Kidnapped by UFO's?

DEAR NOVA:
John (Valez) was on Art Bell's Coast to Coast along with Budd Hopkins on last Friday nights show concerning this show, them calling the production a sham and dishonesty.

John clained that in another letter to him, after he said he would undergo ANY tests (physical or psychological or other) that the NOVA producers would want, and there was no follow up. Concerning the MRI tests, he said later, in another later that NOVA would not undergo a person to any radiological examinations unless it was needed for some other medical condition. Was John lying? I will be watching, and taping your show tonight, as I have recorded Art's interview with Budd/John concerning these matters.

Really, by just saying "well this LOOKS like fungus" or "I'm sure these scoops marks can be attributed to daily life, cuts, bruises".. Did you investigate any of the purported landing sights? Did you ever take any soil samples to be analyzed in a third-party lab? Did you ever, with a third-party doctor do medical examininations of these "scoop marks"? Did you even physically interview Mr. Valez? From the radio interview, the only 'interview you had with him' was watching him on a video tape, of matters, such as him under hypnosis, and then you or Klass, or whoever, saying "oh he is obviously faking it or imagining it."

But let me assure you, I will be giving this production tonight my fullest attention and see if what Budd and John were saying is accurate. Again, you claim all efforts at "doing tests on abductees went to no avail" yet John said he offered to undergo ANY test including MRI exams to his body, it didnt matter. But was refused. Who is lying here? Who is being dishonest? Who on your "panel of experts" wasn't a "debunker" or "non- believer?"

There is much more I would like to say, but I will watch the show and get back with you. I look forward to receiving a reply.
Charles Evans


DEAR NOVA:
I have seen them in my house. They are real... In the program you come to the concluision that the whole thing is a result of "implanted memories" by those who study and help these people. The truth is that the people like me remember with out hipnosis. I have never been to a hipnotist. I my self donot beleve that hipnosis is a solid meanes to anilize what is happining in the lives of people like me. As a guide it my be usfull, but srill the consistensy of detale in these stories from normal recall coflicts violently with normal explinations. Nova didn't payatention to what every one was saying.

They came into my house! I saw them the the first time. Then I saw them again. The second time I saw them I I wasn't the only one; a woman in my house thought she saw gosts, the thing about these gosts is that they acted like aliens. She said the "gost" pressed the buttion on the CD-player, in the morning I saw it opened she was scared... Then I bought a book and after reading it for a littl while I came to a placein the book where I read a sequence of events that had happened to me. And then anuther person had a "veary real dreem" thet aliens were staring down at her when she was sleeping, she had that dreem two nights in a row then nuthing. Thats Three people in one house... Ther is no conventional explination for what has happened to the people in my house. If you put alien abduction in the context of all the other things that have to do with this subject only idiots (end of message)
Victor Valles



DEAR NOVA:
I have been watching Nova for many years and was under the opinion that open scientific research was the basis for this program. After viweing this episode I have come to a different opinion. I do believe the Star of science is loosing it's shine. Their was little to no science involved in this show. It was based more on opinion that scientific facts. I did not see any Mri's,X-rays,Soil sample studies, Videos,photographs,or numerous other sources of information available to anyone wishing to do hard Science. You should have done you're home work on this before airing you're ignorance to millions of viewers. Many respected scientist say their is a core to this phenomena that cannot be so easily explained away. You look into scientific research such as the work of Jacques Valles, Bruce Macabee, and those of Mufon.

You have trully shown that science is not at the core of some of you're programing. It makes me wonder how many other shows are based on opinion rather than any science. I feel you ment to harm those involved with this field of work rather than offer up any data. Many people have had day time experiences look at the hundreds of sightings in Gulf Breeze Florida, They continue today, or the hundreds of thousands in Mexico that are not reported here in the U.S.. I regrefully have to say I will never look at you're show with the same respect.

You could do you're selves a great favor by firing the producer of this show, and writing an appology to all those who have been hurt by this type of slanted opinion, and make a real effort at doing a hard science based show. This should have never made it past the cutting room floor.
Regretfully yours,
Dan Cox
Dayton, NV



DEAR NOVA:
After looking forward to this program, I must admit I was very disappointed. Although I am well read in this area, I am not a "true believer". What was the point of this show? Rather than being about alien abduction, it seem to be more about methods of analysis and the dynamics of group therapy. No doubt the members of Bud Hopkins' groups are lead to interperate their problems in terms of alien abductions, but probably no more Freudian psychologists lead their patients to see their problems in sexual terms. If the subject was really alien abduction, what about the significant number of people that report detailed abduction experiences without any hypnosis? What about the reports of abductions witnessed by third partys, again reported without hypnosis? An impartial analysis of this type of data would have said a lot more about the abduction phenomona itself than this program. This program did not seem to live up to your usual standards of analysis and reporting. Agai! n, what was the point?
Jerry Bishop
Springfield, MO



DEAR NOVA:
I'm pretty much convinced that it's all happening in "inner space" as Carl Sagan put it. The question is, why are so many people having this same psychic experience? I think I'd be less concerned if spaceships actually did land. Elizabeth Loftus also does research into false memory syndrome in abuse cases, many of which are also the result of confabulation. Could there be a link? People seem to want so desperately to blame some extraordinary power for their problems, be it aliens or the parish priest. Maybe it's time we simply started accepting responsibility for ourselves.
Micheal Blair
Montreal, Quebec



DEAR NOVA:
After watching your show I now know that I have been abducted by aliens! They are my 4 alien children. Help! They are coming for me, they are screaming, they are crying. Great show! Keep up the good work.
Allen J. Thoma
Alameda, CA



