-=> Quoting MATTHEW SCRUGGS to MICHAEL HOLT <=-
 MS> Statistics & abductions.
 MS> Well, Mack & Jacobs and some others have been doing just that with
 MS> these reports for some years.
So has Vallee.  I applaud this approach.  
 MS> As far as *I* know, the only pathology seen in these people that
 MS> varied SIGNIFIGANTLY from the general population related to stress &
 MS> fear from the experiences themselves. Otherwise, traumas in early life
 MS> were about average for the standard population. 
that's what I picked up from Mack's book.  
But in other sources, a lot of abductees were in fringe parts of society:
the poor, the homosexual and those with subtle handicaps.  What comes to mind
is the two women who saw the UFo surrounded by black copters: they were
poor, divorced and lonely (they said so).  But this kind of person is the
'noise' that we don't need.
 MS> Is it a subjective experience or an objective one? And HERE is
 MS> there a differance?
That's a good question, and I'll have to think about it for a while.
 MS> Re: No Navel
 MS> Well, after nearly 50 hours of viewing I have come to one
 MS> conclusion, its either an alien or its the best model of one EVER made.
 MS> I find it interesting that almost all pathologists who have viewed
 MS> this thing think its an organic event.
OK.  Under what conditions would the placenta be moved to another part
of the body?  Are there any creatures which have a navel in another place?
One wonders what sort of breeding would have to take place to move the 
navel on humans.
 MS> That is something that struck me as well. While I have never
 MS> participated in a human autopsy, I have done field autopsies on dead
 MS> dolphins & the look of the body cavity was about right.
That's interesting.
 MS> There were innards, just not recognizable ones.
Nothing looked familiar?  Even in function?
Michael
... Extremely confidential!  Delete before reading.
--- FMail 0.98
---------------