UFO Abductees and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

   

It is important to first look at the symptoms of PTSD before looking at how they affect the percipient(s).  The following is taken from the UK National Health Service advisory on the subject:

Symptoms -Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)

The symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) can have a significant impact on your day-to-day life.

In most cases, the symptoms develop during the first month after a traumatic event. However, in a minority of cases, there may be a delay of months or even years before symptoms start to appear.

Some people with PTSD experience long periods when their symptoms are less noticeable, followed by periods where they get worse. Other people have constant, severe symptoms.

The specific symptoms of PTSD can vary widely between individuals, but generally fall into the categories described below.

Re-experiencing

Re-experiencing is the most typical symptom of PTSD. This is when a person involuntarily and vividly re-lives the traumatic event in the form of:

Flashbacks

Nightmares

Repetitive and distressing images or sensations

Physical sensations – such as pain, sweating, nausea or trembling

Some people have constant negative thoughts about their experience, repeatedly asking themselves questions that prevent them from coming to terms with the event.

For example, they may wonder why the event happened to them and if they could have done anything to stop it, which can lead to feelings of guilt or shame.

Avoidance and emotional numbing

Trying to avoid being reminded of the traumatic event is another key symptom of PTSD. This usually means avoiding certain people or places that remind you of the trauma, or avoiding talking to anyone about your experience.

Many people with PTSD try to push memories of the event out of their mind, often distracting themselves with work or hobbies.

Some people attempt to deal with their feelings by trying not to feel anything at all. This is known as emotional numbing. This can lead to the person becoming isolated and withdrawn, and they may also give up pursuing activities they used to enjoy.

Hyperarousal (feeling 'on edge')

Someone with PTSD may be very anxious and find it difficult to relax. They may be constantly aware of threats and easily startled. This state of mind is known as hyperarousal.

Hyperarousal often leads to:

Irritability

Angry outbursts

Sleeping problems (insomnia)

Difficulty concentrating

Other problems

Many people with PTSD also have a number of other problems, including:

other mental health problems – such as depression, anxiety or phobias

self-harming or destructive behaviour – such as drug misuse or alcohol misuse

other physical symptoms – such as headaches, dizziness, chest pains and stomach aches

PTSD sometimes leads to work-related problems and the breakdown of relationships.

   Having looked into these reports Alien Entity/Close Encounters of the Third Kind (CE3K) events since 1974 several things have struck me.

   The first is that in most CE3K cases a witness might see a UFO and entity nearby or even looking out of the ‘craft’ but these are brief events of several seconds to minutes.  The witnesses are shocked, dumbfounded by what they have seen and this can affect them.  Remember that, since childhood, most people see the TV news or newspaper “funny flying saucer” stories: “They ain’t real.  It’s all cranks and hoaxers!” A lot of the witnesses will even state that they joined in, some quite vocally, this “UFO nut jobs” name calling.

   Everyday life goes on.  You go to bed at night and get up early the next morning for work.  You might meet a neighbour or friend before leaving for work and catch up on the local gossip.  You drive/cycle to work and have a busy or quiet day with the usual breaks and chats and looking at the clock waiting for the time when you quit work. A chat after leaving work and then you drive/cycle for home. Rain, sunshine or snowy it is a day like any other and you know your route like the back of your hand.  Then you take that blind turn in the road or go past the row of trees that block your view.

   Then it happens (1).

   The car either stops by itself through some electro magnetic effect or you stop it. If you are on a cycle you just stop. You ask yourself “What the hell is that on the roadside?”  Even with a basic knowledge you are aware that this is not a landed helicopter.  It most certainly is not an aircraft –crashed or otherwise. You might even think that you have stumbled onto some type of experimental aircraft. You try to rationalise what you are seeing but there is an almost whispering internal voice and it tells you “That is a flying saucer/UFO!”

   Even at that stage you try to fight that notion off.  “Flying saucers do not exist.  This is the sort of thing that’s made all those people look like chumps for years.  It’s an air force ‘thing’ –maybe even a NASA craft!”  Yes, you ‘know’ that is what it is.  And you would have told everyone you had seen a “UFO” and been made to look a real nut.

   Then it happens (2).

   You might notice that there is a window of some type on the object. And you also notice one or more figures and they are watching you. Alternatively, you may notice a doorway and perhaps a ramp that extends to the ground.  You then see one or more figures and one or all of them may notice you but continue up the ramp but whichever scenario, after a few seconds the object shoots up into the sky and is gone in seconds.