DEAR NOVA:
I find a disturbing trend that relates this phenomenon to other "false" memories. (Repressed memories of childhood sexual or "ritual" satanic abuse, previous lives, etc.) It would seem that the suggestibility of the human imagination is the primary culprit in all such instances. I was impressed by the professionalism of the psychologists that refuted the claims of the supposed abductees. Why didn't we hear from them in programs dealing with repessed memories? Am I the only one that thinks that the individuals profiled in the Nova and Frontline programs relating experiences of "repressed" memories appear as , well, less than believable? Give me a break! Aren't the lives of these people full enough that the fabrication of these stories is unnecessary? An aside: Carl Sagan, in this program, bears an uncomfortable resemblance to the aliens in question..........
Charlie Collier
Colleyville, TX



DEAR NOVA:
Three cheers for Nova's look at "alien abductions". I'm sure you are going to get lots of feedback from people berating you for being "closed minded"—but what could be more closed minded than denying the tremendous human capacity for self-delusion? I'm especially glad that you raised the important point that people like Mack and Hopkins are possibly doing a great deal of harm to the people who come to them looking for help.
Alan Bawden
Cambridge, MA



DEAR NOVA:
After viewing your show on alien kidnappings, and listening to the various experts concerning the inplanting of hypnotic suggestions, I still find some of the cases compelling. For instance, in the case of Betty and Barney Hill, in 1963, Mrs Hill describes a procedure which, on the surface, describes an amniocentesis. A procedure which did not as yet exist. I find it interesting that while some "victims" may be delusional or highly imaginative, others seem to suggest that something extraordinary may be taking place. I call upon our elected officials to investigate, although I suspect some of those authorities may already hold some of the answers.
With Best Regards
Charles Roman
Manlius, NY



DEAR NOVA:
Normally when I think of Nova I think of a scholarly scientific program with a respectable reputation. I will no longer think of it in this way.

Your recent show on alien abductions was a discrace. Without having any proof at all, you viciously spread false alligations that Bud Hopkins led his patients into saying things that didn't happen. I find it funny that you say Bud uses very subtle things to make people create a certain feeling in their mind, and then you go and do the same thing. Those cheesy 1950's sci-fi movie posters in the backround and the announcer's tone of voice only suggest one thing: "You're a buffoon if you believe in UFOs. If Carl Sagan and the rest of the uptight, close-minded, orthodox scientific community says that aliens don't exist, they can't possibly exist. After all, they're God Almighty, and they know everything in the universe."
Justin Alfs
St. Paul, MN



DEAR NOVA:
I'm amazed how people need to explain subconscious feelings, even with something as implausible as an "alien abduction". I have often become conscious while still asleep, while my body remains immobilized. It is a disconcerting feeling at first, but eventually your brain wakes the rest of your body up. Being a person who talks in my sleep, I've often tried to call to my wife while in this state. She tells me that I just mumble, very difficult to understand me. But a quick shake, and my body get's in synch with my mind. I hardly call that experience an alien abduction. In fact on a couple occaisions, I've realized I was in this semi-conscious/dream state and decided to just enjoy the feeling, rather than snap out of it.
Just my opinions. best regards,
Jose V. Sabas
San Francisco, CA



DEAR NOVA:
This show did not provide a strong rebuttal to claims of alien abduction (as, e.g., a show a few years back rebutted "Chariots of Fire" by interviewing the creator of Velikovsky's alleged alien artifacts, who said he cooked them in mule manure to make them look old and fetch a good price from Velikovsky). Besides calling the abductees hysterical, the show ought to have considered questions such as where could aliens have come from (I suppose they must have Warp Drive) or why is it so very unlikely that they would come to Earth to hybridize.
Mark Duigon



DEAR NOVA:
Bravo for "Kidnapped by UFOs." In my opinion, telling a person their "abduction experience" is real rather than imaginary is akin to telling a paranoid schizophrenic "Relax! There's nothing wrong with you! We've decided you really ARE Napoleon Bonaparte!" Some therapy. I wonder how the alleged "alien abduction therapists" will fare when the legal profession finally recognizes them as a juicy target for litigation on behalf of those they've harmed.
Bob Imrie, DVM
Seattle, WA



DEAR NOVA:
The Nova production entitled "Abducted by Aliens?" was in many ways an excellent documentary. The material was developed with the usual high quality characteristic of Nova. I did feel that is some cases, however, the tone was overly skeptical. Frequently, it seemed to be a mistreatment of what actually seems to be a significant mystery.

In your documentary, you appeared to miss several key aspects of the phenomenon. The are as follows:

1) Cases of Multiple Independant Witnesses: There exist a number of cases in which abduction(s) occured involving multiple independant witnesses. A number of these are well documented in sightings databases of the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) and the Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS). In some cases corroborating witnesses verify one or more aspects of the experiencer's story, lending a high degree of credibility to at least part of the experiencer's report.

2) Physical Corroborating Evidence: A corroborating aspect of many experiencers' stories is the frequent appearance of physical evidence of the alleged ET craft. These include matted vegetation, burn marks and other changes in the local environment.

There was specific reference to ground traces in Budd Hopkins' books "Intruders" and "Missing Time". I was quite suprised that you overlooked this. Many of physical evidence cases are well documented in the literature of private research organizations such as MUFON and CUFOS.

3) Commonality of the Experience: A third aspect of the phenomenon which is neglected, (especially by those who advocate the "false-memory" hypothesis) is the general consistency of the accounts. Similar descriptions of "gray" aliens, the interior of the craft, the medical examinations, etc. all suggest that these are not fabricated in the experiencer's imagination. Rather, many researchers suggest that indicates that there is actually a real and very pervasive phenomenon occuring. (though not necessarily actual/literal ET abduction).

Many researchers into the topic keep secret some key details of the phenomenon, which they use as "checks" for commonality among experiencers. Another recent integrity check is a new code of ethics among abduction researchers. This specifically addresses the isue raised in NOVA regarding the planting of false memories.

