Mike Good on Kevin Randle

Loved Mike's column in the current issue on Kevin Ranle's book The Abduction Enigma.

I haven't read the book yet so in fairness I can't comment on the content, but Mike made excellent points about the debunkery of the abduction phenomena, incluiding points about sleep paralysis.

I've had weird sleep things going on my entire life, including sleep paralysis; numerous episodes. And while some very odd things occurred, at times, during those events, I never once thought I saw aliens or was being abdcuted by them.

I also agree with you Mike on what you said about human consciousness; and the relationship between hc and "them" ----

Good article, (by the way, I enjoy all your pieces.)

Mike, by the way, you're an artist, is there somewhere we can view your work on-line?

Speaking of art, I'll be the shameless hussy I am and promote Jim's art; you can see it here. http://www.yessy.com/JamesRich

Thanks Regan!

Admittedly, I have not read Randle's entire book either. I explain this in my follow up rebuttal to his article in the latest issue, no. 150.

This last article was getting quite long in addressing the issues that Randle brings up concerning alien abduction. Most of the article was edited out because of this and will become the germ of a new article on abductions in general.

I too have experienced sleep paralysis in recent years. It is kinda creepy, but I did not have any "alien encounters" during these episodes. According to Randle's theory, with my heavy knowledge of UFO lore, I should have confabulated a full blown UFO abduction scenario.

Didn't happen.

I think that the "abduction phenomenon" represents something that is much more intimately entangled with consciousness than with the usual rational materialist "Star Trek" assumption that extraterrestrial beings are kidnapping us from our bedrooms and cars. John Mack believed that the scenarios he studied were, to some extent, visionary in nature and could not be neatly ascertained in material terms.

I think Mack's point is closer to the truth than Randle's Cartesian assumption that, because we cannot put our materialist finger on the phenomenon, it is pure fiction.

It is not generally my modus operandi to directly dispute the theories of another. But, in this case, the book posed itself as a snake in the grass: it pretended to be an abduction casebook, but once one actually started reading, it clearly was nothing less than a blanket denial of UFO abduction phenomenon altogether. In other words, the book bushwhacked me and I take that personally, especially since I have been involved in an abduction support group and have first hand experience of what these people are going through.

If believing that these episodes are nothing more than random night terrors and confabulated hallucinations makes Randle feel more comfortable with the phenomenon, then good for him. But for me, that is an explanation which doesn't even pass the smell test.....

Oh sorry, artwork! Regan, I do not have any particular place where I have an exclusive online presence with my stuff. But I do have some images I can place here. The first three images are paintings done in acrylics. The next is a sample of my art photography. The next four images are samples of my miniature sculptures both sculpted and painted by me. The last is a photo of one of my recent sculptures, unpainted.

The miniature work is what I do for a living. It beats the hell out of working!

Cheers!!

Mike

Major Kevin Randle does not state that abductions are not happening, he just would like other ways to get evidence and find out the truth. The major problem he has is with hypnotic regression therapy being used as actual evidence. The main problem with hypnotic regression is much of it may be fantasy.

Why not have the research take another direction? Why not try to move away from hypnotic regression? These moves may help the movement grow and find the answers that are needed. I also think that when many cases are shown to be possible sleep paralysis or other explanations, the believers of alien abduction get upset. The truth is what this is about, even if we do not like the results or path it is taking. Everyone loves a mystery, but sometimes the solution itself is rather mundane.

BTW, I also think abductions have happened and that the Hill case is one of the best because of the physical evidence that accompanies it. I would advise the people above to read Maj Randle's books and blogs. (He has been one of the best investigators of Roswell and has a lot of information compiled that rivals anyone else.) While one may not agree with everything he states, one should read what he has to say and take it all into consideration. Aren't we all after the same thing, and that is the truth?

BTW, excellent artwork, Mike. If I had a tiny portion of your talent, I would be quite well off.

Goddess Bless,

Lloyd

Mike Good wrote:

Thanks Regan!

Admittedly, I have not read Randle's entire book either. I explain this in my follow up rebuttal to his article in the latest issue, no. 150.

This last article was getting quite long in addressing the issues that Randle brings up concerning alien abduction. Most of the article was edited out because of this and will become the germ of a new article on abductions in general.

