Talk:Alien abduction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Paranormal (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


Sleep apnea[edit]

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 (talk) 08:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


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". (talk) 03:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Scientology reference in theories?[edit]

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)

old talk[edit]

Shouldn't this page be called "Abduction phenomenon", with a lowercase P? -R. fiend 02:47, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sexual reproduction procedures?[edit]

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)

Sexual reproduction procedures[edit]

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)

Poor quote[edit]

"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. (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)

Re-sited comments[edit]

Resited the following comment to here, as it is not well-phrased. It may be true, but is pure unsourced opinion and therefore more of a discussion point:
CORRECTION: 1. The contact/abduction phenomenon goes back to Zarathustra (Iran) who was confronted by entities which are extraterrestrials and they fly what we call UFOs. It even goes back farther then Zarathustra. 2. It is sad to see all these educated comments that they have no right to make or claim because they are using others good or bad experience with what were known as GODS in ancient times for their monetary gain. A visit is good for the good and bad for the bad and all of you are missing out on why we are here. 3. You should all stop referring our great ancestors as ALIENS. 4. CUFOS has no clue to what is going on our planet and to get an award for sharing others experiences is disrespectful.

Famous disappearances[edit]

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 for more as well. Martial Law 07:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Majority of ufo reports are from responsible people.[edit]

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)

Pictures and intro....[edit]

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

Hard Science versus Bullshit and Hoaxes[edit]

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: 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 (talk) 10:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

A personal theory[edit]

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. (talk) 06:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Another personal theory[edit]

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 (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. -- (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. (talk) 14:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


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)

Testable Alternative Theories[edit]

1. Detailed description/drawings from abductees in non-Western countries, preferrable with no/little western media infludence. This should provide a more lucid description of the type of abduction. Perhaps they have simliar experiences, but not by aliens--instead, something feared and unknown by their culture. Drawings would be important.

2. Subject people to hypnosis and "suggest" they were abducted by monsters, or something else than aliens, to see if a desired response can be elicited.

3. Someone mentioned above that perhaps its linked to anesthesia/surgical operations.

4. More research into sleep paralysis as a related phenomina; although similar in some ascpets very different in others.

5. Further studies into possible repressed memories of negative sexual experiences.

Article Request[edit]

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.

Where can I put this?[edit]

In the 1990's the very popular X Files television program featured alien abduction as a central theme.

It was just put up in the later developments section, and seemed out of place there.

A televised "Alien abduction".[edit]

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Notable figures section[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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
  • 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...
  • 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)

Not very good at all[edit]

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, Kelly Cahill, and Parker/Hickson abduction cases 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 (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Aliens, Abductions[edit]

This subject would predispose two things, first that their were in fact aliens, second that they really were {in fact} abducting anyone. Maybe they think that we're the aliens and we otherwise confuse and confound them?

But, alien theories in general would be very good cover stories for all sorts of unpleasent goings on. [1]

Alien Abduction in Europe[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 02:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, most of Europe interprets it as Pure Crazy. (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. (talk) 06:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

"Emergency room physician Dr. John G. Miller asks"[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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))

Wikipedia MALFUNCTION[edit]

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

Occult, Demon references[edit]

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. (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." (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 (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. (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
WP: Cvilil... right? (talk) 06:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

What will it take ?![edit]

Will it take some really famous person, a world leader abducted by aliens for skeptics to accept that someone/something has a interest in humanity, this planet ? Just curious (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC) :D

FYI, some physical evidence like a craft or a body would do it for me. I'm afraid celebrity abductions would be just as dubious. Jefffire (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey Jeffire, get a STRONG light, 10X+ binoculars and find a "UFO Hotspot". After making sure the target is not some kind of plane, use the light to signal the UFO. Some fishermen had done that and got abducted, examined by "insectoids", then their life went to hell in a handbasket, mainly due to some govt./military programming that is designed to keep them silent and suffering. (talk) 05:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm intrigued by this story about the fishermen. I wish to know where "" got this fascinating information - I'd like to know more! (Ericlord (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC))