Many researchers besides John Mack and Budd Hopkins are active in this area. For those interested, I suggest looking at the work of David Jacobs, and of the MUFON abduction research project.

Conclusion: In my view, one can not nceessarily assume literal truth in abduction reports. However, from reading the literature (both supporting and skeptical) my conclusion is there is more to the phenomenon than the NOVA documentary would have us believe.
Thank you,
- Craig R. Lang
Minneapolis, MN



DEAR NOVA:
Having detailed statements of the principles of your program gives one a chance to delve deeper into the issues raised by the show. I find it very useful, since the program is only an hour long and must be edited, some areas may only be touched on.
Keep up the good work!
David Skirmont
Santa Barbara, CA



DEAR NOVA:
I am a neurologist, and it occurred to me that some of the physical manifestations described by "abductees" resemble the effects of narcolepsy. These include sleep paralysis, and hypnagogic hallucinations. A few years ago, I contacted Dr. Mack, and proposed donating my time and labor towards the testing his patients by simple electroencephalographic techniques. He merely stated that this was impractical. So much for belief in the scientific method! Normally, a physician and scientist should be more analytical, and yearn for the true nature of a disorder.
Ethan Russo, M.D.
Missoula, MT



DEAR NOVA:
I read a rebuttal by Budd Hopkins that states that none of the physical evidence (scars, marks etc.) was presented on the show. The show did present a somewhat one-sided explanation of hypnotic suggestion and sleep-paralysis as an "explanation" for UFO abductions. I would liked to have seen more information on the magnetically induced hallucination experiments. I also think that it would be appropriate to have interviewees shown in silhoutte.
John Poltrack


DEAR NOVA:
I was quite disappointed in the non-real slant you put on alien abductions on your recent nova telecast. You should rebroadcast the show with some of the HARD EVIDENCE that IS available such as alien implants that have been removed and dissected and seen as alien. Also look at the scoop marks on many of the abductees, the missing fetus (at about 8 weeks) symptoms, and the landing location abnormalities. If you are going to report on a phenomena at least give the public ALL of the available information.
Best regards,
Bill Nagle



DEAR NOVA:
I really enjoyed this show, and thought you brought up some very interesting points about UFOs as cultural icons in our society. It also is good to expose those who prey on this phenomenon for profit. However, just because there are crooks in the field does not mean the whole concept is invalid. I, for one, continue to believe that "we are not alone". Your program demonstrates that there are some who can't wait for the real evidence. Thanks for a jop well-done.
Pat Deluhery
Westfield, MA



DEAR NOVA:
I cannot BELIEVE your show! You absolutly DESTROYED your image of a straightforward science show. You started your show with that Hard Copy opening... then distorted the facts! You made the abductee's look like total claudes!

You must have 'forgot' to include the part about marks on abductees bodies.... Sound Recordings of abductions... how the hell can you have Issac Asimov on saying it's all hallucinations! He offered NO proof of his theory.... NONE! You also cut a lot of the interviewing with the investigators to make them look like all they did was show pictures to little kids and implant suggestions during hypnosis. I will never be able to think of your show as a objective science program... not after this.
Ian Dahl
Franklin,Mass.


DEAR NOVA:
I watched your program on alien abductions on February 27 and I enjoyed it very much. The subject of aliens and other phenomena has always interested me and I was wondering if you would know if there has been any UFO or alien sightings here in Toronto,Ontario?
Daisy
Toronto, Ontario


DEAR NOVA:
This program was truly a breath of fresh air. I have seen little against the preposterous presumption that aliens are "kiddnapping" unsuspecting victims before tonite. Hooray for intelligence I say. It was about time some one answered the cry of intelligent life in the universe (read tv viewing audience) and put an end to this hogwash. Thank you very much.
Walt
Moorestown, Nj


DEAR NOVA:
Thank you for your excellent program on UFO abductions that made clear the suggestive techniques used by the UFO therapists. Countless families are being destroyed by therapists who use the same techniques to induce a belief system in their patients of ufo abductions, recover memories of past lives, or childhood sexual abuse. The sad part is that the thearpists can't see what they are doing so the problem continues.
Robert Langley


DEAR NOVA:
Great balanced presentation. You took the time, and effort to intellegently consider the various facts and explanations. You did this without insults, or personal attacks. Balance takes time, and effort to explore by talking, and thinking, and talking again. It also requires compassion for all the people involved. Thanks for your effort.
Jim Jaeger
Sacramento, CA


DEAR NOVA:
Let me begin by saying that I am not a "believer" nor a skeptic. I feel that I must state this to avoid being labeled unstable, or worse. It is puzzling to me that a show that supposedly uses scientific method to research its shows would not do so in this case. Carl Sagan, if I am not mistaken, is an astronomer. This hardly gives him the credentials to make psychological judgements on the state of mind of the people featured in your show. It is also my understanding that you would only feature those people who would show their faces on camera. This alone reduced the number of credible whitnesses by over 95%.

I am extremely disappointed at your coverage of this issue. Clearly, this show should have been titled, "Hypnosis, Fact or Fiction" as the last half of the show tried to show the unreliability of hypnotic method.
Tracy J. Brown, P.E.


DEAR NOVA:
Just saw the show: abducted by aliens, Your presentation was well done and well thought out! My response: As an ex air traffic controller on more than one occasion i was brought into a meeting room and told to forget things that I had witnessed only 30 or so minutes earlier. most radar operators do not come forward with actual items to prove what they saw is because they do not own it! Some have signed the national secrets act and can go to prison for even talking about something that may generate public interest. The general public has no idea of what can happen when you are employed by omnipotent agencies with working knowledge of events! What it basicly means is given enough rope an unskilled person may hang himself accidently. A most alarming statistic is the amount of so called normal persons that suddenly start to suffer severe phobias in less than one year after holding posistions controlling information labeled harmful to the public.