I too have experienced sleep paralysis in recent years. It is kinda creepy, but I did not have any "alien encounters" during these episodes. According to Randle's theory, with my heavy knowledge of UFO lore, I should have confabulated a full blown UFO abduction scenario.

Didn't happen.

I think that the "abduction phenomenon" represents something that is much more intimately entangled with consciousness than with the usual rational materialist "Star Trek" assumption that extraterrestrial beings are kidnapping us from our bedrooms and cars. John Mack believed that the scenarios he studied were, to some extent, visionary in nature and could not be neatly ascertained in material terms.

I think Mack's point is closer to the truth than Randle's Cartesian assumption that, because we cannot put our materialist finger on the phenomenon, it is pure fiction.

It is not generally my modus operandi to directly dispute the theories of another. But, in this case, the book posed itself as a snake in the grass: it pretended to be an abduction casebook, but once one actually started reading, it clearly was nothing less than a blanket denial of UFO abduction phenomenon altogether. In other words, the book bushwhacked me and I take that personally, especially since I have been involved in an abduction support group and have first hand experience of what these people are going through.

If believing that these episodes are nothing more than random night terrors and confabulated hallucinations makes Randle feel more comfortable with the phenomenon, then good for him. But for me, that is an explanation which doesn't even pass the smell test.....

To expand on your theory a little bit , if it's true that the human body possesses a soul (spirit), then it's quite feasible that a persons "spirit" might be what is traveling thru the spiritual realm during these so-called "abductions" . Which of course would still fit into my theory of a spiritual warfare going on in our midst. The bible makes many references to the spiritual realm and its minglings in the affairs of mankind. The Book of Revelations begins with a reference to being in the spirit, or with the spirit. All of this goes back to your theory that some of this stuff may never be able to be proven in scientific materialistic ways that we are used to.

As far as the physical signs of abductions and visitations, well the spiritual beings are evidently capable of appearing in the physical realm too, and even leave physical signs. The sleep paralysis could be the persons spirit becoming fully aware of the spiritual realm as the physical body sleeps... same as the out-of-body near death episodes.

Awesome artwork Mike .... you are very talented. Amazing detail.

kidflash2008 wrote:

Major Kevin Randle does not state that abductions are not happening, he just would like other ways to get evidence and find out the truth. The major problem he has is with hypnotic regression therapy being used as actual evidence. The main problem with hypnotic regression is much of it may be fantasy.

Why not have the research take another direction? Why not try to move away from hypnotic regression? These moves may help the movement grow and find the answers that are needed. I also think that when many cases are shown to be possible sleep paralysis or other explanations, the believers of alien abduction get upset. The truth is what this is about, even if we do not like the results or path it is taking. Everyone loves a mystery, but sometimes the solution itself is rather mundane.

BTW, I also think abductions have happened and that the Hill case is one of the best because of the physical evidence that accompanies it. I would advise the people above to read Maj Randle's books and blogs. (He has been one of the best investigators of Roswell and has a lot of information compiled that rivals anyone else.) While one may not agree with everything he states, one should read what he has to say and take it all into consideration. Aren't we all after the same thing, and that is the truth?

Excellent points ... and some good advice on how we should all keep open minds when listening to others theories and opinions... we're all searching for the truth, and we may all be giving small pieces of the puzzle from all of our theories.. which is why all opinions hold potential value , even if we can't see it at the moment....collectively we could be onto something.

I do think that Maj Randle does get lumped into the group of debunkers because he does not buy all the ideas out there. He is one who thinks that abductions need to be seriously studied, a position that most debunkers do not take. His books are very intelligently written, and he has done much excellent work uncovering the Roswell incident. He is one of the several researchers I admire very much in this field.

kidflash2008 wrote:

I do think that Maj Randle does get lumped into the group of debunkers because he does not buy all the ideas out there.

Hello Lloyd,

As for abductions, Randle gets "lumped into" the category of debunker because that is what he does. No mystery there.

If you had read my articles, you would know that I share many of Randle's concerns around the investigation of abductions. I agree with him that much of the investigating has been done by inept researchers with presumptive axes to grind (gosh, that latter category couldn't include Randle, could it?). And the incompetence shown by many of them using hypnosis to access abduction accounts is legion and recorded in many books on the subject. It is disgraceful really.

