Arms and the Abductee
Budd Hopkins told the following story during his lecture at the Los Angeles “Whole Life Expo.”[166] He considers the case “very good…lots of corroborating witnesses for parts of it.” Though not, presumably, for this part:
Hopkins’ informant, after the by-now familiar UFO abduction, was given a gun by the aliens. Not a Buck Rogers laser weapon — this was something Dirty Harry might have packed.
The abductee was also given someone to shoot. Not a little grey alien — another human being, tied to a chair. The “visitors” told their armed abductee that this captive had done “evil on the earth, and he’s a bad person. You have to kill him.” If the abductee didn’t do as asked, he would never leave the ship.
The captive proclaimed his innocence, and pleaded for his life. The abductee, caught in the middle of all this, became quite upset. (Worth noting: he seems to have at least considered the aliens’ request to shoot someone he had never met.) Ultimately, the abductee turned the gun on the aliens, and said, “Nobody’s going to get shot here.”
According to Hopkins, “The aliens said ‘Fine. Very good.’ They took the gun from him; the man [presumably, the captive] got up, walked away, disappeared, and they went on to the next thing.” Obviously, this little drama had been staged — a test of some sort.
I submit that this surreal incident is incomprehensible as either an example of alien incursion or of “Klass-ical” confabulation. The scenario described here exactly parallels numerous experiments in the hypnotic induction of anti-social action as revealed both in the standard hypnosis literature and in declassified ARTICHOKE/MKULTRA documents. For example, compare Hopkins’ account to the following, in which Ludwig Mayer, a prominent German hypnosis researcher, describes a classic experiment in the hypnotic induction of criminal action:
I gave a revolver to an elderly and readily suggestible man whom I had just hypnotized. The revolver had just been loaded by Mr. H. with a percussion cap. I explained to [the subject], while pointing to Mr. H., that Mr. H. was a very wicked man whom he should shoot to kill. With great determination he took the revolver and fired a shot directly at Mr. H. Mr. H. fell down pretending to be wounded. I then explained to my subject that the fellow was not yet quite dead, and that he should give him another bullet, which he did without further ado.[167]
Of course, if a conservative hypnosis specialist were asked to comment on the above account, he would quickly point out that hypnotic suggestions which work in an experimental situation would not easily succeed outside the laboratory; on some level, the subject will probably sense whether or not he’s playing the game for real.[168] Similarly, a conservative abduction researcher would, in reviewing Hopkins’ material, emphasize the problems inherent in using testimony derived during regression, where the threat of confabulation lurks. I’ll concede both arguments — for the moment — only to insist that they are beside the point. The matter of primary importance, the sticking point which neither Klass nor Hopkins can comfortably confront, is the convergence of detail between Mayer’s hypnosis experiment and the testing event related by Hopkins’ abductee. Why are these two stories so similar? Did the good Dr. Mayer take pupils from Sirius?[169]
Hopkins says he knows of other instances in which abductees found themselves in similar crucibles. So do I.
One person I spoke to can remember (sans hypnosis) being handed a gun inside a ziplock baggy, and receiving instructions that she will have to use this weapon “on a job.” Early in my interviews with her (and with no prompting from me) she recited an apparent cue drilled into her consciousness by the “entities” (as she calls them): “When you see the light, you will do it tonight,” followed by the command, “Execute.” (One can only speculate as to how such commands would be used in the field; we will discuss later the use of photovoltaic hypnotic induction.) Though her personal feelings toward firearms are decidedly negative, she vividly describes periods in her “everyday” life when she feels an uncharacteristic, yet overpowering urge to be near a gun — a quasi-sexual desire to pick one up and touch the metal.[170]
She is not alone. Another has been so affected by gun fever that he became a security guard, just to be near the things.[171] The abductees I have spoken to connect this sudden surge of Ramboism to the UFO experience. But I suggest that the UFO experience may be merely a cover story for another type of training entirely.