I spent 11 years in the service industry in las vegas and on more than a few occasions have physically witnessed out of the ordinary things! Why did all the electricity go out of my car and flashlight one night driving from vegas to carson city? Why have travelers reported to vegas hospitals with "sun burns" on only one side of their face? I could go on but my purpose is not to instill conjecture.

The rebuttle you offered was also well thought out and of course an important view! Chat sessions on the net are full of this subject. I have personal thoughts on all, my question is: How come we have never returned to the moon? Perhaps we will get there when mankind exhausts the plentiful resources of this blue marble we live on?

In closing perhaps the issue of why the public is not ready to handle E.T. info is like a parent trying to explain the brain to a newborn, they are not ready for it, nor can they comprehend it so why tell them about it until they are ready? Perhaps this is the message that is so well protected! I will gladly explain it for you when you are ready!! Please, more shows that offer the fine dialogue /debate as this.
Jay Perrin
Wells, ME

DEAR NOVA:
I would just like to say that I was really disappointed with the way that you guys handled the show and overall topic of abduction theory and experiencers. Now I am in no way, shape or form an expert on the subject, but I think that because I have been studying the subjects for around eight years (I am only 18), that I know a little bit about it. From what I could tell you made no attempt to even state that there might be a small chance that people are being abducted by extraterrestrials. I can't help but tell you how frustrated this made me.

Now I realize that as a show dedicated to science you mainly hope to show people a scientific view on the subject but please be a little more compassionate. From what I saw, your program neglected to mention certain facts that would seem to go against the "scientific", or should I say skeptical, view on this topic. How do you explain the odd marks, scars, bruises, and cuts sometimes found on abductee's bodies? How do you explain the concept of "missing time" when there are no chemical factors to cause blackouts, or other lapses in memory?

Something that really bugged me was the fact that someone was so devout to their beliefs in science that they had to try and ruin Dr. John E. Mack. Hasn't the man suffered enough criticism already? I mean come on, the man almost lost his ability to teach and practice psychology simply based on what he believes. These are Ivy Leaguers, people that we are supposed to look up to?

Now, I realize that a lot of people may think that I am gullible, and I really don't care what they think. I don't normally speak out on this sort of thing, but I have seen what this phenomenon does to people. I volunteered with a support group for a number of weeks, and I am considering going into the field of psychology and maybe specializing in helping experiencers get on with their lives. But I am not going to sit back and watch these people, abduction researchers too, be branded as inane nitwits.

You should know, more than anyone that people reject or fear what they do not understand, and I admit that sometimes abductees are phonies. Look at Whitley Strieber. He made millions of dollars off of his book "Communion" the film, and subsequent books. I have all of the books that he wrote about his abduction experience, and from the beginning I could tell that he was lying. Finally in the foreword to the 1993 book "The Omega Project", he admitted the fact that he had, in fact, never been abducted by aliens.

I don't mean to gripe but it seems that we have lost sight of why the science of Psychology was created. Besides the fact that it allows us to understand human nature and ourselves collectively, it is important that we use this science to help one another. What I am getting at is simple, no matter what the cause of an experiencer's mental duress and anguish, they need help. No matter what is going on to hurt these people, we are not doing them any good by rejecting them, and I applaud people like Budd Hopkins, and John E. Mack for helping those in need, no matter what the circumstances. Thank you for your time.
Caleb Armstrong
Silver Spring MD


DEAR NOVA:
Kudus to Nova for presenting a balanced view of this topic, however unbeleiveable. I have a real problem with the "therapist" who questioned the children of the women who said she was kidnapped. My 2 year will agree or disagree depending on the day and the only thing this man accomplished was to "put" a scary memory into their impressionable minds. I hope the children do not have nightmares in the future and if there are aliens taking people away a message to them - Please take these "therapists" and don't bring them back!


DEAR NOVA:
While I am not surprised at the tone of your recent NOVA entitled "Kidnapped by UFOs", I believe that it was very misleading. It was obvious by the manner in which it was edited that the producers had gone into this project with a very biased view of the topic. A program presenting an opposing view would balance the scale, but it is highly un- likely that it would receive approval. This is the reason that the topic has ended up on tabloid programs, where a fair and concise presentation of the subject is unlikely to occur.

While I would be the first to admit that much in the genre is questionable, this topic was important enough to result in the scheduling of the Abduction Study Conference at M.I.T. in 1992. Many of those who appeared on your program were also in attendance at that event, and their arguments were presented for all to consider. To reduce the information that took three days to present to a single hour of programming is a disservice to the viewers and WGBH.

In addition, those who are affected by these events in their lives deserve more respect than was shown. A review of psychological journals will show a large number of articles that have been written on this topic. While they are usually skeptical of actual abduction scenerios, there is an understanding that those who are thus affected must learn to deal with their "pain", no matter what the cause. For a psychologist to declare that they should be told that it is all in their mind shows a lack of understanding of modern therapy techniques and a need to defend his own view of reality.

I would suspect that many of the letters you will recieve will be much more vocal than this one, but I wanted you to know that at least one viewer will watch NOVA from a different perspective.


DEAR NOVA:
The exploitation of certain persons' suggestibility by a writer with a profit motive fails to surprise me, but the actions of the Harvard psychiatrist (psychologist?) are appalling. Human memory is image-based, reconstructive, and updateable (otherwise, we would not adjust, for example, to continuing to recognize our acquaintances' faces as they change over time). These attributes make human memory rather easy to trick. This case of assisted self-deception is a parallel to the whole phenomenon (which I believe Nova has also investigated) of "recovered memories" in which therapists purport to help their clients work through their problems by helping them recover blocked memories of child- hood sexual abuse. The harm being done, in my opinion, violates the Hippocratic oath. Unfortunately, many therapists are not physicians and not bound by that oath.