I believe he's referring to the Allagash Abductions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

An American singer from the alternative scene who had a hit in Australia in 1989 claims to have been abducted by aliens. However, I don't know how true that story is, as it only seems to circulate in Australia. I've checked the web for references to it, and I can't find any from outside Australia. Maybe she only tells us because she thinks Australians are gullible! I won't tell you who it is, because of the Australian libel laws. I've told you when she had the hit, you can work it out from there! (I did find the story of an abductee who claimed to have sung lead on a hit single. It might be her, although the first name is different.) Eligius (talk) 06:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

That is a bit ridiculous. If she did make the claim, you should be able to find a source for it. It doesn't matter if they're just from Australia as long as they meet the reliable source guidelines. At any rate, the best that we would be able to include is "this person claims to have been abducted." If you don't have a source, don't bother making the claim and making someone else look for the source, much less make us figure out who the singer is! Ian.thomson (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's a famous person who does admit to having an abduction experience; American musician Sammy Hagar. Make of this what you will; Eligius (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I've found three websites that mention the singer's name, so I shall reveal it - Johnette Napolitano, lead singer of Concrete Blonde and solo performer. Her alien abduction was mentioned in the Australian publications 'Brag' # 377 (30 August 2010), and 'Rave' (12 October 2010). What I can't understand is that the story supposedly ran worldwide, yet I can't find any reference to it outside Australia. After all, this is a prominent singer who when with Concrete Blonde, had seven Top Forty Modern Rock hits in the United States, and is well known in Australia for her song "Joey," her regular touring, and her contributions to the soundtracks of Australian films. She's an established artist as well. You'd think such a high-profile abductee/experiencer would be, literally, "manna from heaven" to UFO researchers. I just wonder if it's possible the author of the Australian article got her confused with Linda Napolitano, another singer who claims to have been abducted? I guess Johnette has her reasons for not capitalising on her UFO experience.

Trash McSweeney, the Australian-born singer of the Los Angeles-based group the Red Paintings, claimed in another Australian publication, 'mX' (08 December 2011), that he can recall alien abductions happening to him between the ages of seven and fifteen. (Hmm - why are singers being abducted by UFOs? Something for you UFO buffs to investigate.) Eligius (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not an abduction (Close Encounter of the Second Kind?), but there's also the story of actor Jackie Gleason, who claimed to have been shown some embalmed extra-terrestial corpses by President Richard Nixon at Homesead Air Force Base in 1973. There's also a story that President Dwight D. Eisenhower showed Gleason proof extra-terrestials had visited Earth, and evidence of their existence. However, I don't think even UFO researchers place much credence in those stories. Eligius (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

American actress Fran Drescher claimed in 'mX,' 30 January 2012, that she and her ex-husband Peter Marc Jacobson had been abducted by aliens. She claimed the experience happened, before they met, in junior high school. They were "doing the same thing, driving on the road with our dads" when it happened. They both have a scar, in the same place. Her husband has a more prosaic explanation for the scar; it came from a drill bit, or from burning herself holding a cup of hot water. Drescher, however, believes the aliens programmed them to each have different explanations for the scars. Drescher also believes she has a alien implant. Interesting how it's always famous people in creative industries who get to be chosen for alien abduction. Eligius (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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. --omtay38 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))

Thoughts from Carl Sagan[edit]

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 (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)

Image copyright problem with Image:Communion book cover.jpg[edit]

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)


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 (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)


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[edit]

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 (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sagan Plagiarism?[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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)

Frederick C. Crews[edit]

If anyone is interested, Frederick C. Crews has published a series of reviews of books on ufos at The New York Review of Books - [2] not free unfortunately. There's also some back-and-forth that looks pretty juicy. [3]. This was also spammed at talk:ufology. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

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 phenomenonAlien 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)


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. (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)


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.

