people like yourself had allowed me to proceed in peace you would find the article's current state more satisfactory. Abyssal (talk) 03:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Eh. I think the article is neutral enough, despite the general tinfoil-hatterry of some of the guys on the discussion page. 86.46.219.106 (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Therapeutical Hypnosis

It is confusing that the description under the header of Therapeutical Hypnosis is not a presentation of the therapeutical use of hypnosis, but rather is a presentation of the skeptical theory of why hypnosis used in alien encounter research may create false memories. Therefore it seems that either this section should be retitled to something like "Arguments Against the Use of Hypnosis" and moved into the Perspectives > Skeptical Perspectives section, or, it should be rewritten to present both the proponents' and opponents' view of hypnosis is in regards to memory retrieval (and be retitled "The Role of Hypnosis in Recollection of Alien Encounters" or something like that. If there is any call for a section that actually described what the therapeutical function of hypnosis is - presumably relief of trauma - that should be written, but as it stands that is not what the section currently contains.

206.124.30.34 (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Blatant contradiction on psychological normality of abductees

The first paragraph of the overview section discusses the apparent psychological normality of abductees as a group, but the first paragraph of the abductees section states, "As a category, abductees have some psychological characteristics that render their testimony suspect," and continues along this line.

I recommend gathering the contradictory statements into the same area of the article and discussing the disagreeing opinions on the psychonormality of alleged abductees. Someone more knowledgable on the subject could perhaps discuss the credibility of these divergent opinions. For example, the Elizabeth Slater study used only nine participants, hardly a large sample population. However, no info is given on the methodology of the studies that contradict this conclusion (except that one included over 60 participants), so they cannot be considered more credible from the info provided in the article.

WikiVisitor400 (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. To balance this one-sided section, I've added a study of similar size (10 subjects) to counterbalance the Slater study. The counterbalancing study is by an avowed skeptic, Richard J. McNally of HMS, but it balances the Slater study. Can't get more neutral than that as a citation, and its addition makes the section neutral (presenting both assertions). 98.245.119.71 (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Baron Davis

does his account count as a abduction-claim?
http://thechamps.libsyn.com/nba-all-star-baron-davis
event occurs at about 55:20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paranoid Android1208 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

No mention of Dr Karla Turner?

I may have missed the ref to Dr Turner's work, but Dr Turner spent decades studying Abductions and wrote the Book 'Taken'. She was one of the most respected researches of Abductions. Johnwrd (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)