Watching the writer interact with the young boy was chilling—he used his power and authority as a "friendly" adult to nonverbally guide and elicit the child's responses; he gave unmistakeable body-language clues as to what was the "right" answer, and the child clearly temporized as he struggled to decode those cues and give the answers that would gain the authority figure's approval.

I am glad Nova covered this topic, but I fear that it will only lead to even more people coming forward as fodder for this grisly grist mill! What would be nice is if it lead to more people "going undercover" with fabricated stories so as to hold the perpetrators of this fraud up to further public scrutiny and possibly ultimately bringing it to a halt.
Bernadette Freedman
Philadelphia, PA


DEAR NOVA:
The Nova installment of 2/28 was much less balanced and objective than I expect from PBS. The presentation that proof of UFO phenomenon and alien abductions lies entirely within the realm of hypnotic regression is akin to claiming that the moon landings took place because we saw them on TV. That there are claims of hard evidence, in addition to conscious recollections, is left entirely untouched by Nova. In fact in your show it is left to assume there is nothing but nebulous hypnotic regression.

One would have believed that "Kidnapped by UFOsî finally proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that alien abduction stories are all imaginary and the studies by Mack and Hopkins are garbage. The sometimes incredulous tone of the narrator (yes, it was apparent) did demonstrate just how turbulent this field of study has become.

Dr. Mack and Bud Hopkins are portrayed as men with an agenda, a desire to prove that this stuff is real and believe no other explanation is acceptable. Yet the scientists interviewed are presented as neutral and skeptical investigators concerned only with science.

Robert Baker of the University of Kentucky is an avowed UFO debunker, yet this fact is omitted. Michael Persinger of Laurentian University makes no secret of the fact that in the sensory deprivation experiments he conducted, attempts were made to influence the results of an otherwise neutral and vague feeling resulting from temporal lobe stimulation, (i.e. adding the cross with the chants and pictures of earth with music from an SF movie), influences Mack and Hopkins insist they avoid. And Persingerís claim that the overwhelming number of abduction stories are coming from creative, artistic types is simply not borne out by the statistics. Working class men and women make up the majority of the cases in UFO literature. Elizabeth Loftus is a debunker of sexual abuse revelations through hypnosis, yet this is not revealed by Nova. Once again, in her shopping mall experiment, images and events are deliberately suggested, something carefully avoided by Hopkins and Mack. (In fact in Dr. Mackís studies, a previously believed case of sexual abuse seemed to be rooted in the subconscious recollection of an alien abduction, and this fascinating revelation is never mentioned).

If you will, within the context of your show, there is a subtle implication that the deliberate suggestion of alien abductions is part of Mack's and Hopkin's repertoire. A series of hypnotic sessions where the hypnotist is suggesting images and scenarios is a far cry from showing a conscious child a picture an asking an opinion. Does the woman who set out to expose Dr. Mack by faking her experience and claiming his belief in her prove he's a fraud? Or does it prove she is a sociopathic liar who can fool a professional? Or does it prove she's incapable of dealing with her own subconscious recollection of an abduction? Who is qualified to judge? This kind of proof by entrapment has been attempted time and time again, yet the question still beckons: Is skepticism science and an open mind an undisciplined one?

Interestingly enough, Dr. Mack's belief that human experience and recollection can provide proof to some degree, is the most controversial aspect of this entire issue. Only Carl Sagan offers the point: is this happening in outer space or the inner mind? Does science devalue human experience in favor of hard tactile evidence. Mack, and others, most notably Dr. Jacques Vallee, believe that human experience with this phenomenon is ageless. Whitley Streiber described it as evolution acting on humanity. This aspect is a major part of the so-called alien abduction scenario and you ignore it in favor the more sensationalist tabloid filler.

Finally, as easy as it is to argue that popular media is influencing the increasing reports of alien abductions, it can be argued that the increasing media attention makes people more comfortable about coming forward with experiences they would otherwise have kept to themselves for fear of ridicule. Does the media's willingness to explore issues create them? Are more people today claiming to be gay because the media put the idea in their heads or is the open portrayal of gay issues making people feel more comfortable about being open? This association between popular science fiction and alien abductions and UFO's is a lame one and overdone.

It is no longer an issue as to whether or not this stuff is real, or are these people naive or delusional. To much data has emerged over the last fifty years about UFOs and alien abductions to disregard the subject out of hand. It is time for a real investigation into this phenomenon, free from the preconceptions of aliens from other worlds or hoaxers and the belief that all is what it seems. Belief is not science. Neither is debunking.
Richard Olsen
Brooklyn, NY


DEAR NOVA:
One thing seems abundantly clear to me: the UFO abduction memories come from the same place the false memories of early childhood abuse are coming from. The similarities are striking:

1. Both involve "examinations" of the most invasive sort, 2. Both become more detailed with hypnosis (which the hypnotizer naively assumes are details being "recalled"), 3. Both exhibit uncanny resemblances to common myths currently in circulation. Note how the child abuse hysteria started around the time Ed Meese's report on pornography made people aware of the problem; how UFO abduction stories started in the 1940s, the beginning of the space age; how in the middle ages there were no alien abductions but instead the invasive "examinations" with imagery strongly influenced by religion; etc. etc. etc.

It's all the same story. There is clearly an interesting phenomenon going on which is much more common than expected but this has nothing to do with aliens, mean sprites, or evil parents.

I am not an expert on any of this but just browsing in a good bookstore shows there is a lot of research currently going on in the area of False Suppressed Memory Syndrome but this research is tightly focused on the false memories of child abuse. I think the area should include UFO abduction memories as well. Both are two sides of the same coin.

