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to the person becoming isolated and withdrawn, and they may also give up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.