Blatant contradiction on psychological normality of abductees[edit]

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). (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Possible source[edit]

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)

"pro-abduction researchers?"[edit]

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 (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)

what total bullshit[edit]

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". (talk) 08:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC) (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. (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Great article! The Term EXPERENCERS is now used however![edit]

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)


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)

Sex of "experients"?[edit]

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...[edit]

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

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

Merge Main History Article[edit]

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?[edit]

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)

Therapeutical Hypnosis[edit]

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

Baron Davis[edit]

does his account count as a abduction-claim?
event occurs at about 55:20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paranoid Android1208 (talkcontribs) 11:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

No mention of Dr Karla Turner?[edit]

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)

A Skeptical Perspective on the Skeptics[edit]


May as well be added, because for some reason "skeptics" - not researchers - have culturally and with much too political correctness been allowed to spout preconceived theories that do not engage the strongest cases or the depth of research that is available, instead shoehorning cherry-picked data points into foregone conclusions (not hypotheses). To paraphrase Jacques Vallee, "it's not data that is scientific or unscientific, it's people (and their 'methods')."— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Or not, because the source you cited failed WP:RS as a WP:FRINGE source, therefore violating WP:NPOV; and assumes that the burden of proof is on the skeptics instead of the people making fantastic claims. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

And "Skeptoid" Internet magazine is not fringe? An Internet publication that regularly engages in pseudo-scientific "debunking" of fringe claims? Here is a fantastic claim made by skeptics: sleep paralysis=alien abudctions. Yet it's given top billing among these theories? That is most decidedly fringe!