   You panic and that is only normal and head for home.  Once in the safety of your own home you may laugh and even call yourself a few names for being so dumb and thinking you had seen a “flying saucer”.  Today you might Google search for images of aircraft similar to what you saw.  Perhaps even go online and see if anyone else saw the downed aircraft but you cannot find anything –but some dope has reported seeing a “UFO” at around the same time.

   You might tell a close friend or family member and they advise you to “be quiet about this –people will think you are crazy and you might lose your job!”  It does not really matter because from that day on what you saw will stick in your mind and you will repeatedly ask yourself “What did I see?”

   In some cases, out of a sense of public responsibility, witnesses will contact the local police and report that something must have crashed at such-and-such a location but took off again. The witness might see a smirk on the police officer’s face or a couple of policemen may even joke “You seen a UFO, mate!” It happens.  The witness might get quite stroppy and make it clear they are seriously reporting an unexpected aircraft landing and get really angry at the suggestion of a “UFO”.  For many that is an end to the matter.

   Some will remain angry that they reported the ‘crash’ but received smirks and jokes. At this point it might be that they think “It’s a cover-up!”  Yes, that is what it was: an experimental military aircraft or even NASA test vehicle landed for some reason and they will not admit it –the US military want it all played down as a jokey ‘UFO’ story. The witness will then accept that theory and wait for the next generation of stealth aircraft or NASA shuttle to appear so they can say: “I knew it!”

   The other type of witness knows that what they saw was not a NASA (never European Space Agency!) test shuttle or military prototype. They will ponder what they saw and break down the sighting piece by piece and go over each piece and try to think of a logical explanation.

   Some witnesses do not need to do this internal analysis as what they saw they know full well is “not from here”.  Even that phrase “not from here”, one I have heard and read so many times over the decades, is the witness not wanting to state outright, actually vocalize what they think.  “From outer space” are words they want to blurt out but a fist keeps ramming the words back.  After all, if you say “I believe that it was from outer space” aren’t you really just screaming out “It was little green men” and that in and of itself might label you a “nut case”.

   This is the problem. Even if a witness is one who has worked in the field of aerospace technology development, even at the most highest and secure levels, and knows that “We” do not have anything even remotely like what he/she saw and was like “pure science fiction” you will find they do not want to utter those words “I believe that it was from outer space”

   Why not?  The decades of jokes and stigma to having seen a flying saucer and knowing how previous witnesses were treated, perhaps even by themselves?  We are not discussing the LITS (Lights In The Sky) observer who probably saw a satellite or space debris and declares on the local TV news and media: “I saw an extra terrestrial space ship!”  We are discussing intelligent men and women who were within 10-100 feet (3-30 metres) of a solid, obviously constructed object that was seen in near perfect viewing conditions.  These are people who saw and realised that there was “no way that this belonged to the Russians or Americans” and “If we had anything like that we’d be going back and forth to the Moon not to mention Mars!”

   Proof.  Even having seen what they did you will find the witnesses saying things such as “I will say this: I believe absolutely that what I saw was not from this Earth. It could have come from nowhere on this planet” and they will add: “but I cannot prove it. I saw it clearly. I can describe every detail I saw but even if you believe that I am sincere and genuine what do you have? Someone who said they saw ‘something’ –but what?”

   The witnesses who say that, of course, are quite correct.  They are sane, rational, everyday people with regular occupations but on just this one occasion they saw something that they will never forget.  Some may well be psychologically traumatised (but hide this) by having their entire world view destroyed in a very brief time period. It may then occur to the investigator who is listening, but hopefully also keeping an eye on the witness’ body language and facial expressions, that, yes, the object described is interesting –but what about the entities sighted?

   Here you see a pattern of almost anti-logic creeping in. The witness has analysed everything they saw and will state “it’s like nothing we have on Earth” and they will even reinforce that with “I don’t care whether you believe me or think I am mad: I saw it. It was real. It was not from here”.  The next question put will receive a shrug and silence or a “Well…” and even, despite their firmly stated belief in the reality of what they saw: “Well, I wonder whether I imagined that”.  Even Rev. Gill in one of his last interviews was stumped for words and just said “These…these beings” because “beings” is a neutral word and he and other witnesses at Boianni never thought of “space beings” but that they were seeing experimental US aircraft and crews –they even thought they might land so prepared in case they were hungry.

