I posted the Allagash UFO abduction videos for a specific reason. It shows the problems when you have an alleged group event and when there are, as far as I am aware, no secondary witnesses to the UFO.
Firstly, the group reported the UFO incident and that they were tired so back at camp they just went to their sleeping bags and slept. They discussed the "light" the next day. After that they mentioned the event to friends over the years but it was not until Jim Weiner had an accident that memories of the alleged abduction began to surface.
Now in its look at the case the History Channel showed just how incompetent they have become when in comes to fact checking. They state Jim was involved in a car crash and received brain damage and seizures. The story has been recounted so many times that most people ought to know that Weiner fell from a staircase and received injuries.
I have known people who suffered from epileptic seizures and in some cases things 100% positive happened....in the persons mind. My late sister, while going through a seizure called to her dog (at that point long dead) as she was being abducted by armed me...the paramedic crew. Without going into the "psychic link" between twins there is enough anecdotal evidence to suggest that twins can share similar dreams or even feel discomfort or pain when the other is injured. We only have the Weiners' word on when they discussed their dreams or how similar they were.
It was suggested that the group undergo hypnosis and polygraph tests which they seem to have passed and then we get to the problems. I think that the presenter of the Case Cracked video (scroll down the page) showed how thoroughly unqualified he was to comment on the case. He appears to have taken edited snippets from interviews over the years and noted how the story changed slightly -the memory will alter and add to things which is why everything needs recording early on. He also states he is unsure about regression hypnosis but "thinks" it is used in psychiatry or something...there is the problem if you base your knowledge on millennial you tubers who have no idea what theyare talking about.
Now Charles Rak confirmed everything the others said but in 2018 stated he did so for financial gain which does not hold water: when the group appeared on the Joan Rivers Show they had not even seen a copy of the book on the incident and were not paid to appear. For three guys out to make money they certainly let things slip away from them. Raymond Fowler who investigated the case suggested that Rak had veered away from his friends and made the hoax claim over 40 years later as the abduction experience was something he had no control over and he had a need to be in control. This is possible if Rak had a personality of that type. I have seen people (non UFO related) go against what 5-10 witnesses have described because they had no control over what happened.
If you have four people or three people relating the same details and you are writing an article or even a book then what you do in summarising is give the details and if you are an honest reporter you will then go into the differences -I prefer to give the differences in accounts while summarising. The problem is that someone -a reporter or whoever- will take the snippet they have read and that is taken as fact. When someone else then says that "A" reported an item in a different way that is taken to mean the stories are changing.
I have seen debunkers do this to 'prove' a hoax. It is quite easy especially if you have people who base everything on a quick and easy cut and paste from the internet. I have found well documented cases summarised on web sites by 'ufologists' that quoted the original sources but had obviously never read the source. In one case I found ten different web sites with ten altered versions -so we then see that the story given was "not consistent". Buy the book or source and READ it.
In the Allagash case we have snippets taken from the early accounts, edited news items and TV programmes and that will give you 'changing accounts'.
There are so many sticking points and potholes in the Allagash case and that is why I never passed it as a case for inclusion in UFO Contact?
It is an interesting case but did not meet the criteria as evidence of a possible genuine event -even if it actually was!
http://www.lulu.com/shop/terry-hooperscharf/ufo-contact/paperback/product-23719040.html
Firstly, the group reported the UFO incident and that they were tired so back at camp they just went to their sleeping bags and slept. They discussed the "light" the next day. After that they mentioned the event to friends over the years but it was not until Jim Weiner had an accident that memories of the alleged abduction began to surface.
Now in its look at the case the History Channel showed just how incompetent they have become when in comes to fact checking. They state Jim was involved in a car crash and received brain damage and seizures. The story has been recounted so many times that most people ought to know that Weiner fell from a staircase and received injuries.
I have known people who suffered from epileptic seizures and in some cases things 100% positive happened....in the persons mind. My late sister, while going through a seizure called to her dog (at that point long dead) as she was being abducted by armed me...the paramedic crew. Without going into the "psychic link" between twins there is enough anecdotal evidence to suggest that twins can share similar dreams or even feel discomfort or pain when the other is injured. We only have the Weiners' word on when they discussed their dreams or how similar they were.
It was suggested that the group undergo hypnosis and polygraph tests which they seem to have passed and then we get to the problems. I think that the presenter of the Case Cracked video (scroll down the page) showed how thoroughly unqualified he was to comment on the case. He appears to have taken edited snippets from interviews over the years and noted how the story changed slightly -the memory will alter and add to things which is why everything needs recording early on. He also states he is unsure about regression hypnosis but "thinks" it is used in psychiatry or something...there is the problem if you base your knowledge on millennial you tubers who have no idea what theyare talking about.
Now Charles Rak confirmed everything the others said but in 2018 stated he did so for financial gain which does not hold water: when the group appeared on the Joan Rivers Show they had not even seen a copy of the book on the incident and were not paid to appear. For three guys out to make money they certainly let things slip away from them. Raymond Fowler who investigated the case suggested that Rak had veered away from his friends and made the hoax claim over 40 years later as the abduction experience was something he had no control over and he had a need to be in control. This is possible if Rak had a personality of that type. I have seen people (non UFO related) go against what 5-10 witnesses have described because they had no control over what happened.
If you have four people or three people relating the same details and you are writing an article or even a book then what you do in summarising is give the details and if you are an honest reporter you will then go into the differences -I prefer to give the differences in accounts while summarising. The problem is that someone -a reporter or whoever- will take the snippet they have read and that is taken as fact. When someone else then says that "A" reported an item in a different way that is taken to mean the stories are changing.
I have seen debunkers do this to 'prove' a hoax. It is quite easy especially if you have people who base everything on a quick and easy cut and paste from the internet. I have found well documented cases summarised on web sites by 'ufologists' that quoted the original sources but had obviously never read the source. In one case I found ten different web sites with ten altered versions -so we then see that the story given was "not consistent". Buy the book or source and READ it.
In the Allagash case we have snippets taken from the early accounts, edited news items and TV programmes and that will give you 'changing accounts'.
There are so many sticking points and potholes in the Allagash case and that is why I never passed it as a case for inclusion in UFO Contact?
It is an interesting case but did not meet the criteria as evidence of a possible genuine event -even if it actually was!
http://www.lulu.com/shop/terry-hooperscharf/ufo-contact/paperback/product-23719040.html