There is zero evidence that sleep paralysis causes specific hallucinations with the specific subset invariant concomitants of 1) alien beings in the room 2) the immobilization of other sleepers in the room 3) floating, levitating, or passing out through physical structures such as walls and windows 4) into a UFO, with a very specific type of alien figures who 5) communicate telepathically 6) have large, deep black eyes and 7) engage in manipulative telepathic procedures aimed at eliciting or alleviating particular mental states such as 8) extreme fear and 9) sexual arousal and 10) perform semen-procurement procedures or in women gynecological or obstetric examinations 11) with a laparoscope, seemingly accurately described by normal people unfamiliar with this medical procedure who are 12) returned to their bedrooms with an hour or two of missing time and may 13) years later discover or uncover the above incidents, down to a single specific night or multiple specific nights in which 14) strange lights, landed craft, power failures - observable and observed by non-participants - also occur, many of which occurred during the 1960s and 1970s before the resulting invariant event structure was widely disseminated. This specific sleep paralysis event is all that stands in the way of serious consideration, for many people, of the alien abduction phenomenon, much of which is and has been reported by people who were 1) never in bed 2) wide awake the entire time 3) performing tasks, such as driving, that would have life-endangering consequences if sleep paralysis had really been involved. Please supply copious sources, free of speculation, that detail this specific subset of invariant event structures, particularly with reference to a testable and repeatable induction process that satisfies the standards of science so-called. The extraordinary claim that sleep paralysis=alien abduction phenomenon requires extraordinary evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Source? I don't just mean for the idea that that's something that all skeptics everywhere claim, I mean for the idea that actual alien abduction is a better hypothesis.
As for skeptoid, they're actually engaging in the scientific method and go with scientific consensus instead of justifying delusions with various causes by attention seekers. Honestly, if you think they're pseudo-scientific, but think alien abductions are true, you have less of an idea of what science is than Kent Hovind. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they "go with scientific consensus." Unfortunately, the consensus is informed by the consensus, which has not engaged the data but dismisses its implications out of hand and looks the other way. This circular reasoning is based pathetically on a specious argument from authority. The authorities on the issue are in the other camp! This attitude is not scientific. Because there is a paucity of interest in engaging the data in a scientific manner, the investigation has been left in the hands of a few people - largely, a successful and accoladed artist, a history professor, a Harvard psychiatrist, a professor of the humanities who died all too young - that have been willing to be pilloried in public for the sake of engaging the data in a scientific manner. As for the point I wanted to make, it was from Mr. Jacobs, the investigator, and pointed out the modishness (i. e. fadishness) of certain explanations which come, go, while the phenomenon continues, happily ignoring for instance popular culture, which "debunkers" desperately wish it would imitate so it would be obvious (it's anything but) that it's related to whatever is popular in theatres. The point ought to be allowed to stand. Jacobs is on a footing as sound as John Mack, the similarly pilloried professor from Harvard. I intend to make the point again when I have time, without further objection from the other editor. The source for the above is from an open-minded reading of those authors who are credentialed in the subject through - I cannot stress this enough - longstanding engagement with the data. They have reached conclusions opposite to those of the "consensus" - a euphemism for the willfully blind leading the willfully blind. The source for the edit I wanted to make was David Jacobs, who, as I say, is on at least as a respectable footing as Mack - the Harvard professor who was the subject of the academic witch-hunt he called "Kafkaesque." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, the consensus is informed by "abductees" having no evidence whatsoever for their claims and but often demonstrating problematic traits that make their testimony untrustworthy. It's the pro-adbuction-delusion folks that are living in an echo chamber.
If you do not have academic sources from peer-reviewed mainstream journals or similar books, you are of no use to this site and should leave. Wikipedia is not a general discussion forum, nor are we here for you to "right great wrongs" on. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence, corroborated by witnesses of those having missing time, people collateral to the physical event, independent testimony, witnesses to UFO activity at the time of specific abduction events, and physical evidence on the ground. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the material, rather than, again, dismissing it all out of hand while having 0 evidence that an "echo chamber" is responsible for the homogenous reporting of a specific invariant event without having any knowledge whatsoever of the phenomenon. Peer-reviewed work is not a criteria for this article. As for skeptoid as source, I have an example here of of a rogue author's being openly mocked for his ignorance of "real" "mainstream" "scientific" work - with a college of interested researchers from a number of countries. If references by interested researchers, by the likes of John Mack, who won academic freedom from Harvard to pursue his investigations, and David Jacobs, a retired tenured professor, cannot stand, this article should be a candidate for deletion. I do not, by the way, see a citation for "but often [sic] demonstrating problematic traits" - a categorical and unfounded claim if there ever was one. Adding citations by the few researchers in the field is anything but "righting a great wrong" - it's called adding references, citations, and NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Present mainstream peer-reviewed journals or academic books. What part of that do you not understand? WP:NPOV does not say we give equal validity to all viewpoints, especially if mainstream science says that delusions and lies about alien abductions and faked artifacts are not evidence of anything except human stupidity.
Again, present mainstream peer-reviewed journals or academic books, or I will delete all of your future responses and close this thread under WP:NOTFORUM. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Jacobs and Mack are academics. If you censor their work, which I intend to contribute to this article, you will have contravened your own standards. Delusions, lies and faked artifacts - present your peer-reviewed journal articles for each of these claims. I will proceed with the mainstream work of mainstream academics. "Human stupidity" is dismissive, ad hominem, and smacks of censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Mack denies physical abduction -- his research is into potentially spiritual visions that are rationalized as abductions, not abductions nor any sort of proof of them. Jacobs is not accepted as an academic, thanks to his totally faulty methodology. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