But, to quote you: "The main problem with hypnotic regression is much of it may be fantasy. Why not have the research take another direction? Why not try to move away from hypnotic regression?"

This suggestion is analogous to entreating molecular biologists to stop using microscopes to study molecules. Essentially, you are telling people to stop using the only tool we have in our tool box to access information from the subconscious mind.

The problem is not the tool, but how it is used by inept and sometimes unscrupulous practitioners.

But with Randle, this problem is exacerbated by his rational materialist assumption that anything as fuzzy as (not so easily accessed) subconscious information is just too darned immaterial to be trusted. Yeah. If you believe the cultural claptrap that only matter is real: a notion that is flat disputed by the science of quantum physics. But we will have to deny that science, because it flies in the face of our most basic and outdated materialist assumptions (e.g. matter is "real"). After all our outdated, and now scientifically disproven, cultural assumptions must be protected, right?

Sorry, we may not be dealing with a strictly material phenomenon here. In that case, Cartesian science will never get us out of the chute, much less lead to any kind of real understanding.

With the abduction phenomenon, we are crossing a new (for us) frontier. We must use whatever inadequate tools we have at our disposal. Just because Randle has a problem with such tools, that does not make the tools invalid. It does mean that we must be more careful how we use them. After all, they are the only tools we have which can lead us to any understanding at all.

The phenomenon itself does not exist to make Randle comfortable with its study. While some of his concerns are indeed valid, that does not mean that the phenomenon is pure fantasy, as his slanted book would have us believe.

I too respect Randle for the great deal of good research he has done. But he is way off base with the abduction phenomenon. You can respect him and still disagree. I know I do.

Betty Hill did warn about the use of hypnotic regression because it could be dangerous if not used correctly. My main problem is the first thing done is hypnotic regression to get a story of alien abduction. That is where the fantasy may come in. While I do agree hypnotic regression may be an excellent tool when used by some, it is hard to tell who can really use it.

Most of the questions are leading, and the person going under knows it is about a possible alien abduction. That is a major problem also, as both the subject of the regression and the researcher already know it is a search for an abduction that could be hidden away.

I think we all want to search and find the truth. I do think Graham Hancock does have a good idea about some people being wired into an "Otherworld", and maybe that can be the basis for new research.

Maybe there can be some kind of school set up to teach people how to use the tools correctly. I do agree with you that every type of idea and area should be explored.

I also think Major Randle is one of the few researchers to keep ufology grounded. I do not agree with everything he states (I think the MJ-12 papers have some truth to them) but I do respect him just as I respect many in the abduction research area. I did read his article where he did discuss the abduction phenomena and was not opposed to it.

Sometimes when I try to make a point, the wrong idea comes out. I do not mean to throw away all the tools or areas in which to collect information. I do think people have remarkable skills at remembering important events in their life. Someone on another site had brought up the fact that one in five people do not remember things very good. I brought up the fact that the study showed four out of five people did remember the events.

All I am saying is I am human too, so I do make many mistakes.

Goddess Bless,

Lloyd

Mike Good wrote:

Admittedly, I have not read Randle's entire book either....the book posed itself as a snake in the grass: it pretended to be an abduction casebook, but once one actually started reading, it clearly was nothing less than a blanket denial of UFO abduction phenomenon altogether. In other words, the book bushwhacked me....

So you did a book dissection based on a book you never finished? How is that acceptable? Or was it not meant as a dissection of the book?

Did you at least skip to the end to see if the bushwhacking took a turn or stayed the course?

Your artwork's cool.

Mike Good wrote:

kidflash2008 wrote:

I do think that Maj Randle does get lumped into the group of debunkers because he does not buy all the ideas out there.

Hello Lloyd,

As for abductions, Randle gets "lumped into" the category of debunker because that is what he does. No mystery there.

Mike,
"Right on!" in general.

As to your artwork, wow. VERY impressive!

I'm sorry I haven't posted sooner; I got lost in cyber space. I hate it when that happens.

I

Jeremy Vaeni wrote:

Mike Good wrote:

Admittedly, I have not read Randle's entire book either....the book posed itself as a snake in the grass: it pretended to be an abduction casebook, but once one actually started reading, it clearly was nothing less than a blanket denial of UFO abduction phenomenon altogether. In other words, the book bushwhacked me....