   If you see a craft that you are adamant is not from here then it has to be from elsewhere but for many witnesses that entails admitting they saw “aliens”.  They saw actual living creatures from some other world and that, psychologically, is one step too far. For those who accept that this is what they saw it still has an impact but “it happened” so get on with life.

   In my work UFO Contact? I pointed out that during my early years in Ufology there were the “space brother” contactees and none seemed to have anything in the way of evidence to back up their claims. Yet Arthur Bryant, despite all of the exposed fraud involved, was still believed.  George Adamski was still believed to be genuine and the British Flying Saucer Bureau, even in the 1980s, refused to consider any report that did not match up with what Adamski claimed or wrote about –after all, a former editor of the prestigious Flying Saucer Review, Desmond Leslie, had backed up what Adamski claimed.  An artist’s illustration of a CE3K event on the front cover of the BFSB’s UFO News Bulletin was removed without even telling me, the editor, and replaced with a typical Adamski flying saucer drawing.  Why was this done? Quite simply because the BFSB committee almost had a collective stroke that I had dared to feature such an image: “believing in these silly reports willonly destroy your credibility, Terry. Now, when we met Adamski…”

   I once lost my temper at a UFO investigator after picking up the phrase “that thing” in the written witness account of a UFO sighting.  I asked what “that thing” was –the account made no sense and something seemed to be missing.  I was told that the witness had mentioned seeing a dark shape (against an illuminated saucer shaped object) moving around and I asked more forcibly what he meant as he was skirting around the subject.  “A little green man.  I told him (witness) not to mention that in the report as he’d be called a loony”.  The witness had not described a literal “little Green Man” but a short humanoid type but the investigator decided people would not take his report seriously if the witness described seeing an “alien”. I told him that he had no credibility as an investigator as he had falsified a report and actually stopped the witness from referring to or describing what was seen.  I decided to contact the witness who declared no longer being interested in talking to any investigator.  A report was lost.

   I know of similar cases. If a witness reports a sighting/encounter then everything should be recorded and for many years UFO investigators decided that AE cases were not to be taken seriously –in some cases they were taken as sensationalist tid-bits to exploit for their own ends. This I have referred to in my book UFO Contact? In that work I also referred to the incidents involving Jessie Roestenberg (Staffordshire, 1954), Madame. Leboeuf (France, 1954) and even Robert Taylor (Scotland, 1979) and their attitudes towards their close encounters as well as that of others were summed up by Taylor with the words: “It’s a thing that happens and you get back on with your life”.

   To their dying day these witnesses (whether publicly known or not) will not detract their accounts or change them in any way. The memory was imbedded and though, like the Rev. Gill (Papua New Guinea, 1957), they cannot explain or find the answer to what they saw but “It happened”.  There is no doubt that, privately, these witnesses must have realised that if they saw what would be termed an alien space craft then anyone/thing aboard would also have to be alien.

   Some, naturally, but not logically, will accept the rather stupid claim that “If you see a UFO, even for a second and next minute –whoosh!- it has flown off: you were abducted. You see a light moving oddly about the sky –any UFO: you were abducted!”  Some will remember looking at their watches or clocks –every minute accounted for but after that, anything unusual –bad sleep, tired eyes or even a bruise that they can’t remember how they got: all fall into the “you saw a UFO and you were abducted” hysteria.  In these cases investigators just have to reassure witnesses that it is coincidental and that there is no evidence of any alien abduction.

   All of this would provide a psychologist with enough material for a technical paper and that would be important because we need to look more at the psychological impact upon these witnesses. They are not “loonies”/”nut-cases” or “a bit dim and just never recognised Venus or illumination from a lighthouse”.  These were people who, if their accounts are true and that is after all why there are supposed to be investigators, had their world views kicked away.

   If this is what a witness goes through after they see a landed craft and occupant(s) –even if no contact/communication took place- then what of those people who were percipients in an actual physical encounter.

   We like to keep edging away from declaring that a person or persons encountered alien beings from some other planet.  Persons such as Jacques Vallee believe that it would be “disappointing and prosaic” if alien intelligences were involved and veer off into fantasy theories lacking any evidence.  Others similarly declare UFOs are actually some form of time travel vehicle and those in the time travellers.  Then there are those who believe “It’s all paranormal and psychic phenomena” and they have been joined in recent years by those who theorise we are seeing visitors from “the multiverse” –other dimensional planes of existence.  Excluding the fantasy fringe we are still dealing with people who will declare one or other of these theories of UFO origin is “best explained by” whichever they think is popular at the time. However, it is very clear that a great many have no real understanding of the theory.

