Articles by Other Researchers 

by Katharina Wilson

 

Original Proposal

Peter Davenport, the Director of The National UFO Reporting Center, recently attended the 'UFO Expo West' Conference. During the Question and Answer, after Whitley Strieber's presentation on Sunday, Peter made the following proposal:

"Ufologists should establish a precedent at this time regarding the ownership and possession of removed implants." Peter pointed out that he believed that any FOREIGN BODY (as opposed to a tissue sample) removed from a person should remain the property of that individual.

"The crowd spontaneously broke out in applause and even Whitley embraced the proposal strongly and immediately." Peter spoke briefly with a representative of another group working with implants and he was left with the impression that this researcher did not support the proposal.

Question

What do you believe the guidelines should be concerning the foreign object, i.e. implant? Do you believe that after the analysis is completed, the implant - object should be returned to the abductee from whom it was taken? This is a variable that we may not have thoroughly considered. Peter asked me to share this proposal with others in the research - abductee - experiencer community. If you have the time to participate in a dialogue about this important proposal, please let your voices be heard.

Also, please consider this question if you are thinking about having a foreign object (you believe to be an implant) removed from your body.

Summary

This proposal was originally e-mailed to four UFO researchers who regularly lecture about UFOs, alien abductions, or both; five MUFON investigators in the northwest, two UFO journalists, nine abductees; four of whom are authors of books about the UFO or abduction phenomenon, and three individuals who have expressed a deep interest in the UFO phenomenon. In addition, two postings were made to ISCNI message boards ("The Institute for the Study of Contact with Non-Human Intelligence"), and one to an "OMNI" Magazine UFO/abduction message board, both on America On-line.

Responses

After ten days, none of the UFO researcher-lecturers had responded, only one MUFON investigator responded, and none of the three individuals who have a deep interest in the UFO phenomenon responded. One of the two UFO journalists responded, all four of the abductee/authors responded, while only two of the remaining abductees responded. The other responses came from the ISCNI message board area. I did not include a response, and I received no responses from the "OMNI" site. The total respondents from the implant proposal after ten days numbered thirteen. This was followed by a second series of postings to CompuServe and other BBS sites and another twelve responses came in. [Since this article was published, there have been many more responses at the CompuServe abduction forum site.]

A few people made very short statements about the proposal, while most sent in several pages of comments. I believe it would be of interest to share some of the comments and concerns that were relayed by the respondents.

From the first 25 respondents, it was generally agreed upon by fifteen people that unless the abductee gives someone explicit permission, no one else has the right to claim ownership of an object removed from their body except the abductee. The remaining ten people did not disagree with the question posed in the proposal. However, rather than directly addressing the question, they elected to express their concerns relating to the implant retrieval process in general. These concerns will be addressed at this time.

Two respondents brought up the subject of selling implants for monetary gain. One mentioned the selling of an alien implant in a neutral manner, the other respondent believed that if anyone is to make money from these implants, then it should be the abductee. However, this person also expressed great distress that this would ever be considered by anyone, especially an abductee or an abduction researcher.

Another individual proposed that if someone else pays for the removal of the object or if there is a third party involved, for example, an insurance company, then that third party should have a voice in the ultimate ownership of the object.

Questions From Abductees

"Since established professionals of various professions are being suspected of possible conspiracies and cover-ups, who would want them to have possession of something so important?" [Referring to alien implants.]

"How can we trust anyone but ourselves when it comes to something so important [as an alien implant]?"

One respondent brought up the fact that implants may one day be "seized by government and military personnel under some 'national security' nonsense, or at least as a PR effort." This is a chilling thought indeed, and I believe, not as far-fetched as you might imagine.

Personal Insight

One respondent stated that the implant should be the property of "the whole of humanity if it turns out to have value in furthering our knowledge..." This same individual who did, in fact, have an object removed from their body, recommended that abductees not take this step until "[they] have thought long and hard" and they "have defined [their] motives for doing so." It is noteworthy to share this individual's insight with our readers: "...If it is indeed a 'genuine article' you just may be in for a few surprises and changes in your personal makeup that you had not counted on." This person expressed that they had to come to terms with physiological and psychological changes they did not expect to occur after the object's removal.

It has been hypothesized by several people including myself, that these devices may be altering our bodies either physiologically, psychologically, and perhaps even psychically. Therefore, it would seem that these implants probably have functions other than being a device implanted merely for the purposes of tracking the abductee.

Safe to Remove?