As far as the UFO abduction "research" as demonstrated by Budd Hopkins goes I have a couple of words: "appaling," "pathetic." The scene when he shows sketches of alien's head to a child was unbelievable. I bet James Randi would have a field day with this. Small children are *extremely* eager to please adults and they will pick on *any* cue (body language) to supply an answer the "researcher" expects. This urge is so strong a small child can even supply "evidence" against own parents (this is what happened in one famous fake sexual abuse case here in San Diego a couple of years ago. It took several weeks of a so-called psychologist's sessions with the child and she ended up inventing all sorts of nonexistent details.) Why did the boy think the alien looked "bad"? Well, one obvious answer (to me) is that as drawn the alien wasn't smiling! *WHY* on planet Earth did Budd Hopkins interpret the boy's answer as an indication of anything?
Jan Bielawski
San Diego, CA


DEAR NOVA:
Having watched the program tonight, it is my opinion that you did a hatchet job on Budd Hopkins, John Mack, etc. There was a clear bias in the presentation of the topic, with supportive evidence ignored and misleading information presented. As it happens, 30% of abduction cases involve conscious memories, not repressed memories. The program stated that no physical evidence existed, yet a number of alleged implants have been recovered and analyzed. As for Carl Sagan, he has never investigated a single abduction case and therefore has no knowledge of the abduction phenomenon. You've put together a program which presents a distorted, biased image of the phenomenon. This is hardly scientific, and comes across instead as propagandistic. Shame on you!
Dan Pinchas,
Darnestown, MD


DEAR NOVA:
What a wimpy, tentative, indecisive,presentation with all of the emphasis of a wet tissue on the part of the supposedly educated and learned scientists. Why were they so lacking in conviction -were they afraid of being abducted for saying that it is one big science fiction mass hallucination? You had great material, sensible arguments, logical conclusions and explanations and it came through totally bland, blah and wishy washy. The two myth perpetuators Mack and Hopkins, who are obviously profiting monetarily by this sci-fi charade they preach had more emphasis than all the others put together. Loftus should have had more to say, Baker should have explained hypnogic states more clearly, and Sagan sounded like he didn't want to offend anyone.Your intentions were good,and I had hoped to be able to use your video in my teaching but with my limited knowledge I can argue more forcefully than your scenario conveyed.We need more skeptics, more exposure of quackery and New ! Age mumbo jumbo and less walking on eggs. Many thanks for trying - next time give it some pizzaz. regards from a skeptic and curmudgeon, captbarb
Captain Barbara Wilson, USAF (Ret)
St Augustine FL


DEAR NOVA:
I want to compliment the producers of "Kidnapped by UFOs?" for having made an excellent analysis of this phenomenon. Once again, NOVA has proved that it is a serious scientific program by approaching the issue of the "kidnappings" in a rational ,rather than sensationalistic manner. Indeed, the alternative hypotheses to explain the phenomenon were presented objectively and in the end, it was clear that it was more reasonable to seek explanations that related to the human psyche than to aliens. GOOD JOB!
Alexandre Prunier
Montreal,Quebec,Canada


DEAR NOVA:
Once again NOVA has produced a program where its bias is clear. NOVA would do better to stick to subjects which are of a scientific nature and lend themselves well to the kind of scientific reporting NOVA does well. If your mind is already made up and you are not able to present a balanced view leave the subject alone, particularly if there is no way to prove the subject matter from a scientific point of view one way or the other. In other words stick to what you do well, stick to subjects that lend themselves to sound scientific treatment and leave your biases out of your programming.


DEAR NOVA:
Your program has been one of our favorite for years. We have regarded them as an honest glimpst into the difficult area of science. Your program on UFO ABDUCTIONS however left no doubt in our minds just where your interests lie. It would appear your sponsors Rayethon annd Merck are critical to your funding. What happened to honest discourse about a very important subject? We are dismayed to think that NOVA would present such a complex topic w with such unscientific and blatently biased retoric. Please do not let thihis become the norm for your programing. We support PBS YEARLY with a donation. We hope this letter is enough to let you know not everyone buys your conclusions.
Bill & Tina Packer
Wyoming, Michigan


DEAR NOVA:
As a long time PBS supporter and viewer of NOVA, I must say i'm disappointed with the UFO Abduction broadcast. I found it to be a very weak production with similarities to the current negative political atmosphere. There was no *direct* (face to face) point, counterpoint as on the PBS News Hour - only the _experts_ weak opposing points of view. I would have preferred constructive dialog instead of a one-sided adversarial approach. The experts' experiental anecdotes paled in comparison to the intensity of the abduction victims.

The silliest segment was with the narrow-minded Carl Sagan. Holding the view that because we don't receive electromagnetic signals from outer space, that the ongoing phenomena has no basis in reality is ludicrous! One has only to recall the experience of Gallileo, for instance - remember the other scientists of his day didn't want to break out of their narrow-minded confines either to even *consider* or explore his theories.

If someone in the 19th century was informed of radio/tv possibilites, could you imagine their skepticism? There could be other forms of communication beyond what we know today. It's a shame when the four _commercial_ networks treat these areas of research with a greater open-mindedness than PBS! Must be the funding cut threat that has warped your sense of direction and faireness!
Regretfully,
Steve Hopper
San Diego, CA


DEAR NOVA:
This is a tricky and subtle subject. Belief can distort our sense of reality going both ways. The true believer in abductions finds it too easy to interpret what witnesses say as representing physical reality but the "objective" scientist is too easily satisfied with explanations in terms of "leading the witness" or other psychological explanations The program was so busy demonstrating 1950 flying saucer movies that it missed the problem of consistency between abduction accounts discovered before this topic became so popular. There are some published cases that are hard to explain in that multiple witnesses agree on what they independently experienced. The issue of hypnotist contamination has not been explicitly demonstrated through line by line analysis of case transcripts. I am waiting for such a study and until I see it I will withhold judgement.
Ted Spickler
Wheeling, WV


DEAR NOVA:
As a scientist, I do not believe in these extensive claims of UFO abductions. I found your program interesting and informative, but I think people with proconceived beliefs, such as Hopkins and Mack will now be swayed from their desires to "prove" their belief systems by imposing them on others. It is unfortunate that these "patients" will suffer the rest of their lives from this, and in the case of children, these "therapists" actions ought to be criminal.
C. Ellin


DEAR NOVA:
I love Nova. It's one of the best programs on television. I especially appreciate your hard-hitting programs that debunk pseudoscience. The UFO abduction program was really welcome, especially since that kind of stuff has been drilled into the public consciousness as fact everywhere else.