One of the primary goals of BLUEBIRD, ARTICHOKE, and MKULTRA was to determine whether mind control could be used to facilitate “executive action” — i.e., assassination.[172]
It isn’t difficult to imagine the media’s reaction if a public figure were murdered by someone acting at the behest of the “space brothers.” Who would dare to speak of conspiracy under such circumstances? The hidden controllers could choose a myth structure that conforms to the abductee’s personality, then pose as higher beings, who would whisper violence into the ear of the percipient. Using this ruse, the trick that scientists such as Ludwig Mayer could perform in the lab might now be accomplished in the field. As Estabrooks’ associate Jack Tracktir (professor of hypnotherapy at Baylor University) explained to John Marks, anti-social acts can be induced with “no conscience involved” once the proper pretext has been created.[173]
“They Will Think It’s Flying Saucers”
Jenny Randles contributes an anecdote from Great Britain which dovetails nicely with this hypothesis.
In 1965, “Margary” (a pseudonym) lived in Birmingham with her husband, who one night told her to prepare her for a “shock and a test.” As Randles describes what she calls a “rogue case”:
They got into his car and drove off, although her memory of the trip became hazy and confused and she does not know where they went. Then she was in a room that was dimly lit and there were people standing around a long table or flat bed. She was out on it and seemed “drugged” and unable to resist. The most memorable of the men was tall and thin with a long nose and white beard. He had thick eyebrows and supposedly said to Margary, “Remember the eyebrows, honey.” A strange medical examination, using odd equipment, was performed on her.
Both the husband and the scientists, using (apparently) hypnotic techniques, flooded her mind with images that, she was told, would be understood only in the future. According to Randles, “At one point one of the ‘examiners’ in the room said to Margary in a tone that made it seem as if he were amused, ‘They will think it’s flying saucers.’” The husband also revealed that he had a second identity. After the abduction, this husband (am I going too far to assume his employment with MI6 or some cognate agency?) left, never to be seen again.[174] Margary did not recall the abduction until 1978.
This affair can only baffle a researcher who insists on fitting all abduction accounts into the ET hypothesis; once we free ourselves from that set of assumptions, explanations come easily. I interpret this incident as a case in which the controllers applied the flying saucer cover story sloppily, or to an insufficiently receptive subject. If my thesis is correct, the UFO “hypnotic hoax” technique would still have been fairly new in 1965, particularly outside the United States; perhaps the manipulators hadn’t yet got the hang of it. The odd comment about the scientist’s eyebrows may refer to an item of disguise donned for the occasion. The unscrupulous hypnotist, unsure about his ability to induce an impenetrable amnesia — and mindful of the price paid by his forerunners in mesmeric criminality[175] — would understandably want to hedge his bets; by indulging in the British penchant for theatrics, he could further protect his anonymity.
A similar incident was brought to my attention by researcher Robert Durant. The relevant excerpt of his letter follows:
“Now I want to turn to a case that I have been investigating for several months. The subject is an abductee. Standard abduction scenario. Twice regressed under hypnosis, the first time by a well-known abduction researcher, the second time by a psychologist with parapsychology connections.
In the course of many hours of listening to the subject, I discovered that she has had close personal contact over a long period of time with several individuals who have federal intelligence connections. She was hypnotized many years ago as part of a TV program devoted to hypnosis. Her abductions began shortly after she attended several long sessions at a laboratory where, ostensibly, she was being tested for ESP abilities. Two other people who were “tested” at this same laboratory have also had abductions. All three were told by the lab to join a local UFO group. During her abductions, the principal alien spoke to the subject in the English language in a normal manner, not via telepathy. She recognized the voice, which was at one time that of her very close friend of yesteryear who was then and is now employed by the CIA. The other voice was that of an individual who works in Washington, has what I will call very strong federal connections as well as a finger in just about every ufological pie, and who just happened to bump into her at the aforementioned laboratory. He also anticipated, in the course of telephone conversations, her abductions. When the subject confronted him about this and the voice, he claimed to be psychic.” (!)[176]
The “ESP” connection is suggestive; the MKULTRA documents betray an astonishing interest on the part of the intelligence agencies in matters parapsychological.
Some researchers would object that examples such as this are rare; most abductions contain no such overt indications of intelligence involvement. But have investigators looked for them? As mentioned in the introduction, a false dichotomy limits much ufological thought; as long as the abduction argument swings between the ET hypothesis and purely psychological theories, researchers will not recognize the relevance of certain key items of background data.