There was concern expressed by several respondents that having an alien device removed from an abductee's body may not be such a safe decision, since we know next to nothing about these objects. Concern that the devices may be "booby-trapped," or "connected to nerve endings," or that we might face the possibility of having "...our very first fatality during a removal operation..." were some of the concerns expressed. In addition, it was also suggested that a "moratorium [be] placed on further surgeries until we have the results [of] the first ten or twelve [objects]." Considering the words of the abductee who has already had one of these objects removed, I think many people would agree that further implant removal surgeries should be put on hold until there is time to monitor the abductees for physiological and/or psychological changes, and until the laboratory analysis has been published in a reputable journal.

Interestingly, a researcher and author who responded to the proposal stated that if abductees are not frightened by "propaganda," they probably won't elect to have their implants removed and that "the standard reaction is a feeling of being intrigued by the device's presence."

Scientific Analysis

Four individuals specifically questioned the validity of the research results if the implant were returned to the abductee after the original analysis was performed. Should the need to reexamine the implant arise at some point in the future and the abductee retained possession of the implant, they believed future results might be inadvertently adulterated due to the inconsistent storage and handling by the abductee.

Another important question that was brought up in this discussion is: What if the abductee does not wish to remain in possession of the implant? Another respondent stated that "an honorable and respected group" of individuals should be in charge of caring for, or archiving and storing the implants. It is interesting to note that this "honorable and respected group" of people that would care for these suspected alien devices did not have to include anyone from the UFO - abduction community.

Care and respect for abductees' physical and mental well-being and the object's 'chain of custody' are of primary concern to this author. I am happy to report that several respondents brought up these same concerns.

I have compiled the following list of considerations thanks to the suggestions from our respondents. The majority of these ideas come from two scientists who asked not to be identified. My comments are contained in brackets.

Important Considerations

• Collect the objects and all possible information about their sources.
• Decide on the best method(s) of analysis, preferably non-destructive analysis that changes the objects as little as possible.
• Preserve the objects in a way that keeps them available for future study.
• One danger of allowing the objects to be returned to the source is that some of them may be hoaxes. If the objects are not available for future study, the data will be of no value and a new investigation will have to be initiated.
• [Imagine how frustrating this would be if you were the person who submitted yourself to surgery in the interest of furthering scientific knowledge and your data had to be omitted.]
• Everything stands the chance of being called a hoax by 'someone,' sooner or later.
• It is much more difficult to prove that a genuine object is not a hoax when it has been accused of being one, than it is to prove that something is not genuine.
• The same elements exist throughout the universe and their physical reactions are the same, so we are not likely to find any chemical compounds we couldn't find on Earth.
• [If you are an abductee and you know or suspect you have an alien implant or a suspected foreign object in your body, do not let your fear of the unknown or the requests of a researcher pressure you into making a snap decision to have it removed. There is the possibility that the object has been in your body for a long time and another week or even a month probably will not make that much difference.]
• A wealth of valuable data could be rendered meaningless unless a methodology is set up for comparing, testing, and re-testing these suspicious objects. [After the welfare of the patient-abductee, the chain of custody is of the highest importance.]

Publish Results

The belief in abductions aside, by the implementation of the scientific method, (having the object removed by a qualified physician and following the chain of custody precisely), there is no reason why the results of an analysis of these objects should not be submitted to a scientific journal for publication. I appeal to all researchers and medical doctors involved in this endeavor: please let one of your goals in performing this research to be the publication of your findings. **Only by publishing your findings will the information reach the public in a way that is verifiable by scientific standards.

I would like to sincerely thank everyone who took the time to respond to this proposal. I am certain that all of our ideas and opinions contributed to one another's awareness about the issues abductees and the research community must eventually face. I encourage you to continue expressing your ideas and views about this important subject on message boards, in discussion groups, at conferences, and to your personal physician should you find yourself in the position of having one of these suspicious objects removed.

Government Implants?

The issue of government implants was not addressed in this article. However, sufficient evidence and documentation exists to prove that the United States government has a deep interest in the development of implant technology. For information about this subject, please refer to Project Open Mind.

An edited version of this article was published in the ISCNI Flash on-line newsletter - known presently as CNI News; published by Michael and Debra Lindemann.

*Update: CNI News is no longer being published. For more information, contact Deborah Lindemann, CHT at: http://www.cfree.org

**Update: Information on implants that have been removed is now being published. One excellent source of information is: Alienscalpel (Implant Removal) 253 Lombard Street, Suite B, Thousand Oaks, CA, 91360. Dr. Roger K. Leir - Director

Dr. Roger K. Leir (Implant Removal) http://www.alienscalpel.com

by Katharina Wilson ©1996