I've always been surprised that you don't see more about obvious experiments that could be done to test things like "false memory." The researchers who were working on that should be congratulated. Tell Dr. Lofton especially that she made some great contributions to the program. I hope PBS flourishes, even despite the hostility toward public broadcasting in Congress. I think your objectivity, depth, and seriousness of purpose are more urgently needed than ever. Nova is, to me, one of the best examples of why we need public broadcasting.
Peter Hamlin


DEAR NOVA:
Enjoyed last night's episode about memory of supposed alien abductions. Was glad to see that your staff had interviewed Dr. Elizabeth Loftus about her research on the malleability of human memory. She is widely regarded as an expert in the field of memory research, and as such has testified in court on the (un)reliability of eyewitness testimony. While her lost-in-a-shopping-mall study discussed on the show is a compelling argument against the verity of memories of alien abduction, her other research on false memories of childhood sexual abuse, recovered in therapy, is even more compelling.
John Connelly
DEAR NOVA:
I watched you program "Abducted by UFOS?" recently and I must say I am disappointed. First of all you suggest that all people who have been abducted by UFOs undergo hypnosis- this simply isn't the case (many people report these things without hypnosis). Second you suggest that all people who have the experience have them during sleep paralysis- also not the case. What about those events which happened during the day (fully 1/3 of reported phenomenon) Finally andmost disturbingly you suggest that all people who have them havethem from "pop culture" or implanted by therapists.

I do not doubt that some of them can be implanted by therapists- much as ideas of child molestation, rape or Satanic rituals can be implanted. Does this mean that none of these things ever happen? Can you honestly tell me there is no child molestation because some people have had the idea implanted by therapists. Since it is true that the ideas may have been implanted- why didn't you find anyone who said that it had been done to them, other than the person who went in and faked it? I do not doubt I could fake a childhood molestation if I knew the symptoms. And I know there are therapists who would act worse then the ones shown on your program if it was even suggested such a thing happened to me.

I understand you spent over $1 million on the show- and the best you can come up with is Carl Sagan- who admits to never having studied a single case of alien abductions and the guy who thinks sleep paralysis is the answer for everything from alien abductions to out of body experiences.

Quite frankly the science of proof in this show was lacking. I admit ideas can be implanted but that does not mean there is no truth to some of the statements made. You never explained the shared minute details of the experiences, nor why people's idea of abductions vary. You never explained those who did not see the greys but another species of alien.

You reported that reports skyrocketed after media events showing aliens. Is this perhaps because people could relate to the experience and not because the media made them think it? Is the cause truly the media event ot is it that the media event spurred people to say that also happened to them?

You conclusions were not based on scientific exploration or you would have examined some of the evidence presented by the UFOologists or gone out and tested those who offered. Your conclusions flow frrom a presumption that the phenomenon is false rather than from scientific testing and that is bad science. I suggest your next show examines the proof offered rather than merely dismissing it.

Also listening to Art Bell I got your position on several UFO phenomenon. Bruises are those caused by every day activities? What like 55 concentric circles or damage to the reproductive track or scars that last for extended period of time? Circles are caused by fungus? And the evidence of radioactivity or burn marks can be discounted? The crops circles, which also show levels of radioactivity or breakage consistent only with non-human creation are also bunk? And what about those which have actually discovered PHYSICAL EVIDENCE from these sights? Or the military report that an object tracked at 2000 miles per hour was a weather balloon? Or the swamp gas hypothesis for UFO sightings? These claims are far more far fetched than those who claim a SHARED experience with SHARED details.

These claims should be examined scientifically. Which was not done in this show. I know there are time constrains on your ability to test such things but hey,
Dave W
Milwaukee, WI


DEAR NOVA:
Well edited show on belief in alien abductions, leading into more facts, then inconsistancies. Several programs have the same human behavior problems appearing. I'm sure each show editor does not have time to integrate them, so I will point out that the last week I saw James Randi demonstrate astrology forcasts to a young adult class-size group. He took their data, and in sequence following weeks presented "individualized" forcasts, and a review of the forcasts. When the group passed them to neighbors, each realized they were all the same. Considerable enthusiasm built up prior to this as he put scores on the chalkboard. Excellent close-up shoots showed the crest-fallen faces as they realized they were fools. Later, outside, several interviewee's gave excuses, and said they still had faith. Even Randi was astounded by the faith in the face of facts.

THE POINT.... Once people are mentally rewarded by little doses of opioids in the brain by effectivly hypnotic (all p! ositive, agreeing, no negative statements) the person is commited to the story. We get a reward when the end of a train-of-thought reaches a conclusion, and another reward when the consequences are good. Human behavior is reinforced by mental rewards, and punished by mental errors. When people ANTICIPATE bad out-comes, they adjust the truth to get their reward. When they are caught in a scam or con, their mind will tell them to forfeit the reward, and get a dose of mental pain. People adapt and lie to themselves, avoid the pain, and get the endorphins, enkalphins, and other opoids. Humans evolved a system to eventually adapt to fooling themselves. I suggest that you wait for another 10,000 years evolution before you expect human rational thinking to equal computer rational thinking. Unless so programmed, computers will not evade negative consequences, as did Arthur C. Clarke's HAL2000. Because animal response to positive motivation (rewards, praise) evolved before negative ! motivations (threats, terror, business management) the two are not opposite, not complimentary. Good, honest, FAIR humans try to offer balanced proportions of positive motivations (jobs, money, praise) and negative motivations (bad consequences of failure, threats, embarrassment). They do not average out, cancel, or help. Eric Berne in 1964 showed how to stop this [Games People Play] by eliminating the negative motives; not covering them.