   Theory is the operative word here; there is a theory –several in fact- regarding how time travel might take place but then you get into the argument of “How do you go to a time that no longer exists?” and “How do you travel to a future that does not yet exist?”  You can also get into the argument about why future Homo sapiens would travel back to our time and then ask stupid questions and do things that, to humans, make no sense.

   The multiverse is another great theory but no one has yet proven that it exists physically and even if it did there is no idea who or what might live in these multiple universes.

   We have to go with what our current state of knowledge can tell us.  We know that there are many galaxies and we also know that these contain solar systems that include planetary systems. These are hard facts proven by science. We also now know that water is not just confined to the Earth which means that as far as life as we know it is concerned, the essentials exist. Life elsewhere might not require water but let’s not dive off into exobiology and theorising: everything we know points to the fact that there is no logical reason why there should not be intelligent life elsewhere. We just have not officially encountered any alien life yet.

   We may be missing their signals because it does not conform to what we know. Both the late Franklyn A. Davin-Wilson and I while at the Anomalous Observational Phenomena Bureau (AOPB), looked at reported and recorded mysterious signals from space from the early 1900s on.  We could find (rather I since before the conclusion of the project Franklyn had passed away) nothing that remotely indicated genuine alien communication –we have learnt of quasars and many other astronomical objects that make detectible noise and that includes the planets in our own solar system.

   From the 1950s on the French adopted the right attitude toward UFO investigation, as explained in my work.  Reports were investigated by Air Police as well as gendarmes and any trace evidence recorded, tested and data released.  This was the correct scientific way; get real investigators who dealt with people all the time and knew what to look for in a truthful witness and gather evidence and this could then be looked at by scientists with any interest. 

   The shame is that the United States decided that deceit in these cases was best to conceal their own intelligence operations and military testing.  In the United Kingdom the shame is that stuffy men who were not particularly imaginative enough to realise what this sort of investigation could achieve, decided to play the “It will cost money and all this ‘Men from Mars’ stuff will make us look daft”.

   The other shame is that men of science threw their lot in with this behaviour rather than doing what scientists should do: Investigate/Research and then Conclude with a summation of evidence and facts. Some times classifying ourselves as Homo sapiens seems more an ego boost than factual.

   Going by just what we know then there is only one real conclusion that can be drawn and, yes, even I keep edging away from this because I want to see an alien craft land in Hyde Park and aliens step out and get filmed by every CCTV camera and mobile phone in sight.  But that has not happened. If every attempt has been made to discredit percipients and all that is achieved is except in the closed minded sceptics, the percipients’ case becomes stronger then we have to go with that.  We have to say that the mostly likely, only real credible, origin for UFOs is extra terrestrial and we keep looking until we get the solid evidence needed.

   If we simply had to go by what was retrieved from the memories of Betty and Barney Hill (New Hampshire, 1961) under hypnosis then the case could be dismissed.  However, there is secondary evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) that backs up their UFO encounter claim. Charles Hickson and Calvin Parker (Pascagoula, 1973) both endured the name-calling and claims of hoaxing and lying yet their case remains solid and even today Parker still suffers from being called “that guy that got abducted by aliens!”  Travis Walton (Arizona, 1975) faced the consequences of his claims and endured the same rough treatment, and still does.  He just decided to get on with it and accept what happened and talk more openly.  Maurice Masse (Valensole, 1965) had his encounter, panicked and rushed into the village where he blurted out his account to someone who then put the word out.  Masse was hounded by the press as well as ufologists and in some cases there behaviour was less than respectful; he told no one what had gone on during his encounter and died without revealing more.

   There was the case of Smith, Thomas and Stafford (Kentucky, 1976) in which the women did not want to be identified and were suffering physical symptoms after their encounter.  The behaviour of ufologists was disgraceful: not just breach of any standard of investigation procedure but no one seemed to care much about getting the women medical check-ups despite those ufologists involved having medical doctors as members of their organisations.  There was no form of psychological assessment of the trio who were blatantly displaying the behaviour of traumatised individuals.  Get the story and then sell the book and after…well, once you had all the details what use are the percipients.