So you did a book dissection based on a book you never finished? How is that acceptable? Or was it not meant as a dissection of the book?

Did you at least skip to the end to see if the bushwhacking took a turn or stayed the course?

I did, or at least as far as I remember. By the time I had gotten around to writing my articles, I had actually sold the book to my local used bookstore. When I decided to write about it I went back to the store to buy the book back but it was gone. Some other poor sap bought it.

So, I did the shortcut of the cyber age: I went online to see what other people had to say about the book. Lots of opinions, pro and con and some actual good in depth analyses.

But writing about Randle's theories around abductions was not much of stretch since his position is well known and published widely. So, while I used the book as a foil, I was actually writing about Randle's anti-abduction position. His book just happened to be very visible and emblematic of his beliefs around the abduction phenomenon.

So yeah, I cheated. But I pretty much had the info I needed to say what I said. I did not comment on anything that I did not have documented.

Jeremy Vaeni wrote:

Your artwork's cool.

Thanks J!

rlee@orangeorb.net wrote:

Mike Good wrote:

kidflash2008 wrote:

I do think that Maj Randle does get lumped into the group of debunkers because he does not buy all the ideas out there.

Hello Lloyd,

As for abductions, Randle gets "lumped into" the category of debunker because that is what he does. No mystery there.

Mike,
"Right on!" in general.

As to your artwork, wow. VERY impressive!

I'm sorry I haven't posted sooner; I got lost in cyber space. I hate it when that happens.

I

Thanks Regan!

This is from Kevin Randle's Blog today:

'During the question and answer period after my talk, someone, naturally, asked me about alien abductions. I pointed out that I believe that there is a terrestrial explanation for most abductions and like it or not, sleep paralysis is a viable answer to many cases. I attempted to make it clear that I don’t believe that all cases of abduction are actually episodes of sleep paralysis, but some are. I suggested that we needed to develop a protocol to separate sleep paralysis from alien abduction and was aware that some work along those lines was being done.

'In fact, in a brief discussion with Kathleen Marden (seen below), the niece of Barney and Betty Hill, she told me that you could tell the difference because abduction descriptions were in black and white and sleep paralysis was in color. What she was saying was that because it was normally dark in the room when the abduction took place, the abductee described the events there in black and white. During sleep paralysis, which is often accompanied by the feeling that something is in the room, the descriptions are in color because this is, essentially, a hallucination.'

The whole blog:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2009/08/alien-abductions-sleep-paralysis-and.html

The above shows that Major Randle is not against the idea of alien abductions. Like he states, not all abductions are sleep paralysis and not all sleep paralysis is alien abductions.

Hello Lloyd,

I do not want to republish everything I said in may articles here. I can only assume that you have not actually read my articles concerning this in UFO Magazine. If you had, you would know that I said this:

"I am willing to admit that Randle’s large pile of theories might explain some abduction phenomena. Is he willing to admit that some of these stories could relate authentic experiences with something from outside our normal waking reality?

To quote Randle once again: 'Here's what it all comes down to. There is not a single shred of evidence that alien abductions are taking place other than the tainted testimony of the abductees. The physical evidence to support the claims is nonexistent. What has been offered as proof has been eliminated through testing by objective scientists or additional research by unbiased investigators.' "

The trouble is not JUST with Randle's sleep paralysis explanation, as problematic as it is. To put it simply, Randle does not seem to believe that the UFO abduction phenomenon is authentic. In addition to sleep paralysis, he uses a long laundry list of explanations to discount abduction stories. No doubt, this is because sleep paralysis is a wholly inadequate explanation by itself, and even Randle knows this. Thus, he utilizes a whole patchwork of explanations to fill the gaping holes in his theory.

His motive seems to be to explain away the phenomenon altogether.

This is too deep a subject to go into detail here in a short posting. I do not think that any definitive answers can be had to the phenomenon without answering some very basic metaphysical questions first: 1). What is the role of consciousness in the phenomenon? 2). What is the essential nature of "hallucination" or visionary conscious experiences? Research has shown that hallucination and visualization appear no different in the way they manifest in the firing of neurons in the brain, than does actual material experience. 3). Why is that? 4). Is there a mechanism by which our personal conscious experiences can be manipulated externally by other beings?