Now about this Web site. I've seen all those nice Hubble .gif's without the words. So I selected text only and get green polkadots that alias with the text. Using a new monitor with a 75 MHz pentium, and Netscape 1.1 I still see a very artsy-craftsy home page with little information. It's neat for a right-brained person with art-gallary time available. I am a right-brained person using a left-brained machine. Please do not send me a picture that costs a 70,000 words but is worth 10 words. When I want the 70,000 words worth of information from HST, I get it from .nasa.gov, clean. And I enjoy all 70000 then.

Since I have designed a number of complex instruments over the years, I know about 25 to 35 % care about how the hardware looks, and the rest just want a good product. Humans come in a very wide variety which is supressed by society,military, schools, and conservitives. When Apple took a left-brained machine and jammed right-brained technology into it, many parts were done without knowing the motive. They still do not know why there are such wide differences in customer response. I am fortunate to see this since I am ambidexterous, learned equal left & right skills, design analog and digital circuits, design static and dynamic machines, and try to take a universal, at least binary, view of every thing.

Thank you for your patience in reading this, I hope you have a few Gigabytes left for the other folks.
Fairly Sincerely,
Jim Lepper
Trabuco Cyn, CA


DEAR NOVA:
It's nice to see a show where both sides of this issue are explored to some extent and the skeptical viewpoint is expressed eloquently. More show like this might help inform a superstitious public, giving them the information they need to avoid life-wasting crackpots and charlatains.

I'm not surprised that PBS is the only network with the guts to stand up and not give in to glamorizing and sensationalizing these unsubstantiated belief systems.
Bravo!
James P. Burke
Somerset, MA


DEAR NOVA:
For the most part you did an excellent job presenting the confusing and controversial issue of alien abductions. However, your editorial juxtaposition of the Betty/Barney Hill encounter and the "Fire in the Sky" encounter with "bedroom abduction" stories was unfortunate. In both of those incidents the participants were alert, awake, NOT alone, and driving automobiles. Visible "craft" were observed prior to the incidents. Such encounters cannot be explained in the same way as incidents in which people are only "abducted" when they are asleep, and in which there are no witnesses. [Yes, I'm aware of the "Linda Cortile" case, in which Budd Hopkins claims to have witnesses to a mid-air abduction from a New York skyscraper. But there are serious inconsistencies in that case, as reported, surprisingly, in the often-ingenuous MUFON Journal.

I think the program would have been improved had it drawn a distinction between (the very few) difficult-to-explain abduction stories like those of the Hills, and these ubiquitous "bedroom abductions," for which there are so many possible explanations.

For its part, the UFO community would do well to tighten its general filter for oddities, such as bedroom abductions, crop circles, animal mutilations, faces on Mars, and so on. Carl Sagan's advice is well taken: apply the strictest skepticism, and, for God's sake, the scientific method.

I would even go a step farther: instead of assuming that all UFO reports are "innocent until proven guilty," that thinking should be inverted to "guilty until proven innocent." If some, or even most, legitimate sightings/encounters are thrown away through this process, tough. It's far better to assemble a set of unassailable events that can form the basis for serious study than to pollute the dataset with potentially bogus information.

Right now, there's so much chaff that one worries about even finding the wheat. I'm reminded of a UFO lecturer who, in all seriousness, claimed at a NH MUFON convention that the loss of the Mars Observer probe was deliberate, due to a "government conspiracy" to prevent further investigation of the "face on Mars." Perhaps the UFO community should separate itself into two groups: those who are prepared to accept any preposterous story at face value, and those who reserve their attention for sightings/encounters that meet rigorous, published standards for probable veracity.
Eric Strovink
Nashua, NH


DEAR NOVA:
What everyone seems to have missed in the Betty and Barney Hill story is that they reported that the "aliens" told them they were from one of the stars in the Square of Pegasus, and drew a diagram for them showing the trade routes among the stars in the Square. The Hills drew this diagram for LIFE magazine back in 1961.

Of course, this just showed the Hills' lack of astronom- ical knowledge. They didn't realize that the Square of Pegasus exists only in the Earth sky (actually, anywhere in our solar system). The four main stars of the Square, Alpheratz, Algenib, Sheat, and Markab, are not celestial neighbors at all; they're in widely separated parts of the galaxy, and there could be no such trade routes as in the Hills' diagram. That seems to me conclusive proof that their tale is a made-up story, probably stimulated by hypnotic suggestion, as described in the Nova broadcast.
Al Berger
New York, N.Y.
p.s. I'd appreciate your passing this on to my old friend Phil Klass, and to Carl Sagan.


DEAR NOVA:
PBS was great last night. First, Nova demonstrated how the media and questionable therapists nurture and create "memories" of alien abduction. Then Frontline showed how the media and questionable attorneys created the breast implant lawsuit frenzy. Both shows were extremely well done.

I was beginning to wonder about PBS when it featured shows about angels and eastern mysticism, which were clearly produced by credulous producers. Your show (and Frontline) renewed my faith in high quality objective reporting.
Thank you,
Bryce Buchanan
Lake Oswego, OR


DEAR NOVA:
"Kidnapped by UFO's" was truly a great production, and it reminded me of my time in school studying psychology. The reason double-blind studies are done is to release any bias the researcher is manipulating on the experiment. Sadly, the Harvard professor and the other gentleman must have overlooked this. You can believe in ET's, however, you must not prompt people, especially children, for answers that you might want to 'prove' your theory. Continue the excellent work you are doing, people of NOVA!
David Taylor