EDITORIAL

ON THE QUEST FOR TANGIBLE EVIDENCE

This RB issue is to some extent special. For the first time we are touching upon the so-called "alien abductions" that have for the last 20 years become an essential (as for the USA—maybe, even central) part of ufology, serving thereby to distance it further from mainstream science. One cannot, however, say that any established scientific research body has ever conducted a serious investigation of the "abduction phenomenon", reached some definite conclusions (say, that it is of purely psychosocial origin) and brought these conclusions to public notice. To the best of my knowledge, the number of such investigations falls far short even of the number of serious UFO study programs. Bluntly speaking, there was no such investigation at all.

On the other hand, an evident inclination of many ufologists to accept abduction stories at face value, and to hold forth on "genetic experiments" performed on humans by malicious aliens who are planning either conquering our planet, or just breeding a new race of intelligent beings, is met with natural resistance by scientists and the serious reading public in general.

Incidentally, the seemingly "obvious" connection between the UFO phenomenon and "alien abductions" ("UFOs are ET spacecraft and their crews grab humans who carelessly approach a landed "saucer" at a lonely place or just peacefully sleep in their home beds") is by no means obvious. There exist, first, some physical objects in the atmosphere, whose nature and origin still remain unknown, and there also exist, second, stories with consistent contents: some beings come to bedrooms, drag out from there their residents, usually directly through the walls of the rooms, and then perform on them some unpleasant manipulations in a closed location. The latter scheme works at least in 50% of abduction occurrences; as for the former Soviet Union, "saucer abduction" reports from its territory (that is, when a witness is grabbed by UFO occupants "in the field" and examined in a "flying saucer") were extremely rare. Soviet people usually had friendly talks with the "extraterrestrials", travelling in "saucers" only at will. Refusal to enter a UFO and make a trip to "another planet" was, as a rule, well understood, and the ETIs did not insist on their proposal. (Probably, they also were aware of the "iron curtain" and possible troubles that would have awaited the abductee after his return.) Thus, the Soviet contactee could easily avoid unpleasant medical procedures in an alien starship, to say nothing about intercourse with, God forbid, alien blondes.

Although "alien abductions" are certainly not a purely American phenomenon, they do seem to occupy a special place in the collective consciousness of American society. And in any case, in one respect the UFO problem and the problem of "alien abductions" are almost antithetical to each other: the psychosocial aspect of the former, however important, is just a superstructure over the physical "core" of this phenomenon, whereas in the abduction problem we are unaware if there exists any "physical core" at all. To simplify somewhat the real situation, one could say that in the UFO problem we deal with an "evidently real" phenomenon that does not basically cause any "noticeable" harm, and in the abduction problem we deal with an "evident harm" caused by a phenomenon, whose ontological status is more than indefinite.

But is it so very important? After all, the subjective ("psychophysiological") reality of "alien abductions" is beyond doubt and victims of this phenomenon need effective—and quick—help, more than a long discussion with a vague result. A paper by Dr. Phillip S. Duke, Ph.D. (he is also a graduate of the University of California School of Medicine), included in this RB issue, completely answers this principle—even if Dr. Duke himself, judging from a number of his remarks, believes that aliens are physically real and abducting humans for their own purposes. Having discovered a certain medical problem among some abductees, he recommends solving it by an effective and safe method. Effectiveness and safety of this method does not depend on whether these people were in fact physically abducted by "aliens", or whether they merely imagined their stories.

The latter assumption has also its right to exist—though better if not in such a primitive form. To effectively help the "anomalously traumatized" people, we must find out whether the traumas are "physiological with psychological consequences", or vice versa. Some treatments may be the same for both variants, other may not. Incidentally, if during a sufficiently long and active search no tangible evidence is after all discovered, we will have to accept the "subjective" model of the abduction phenomenon and to act accordingly. At the current stage of investigations it is equally irresponsible to attribute the abduction syndrome to the bad influence of the "Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind" film, or to shout "Help, Help! Cosmic rape!" One can understand the perplexity of the "anomalously traumatized", but it can appear that some scientists have found themselves in the same situation (as regards the phenomenon as a whole). Their seemingly rational criticism resembles rather a form of psychological defense against a nightmarish phenomenon.