   In the Kentucky case, that of Betty and Barney Hill, Masse and Hickson and Parker and others I looked into it was shocking to find that the only reason we knew of their encounters was because their confidences had been betrayed and their names made public.  The percipients did not want publicity and tended to shy away from it unless their ‘friendly’ ufologist suggested it was for a greater good. And after exposure came a ufological version of throwing someone to the lions. I have to make it clear that not all ufologists behaved that way.

   It is a quandary: these cases are fascinating and important and yet we only know of them because of breaches in trust and confidentiality.  When it is claimed that the Hills were the first recorded alien abductees it is a nonsense in a way but the emphasis should be on the first recorded.  Society had moved on slightly by the 1960s and there is a case that can be argued for there having been known “alien abductions” in the 1950s.  In an era when “silly little green men” and flying saucers were ridiculed as part of political/intelligence community policy how many people would have claimed that they had encountered an alien space craft and aliens –and to whom would they have reported the encounter?

   When you go back to that list of PTSD symptoms and tick them off one by one when reading about abductees and how it affected them then you clearly see that they suffered PTSD.  These percipients were not merely (“merely”!) claiming to have seen a landed UFO and an entity or entities for a few seconds or a couple of minutes: they are claiming to have directly interacted with them in an involuntary way. Many try to describe the moment they realise that an object they have sighted turned toward them or even seemed to divert course and follow their vehicle. They struggle.  When it comes to their vehicle stopping or even being seemingly remotely controlled they again struggle. When it comes to whatever process was used to take them on board the object there is the same struggle to explain emotions and this also applies to their actual encountering of an AE and what happens next.

   It is true that some will describe extreme fear –are they going to be killed and dissected or ‘tortured’ in some way?  They will try to explain the gut-wrenching fear and some even stating that they suddenly think that it is possible that they will never see their loved ones again; what will their families think –an accident and their bodies just haven’t been found?  I know of two cases where those involved involuntarily urinated through fear; quite natural but when asking other investigators about this the very thought of even asking a percipient about that aspect is a step too far.  Indeed, it is not very likely that a percipient will tell a stranger that they were so terrified that they urinated themselves.

   Even later on some percipients will even play down their initial fear with “I know I was being silly” and, of course, they were not being silly and it is good to see that some investigators explain to percipients that it was not silly.  If CE3K witnesses have their world views kicked out violently then just imagine a percipient in a UFO abduction situation.  They did not just see a UFO and AEs at a distance: they were followed, stopped, taken aboard the UFO and then in physical contact with AEs –even undergoing some form of physical examination. Not just that but they receive some form of memory block that is designed to make them forget much of the experience.

   If we have people making these claims, especially ones who do not want publicity or to be named in any way and they appear to be sincere and suffering physiological and psychological symptoms that suggest something really did happen what should be done?  Firstly, there needs to be an initial investigation to gather details and see whether the percipient appears genuine.  Secondly, any physiological symptoms need to be medically assessed as soon as possible and really by this point there should be a psychologist or mental health professional involved because these are traumatised people. Ideally, someone with mental health training should be with the initial investigation team so that throughout the investigation there is a friendly face.

   There should never even be consideration of the use of regression hypnosis until it is assessed that the percipient is psychologically and physically fit.  Every avenue needs to be explored in attempting to help a percipient recover blocked memories without the use of hypnosis.  It may indeed take longer to get details about what happened but the percipient and their psychological health and well being must be seen as the most important aspect of the case.

   It is also very important that the percipient can contact someone connected with the investigation whether a year or two years down the road. They are unlikely to have a second or third encounter but ufology has to accept that it cannot expect a percipient to give everything and to hell with the consequences: juicy story and details and then done. There is a responsibility and if an investigator or organisation cannot accept that responsibility then it is not “fit for purpose”.

   With the Hills, Parker and Hickson et al many ufologists used kind words, got what they wanted then moved on; they did not even offer moral support to beleagured percipients thus adding more trauma.  There are shameful events in ufology’s past and present and these are in many cases beyond being rectified: it should be possible, however, to instigate some form of short term study by psychologists with an interest in ufology to draw up a “how to” plan for future cases and, possibly, look at the past evidence and produce a psychological assessment of percipients in alien abduction cases.

   That would at least begin to show that the subject is being looked at seriously and using scientific methodology. If what we call “the Modern Age of Ufology” began in 1947 then in 70 years we have to ask why we have not got it right yet and why science is still not taking the subject seriously –it all comes back to ufology.