All I see from the criticism of Jacobs is that Clancy has criticized Jacobs (without examples) and that Jacobs (who, in his books, outlines his experience gained from faulty hypnosis sessions) has criticized Clancy [Wikipedia, by the way, is not a source]. John Mack, according to PBS, has stated that "All of [the abduction phenomena] has a literal physical aspect and is experienced and reported with appropriate feeling, by the abductees, with or without hypnosis or a relaxation exercise." "Literal physical aspect" seems only to imply that Mack declined to explicitly or necessarily attribute the literal physical aspect to alien agency. Note that Mack cites research "without or without hypnosis" - which Jacobs also states, and which his critics do not realize, understand, or refuse to understand, is constitutive of normal conscious recall. The methods are the same; Mack declined to rule finally on the agency responsible; Jacobs' conclusions are at least as valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:FRINGE. You cannot honestly describe the abduction claims are mainstream and/or supported by mainstream science. That we already have sources indicating that the idea of abductions is pseudoscience, and that we have sources pointing out that advocates of such claims are dismissed as non-academic is not citing Wikipedia, it is pointing out the mainstream assessment on these matters. In other words, Wikipedia presenting abductionism as either a delusion or lie is already sourced -- it is tendentious to ask for sources again, and then say that those mainstream sources are questionable just because they don't help you push your POV on this site. It is not tendentious to ask you to present sources for claims completely counter to mainstream science -- it is expected, because you're a useless POV-pusher that can't somehow get through his skull that his opinions are only considered plausible by a questionable minority at most, if not completely rejected by science. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Let the record show that despite arrogating competency to yourself in a field in which you have done little or no reading (notwithstanding the injunctions to others on your personal page) in the subject, you badly misstated Mack's position without adducing any evidence to support your simulated familiarity with the subject. I can honestly say that research, qua research; and data, qua data; are never unscientific in themselves. There is no 'mainstream' assessment on these matters, as far as I can tell. There are a few loud skeptics who refuse to familiarize them with the best cases, and support ad hominem attacks by injecting nebulous obfuscation ("sleep paralysis", when there is no evidence that sleep paralysis produces this striking invariant event, and often,as Mack states (loc. cit.) "These experiences often occur in literal consciousness. Not in a hypnogogic or dreamlike state. The person may be in their bedroom quite wide awake. The beings show up. And there they are and the experience begins. That they're not occurring in any dreamlike state." Where thorough research has been (a handful of researchers have risked real involved with the data - the attacks promote disengagement and contimination by engaging 'taboo' data - they will be cited. I have a day job, but I expect to see no vandalism and censorship (removal of sourced material) when I cite books written by the few researchers willing to be pilloried for engaging the data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Alien abduction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alien abduction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Parallels with false incest memories.[edit]

I am some what surprised that the parallels between these two issues has not been discussed: I find it noteworthy that in the late 1980's and early 90's many people who attended sessions with "Analysts" were told that the reason for their unhappiness was that they had repressed memories of being sexually abused as children often by their parents. The "evidence" was adduced under hypnosis. Within a few years, there were hundreds of similar cases throughout the US. Eventually, this came to a halt almost as quickly as it had started when the parents of the accusatory children began suing the analysts, and in many cases, proving that the memories were false. Apparently the professional indemnity insurers started to withdraw cover to defend against malpractice claims.

Within a few years, people who were now attending analysts were again being told that the reason for their unhappiness was due to repressed memories, but in this case, it was because they had been abducted by aliens. Again, this was adduced under hypnosis.

To make my point simply, so far, there are no reports of analysts having been sued by aliens, while cases of repressed sexual abuse memories are just as rare. (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

While interesting, Wikipedia doesn't use original research. You would need to cite professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources to support those claims. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The role of hypnosis[edit]

The paragraph headed "The role of hypnosis" sounds as if false memories were a far-out explanation and marginalizes its proponents. The article [4] is quoted as if it treated the subject the same way. But actually that article says "False memories can be created with or without hypnosis, and the role of hypnosis in their creation is likely to be quite small." So the misconception "most such memories are not generated under hypnosis" does not lead to the conclusion "therefore false memories are an unlikely explanation" but "that does not matter regarding the reason for the memories.

I would remove the "some skeptics" sentence entirely, because it is misleading in this context. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Beleive term for alien abductions has changed![edit]

Beleive the term now for "Alien Abductions" is "EXPERENICERS"?Not abductions! ThanksSTORMSTILLETO (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses the name that's most commonly used, particularly in professionally published mainstream scientific literature, not necessarily "beleive" literature. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Didnt see mention of C.E.R.O. Alien abduction group![edit]

C.E.R.O. Close Encounters research Organization, Founded by Hypnotherapist Yvennone Smith here in Southern California. A "theray" group for Abuctess. Think it may a nationawide group as well! Thank You!Swordandshield (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

We don't mention any specific therapy groups. Why would we mention that one? Meters (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alien abduction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)