The present author is willing to describe here his own phobias in this respect. At a rational level of consideration I simply do not know if the abduction phenomenon is physically real, or not. The lack of substantial tangible evidence suggests that the "subjective" conception is at least worthy of attention (again, this consideration is hardly irrational). But as for the emotional level, I am rather satisfied with this conclusion—since I actively dislike the pattern of the "contact" between aliens and earthlings that is emerging from the abductees' reports. I've gotten used to the "Great Ring" of cosmic civilizations by Ivan Efremov and "Galactic Club" by Ronald Bracewell, not to this cosmic breeding farm. And who can like nightmares, after all?!

Thus, the present author is realizing some of his phobias, comprehending that a certain part of his inner negative—and not at all "skeptical"—attitude to the assumption of the physical reality of the abduction phenomenon is inherently irrational. Can one hope that this comprehension will restrain me from an incorrect interpretation of empirical facts? Frankly speaking, not necessarily. Personal biases and phobias may be overcome only in joint work of a normal scientific research community, where individual preferences are mutually neutralized (in pseudoscientific CSICOP-like communities these preferences are only intensifying).

Some chances of discovering "tangible evidence" of a sort seem to emerge from the paper "The Russian Roswell: A Legend Under Examination" by Dr.Yuriy Morozov, published in this RB issue. Its author is considering a story about the landing of a strange (air? space?) craft that appears to have occurred in the Stavropol province in the 19th century. This craft was piloted by "strange people" who soon died, since they "could not breathe with our air". True, typologically this story resembles more the "Aurora incident" than the Roswell one, but the former is, as competent ufologists are certain, an established hoax, whereas everything seems to indicate that the "Stavropol story" is no hoax at all. "Trivial explanations" cannot certainly be ruled out here—as is stressed by the paper's author. But at least, one can outline a "methodologically correct" scheme of possible verification of the story: first, we should try to determine, based on its contents, the most probable place of the incident, and then try to find there its material traces (say, parts of the craft, or the remains of the pilots). The scheme does look simple—just as any scheme may look. To put it into practice will not be that easy, however. But an attempt seems to be well worth while.

And finally, we are continuing to publish in this issue of the Bulletin readers' comments to the paper "History of State-Directed UFO Research in the USSR" by Yuliy Platov and Boris Sokolov (RB, 1999, Vol. 5, No. 3-4.) Having taken a cold shower from a reader in previous RB issue (Vol. 6, No. 2-3, pp. 11-12), it is with much satisfaction that I see another letter (by Dr. Alexey Koroliuk) — expressing a more positive opinion both about the paper and the present editor, who was bold enough to publish it. Hopefully, this reader's response will not be the last benevolent one.

— Vladimir V. Rubtsov 

To download RB, Vol. 6, No. 4, containing this paper, please click here:
http://www.geocities.com/riap777/EPRB-64.pdf (401 KB)

RIAP Bulletin is published two to four times per year. You can pay your subscription online and purchase back RB issues safely and securely with your Credit Card (as well as by checks, MOs, and cash) via the following secure order page: 

https://order.kagi.com/?4FZ&lang=en

All transactions are conducted over SSL encrypted servers, providing the highest level of protection available for your credit card transactions.

Please note: the transaction fee (10 to 12.5 percent) will be paid by RIAP; so, you should NOT add anything to the sum payable.

The RB PDF files downloadable from this site are password-protected. Passwords are sent to RB subscribers immediately after their subscription sums are received and processed.

If there happens any problem with downloading, please let us know and we will be glad to send you the RB files you selected as attachments to e-mail. Or, if you prefer, we will send you their print version.