Mutual UFO Network - MUFONET-BBS Network
------------------------------------------

John Komar DETERMINATION OF ABDUCTION CASES Copyright
State Director ---------------------------------- MUFON
1990

In a paper delivered during a MUFON UFO International Symposium,
researcher Budd Hopkins classified Abduction cases into five types:


Type 1: The abductee consciously recalls parts of the full abduction
scenario: The on-board experience, the UFO, it's occupants,
it's interior, and so on. (In a clearly related sub-group, the
abductee's conscious recall of this material is delayed.)

Type 2: The abductee recalls the UFO, the circumstances of the
encounter, and often the appearance of the occupants, but does
not remember any of the actual on-board experience. That part
of the experience registers only as a perceived gap in time.

Type 3: The abductee recalls only a UFO and/or humanoids, but nothing
else. He or she does not recall a time-lapse or dislocation.
(This type may include a good many so-called bedroom
visitations.)

Type 4: The abductee recalls only a peculiar time-lapse and/or
dislocation. No UFO is consciously recalled, nor is any other
part of the UFO scenario.

Type 5: The abductee recalls nothing of the usual abduction scenario.
Instead, there remain vague indications, ranging from the
"feeling that something happened to me", to intense, unnatural
fears of specific locations or sections of highway, to
physical wounds or marks of unknown origin, and includes
sometimes recurring dreams of a temporally un-anchored
abduction experience.


Type number five, which Budd Hopkins concentrates upon in his book,
"MISSING TIME", is believed to be the most common. This type also
presents the greatest challenge to an investigator. The descriptions
above can also cover many situations that turn out to not be actual
abductions.

How can a researcher determine which reports to pursue and which to
ignore, taking into account the limited knowledge of the topic by a
typical researcher, and the time constraints involved. Hypnosis in
itself is an expensive and time involving endeavor, not to be included
with the investigation of each case, as a determining factor of the
validity of the abductee, but only to be used as the extreme avenue
after much time and work has been expended during the initial
investigation of the case.

As a suggestion, we should consider each case in the "quantitative"
sense, weighing the details as the facts present themselves. The more
specific and detailed the facts, the higher the priority to be placed
on the case as a whole.

Asking the witness about any previous experiences or unusual
encounters, any physical marks or wounds not associated with any known
incident the witness can recall, possibly a recurring bad dream, could
add weight to the credibility of the case.

Each fact or detail, by itself, possibly would not provide enough
substantive justification to actively pursue the case, but coupled
together could provide enough detail and connecting information to
warrant the time expenditure required. Other considerations of the case
would be:

1. The volume and content of the information as it pertains to the
case.

2. The quality of that information.

3. Is the person who is citing the experience the only witness to it's
happening, or are there others.

4. The strangeness of the case, whether it be the facts as presented,
or the witness itself, or the location where the experience is
perceived to have happened.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---
þ Synchronet þ Rick's BBS telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23