Without answering these questions, we are only groping in the dark concerning this phenomenon. The materialists always say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. Since I feel that Randle falls squarely into that materialist mindset, then why does he resort to only mundane explanations for these extraordinary experiences?

I think it is because he questions whether there is anything extraordinary going on here at all. To quote him from his book once again: "Here's what it all comes down to. There is not a single shred of evidence that alien abductions are taking place other than the tainted testimony of the abductees. The physical evidence to support the claims is nonexistent. What has been offered as proof has been eliminated through testing by objective scientists or additional research by unbiased investigators."

That appears to me to be a blanket refutation of the abduction phenomenon altogether. Feel free to correct me if you or Randle think otherwise.

The opinions he states in his blog are recent.

Here is another paragraph from his blog on the subject:

'I went out of my way to explain that while it was clear to me that some cases of sleep paralysis were offered as evidence of abduction, I didn’t believe that this was the end all solution. It was clear to me then, as it is now, that there will be many diverse answers to this problem and sleep paralysis is just one of them...

'Or, I suppose I could say, "Get it?" Not all sleep paralysis ends with a belief that the person was abducted and not all abductions are explained by sleep paralysis.'

This is another part of the blog about an encounter with someone who had read John Mack's work:

'The next day, one of those in the audience came by and handed me a short list of statements by John Mack that he thought refuted the whole idea of sleep paralysis. I told him that not only had I read Mack’s book, but I had a signed copy given to me by Mack. I didn’t even have to pay for it.

'For those interested in such things, the inscription says, "To Kevin, with admiration for your pioneering work. All the best wishes. John Mack."'

His conclusion is:

'So, yes, I understand that sleep paralysis won’t explain everything. But I also know that its part in abduction can’t be dismissed with a couple of words of derision. To understand abduction we’re going to have to understand sleep paralysis.

'And when we dismiss sleep paralysis with a smart-ass response, then we’re doing exactly what we accuse the debunkers of doing. Not looking at the evidence. Not willing to learn something new. And not bothering with research because our minds are made up. After so many years of this, shouldn’t we be a little more open to solutions and a little less closed minded about the work of others, even if we don’t like where it is going?'

These statements of his were written Thursday, August 13, 2009. His book on abductions was written over ten years ago. The above comments state he is not going to be dismissive of abductions.

Personally, I believe there are two types of abductions going on:

1. The nuts and bolts type where people are taken aboard an actual craft and examined. This is what happened to the Hills and the four young men in Maine.

2. The second is the "Otherworld" type encounter. The person may not even physically leave the room, but their soul goes on some sort of journey. They may not be able to control it at all, which is why they are so terrified.

Some of the explanations may be sleep paralysis or other phenomena. There may be many more categories of abduction that I have not put forth.

kidflash2008 wrote:

Personally, I believe there are two types of abductions going on:

1. The nuts and bolts type where people are taken aboard an actual craft and examined. This is what happened to the Hills and the four young men in Maine.

2. The second is the "Otherworld" type encounter. The person may not even physically leave the room, but their soul goes on some sort of journey. They may not be able to control it at all, which is why they are so terrified.

Some of the explanations may be sleep paralysis or other phenomena. There may be many more categories of abduction that I have not put forth.

Llloyd,

I am in agreement here.

I think you have misinterpreted a lot of what I have been saying. I have nothing against Kevin Randle. I have read several of his books and agreed with every single one of them, except this one. That is a pretty good credibility return in my opinion.

I agree that sleep paralysis could well explain some abduction reports. I did read the linked article from his blog (the whole thing) and there is nothing there which changed my opinion about this subject, vis-a-vis Kevin Randle.

Nowhere have I seen him say that there may be something genuine going on with this phenomenon. That is pretty closed minded. Even you seem to disagree with that.

The abduction phenomenon is something enigmatic alright. There are more things to consider here than Randle seems willing to entertain. A nuts and bolts approach is not adequate to fleshing this thing out. In fact, I question whether we have any sufficient way of doing so. It is that far out there, as I see it.

While Randle's ideas should be kept in mind, I think it is pretty flimsy explanation and does not do as much to further the study of the phenomenon as he seems to believe it does. That is my opinion and, apparently, one that is shared by many others.

'nuff said.

Cheers!!

Mike