sophia_h
05-04-2009, 05:06 PM
`
STRANGE EVIDENCE
BY BILL CHALKER
his is a complex and difficult story to tell. We
have taken a hair sample that was allegedly from
an alien abduction episode and subjected it to
DNA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis—
a technique that has not been used before in UFO
investigation. Without this evidence, the case would be like
any other alien abduction account: a bizarre story without
any evidence to support its reality. The evidence we have
uncovered suggests connections that may require us to
consider new hypotheses on the biological nature of at least
some of the beings implicated in alien abduction experiences.
Unlike many investigators and researchers in this
area, I will not rush to judgment on what all this means. This
is the first study of its kind. If we had 100 more like it, we
would certainly be a more confident in getting an answer.
Some of the professional scientists involved in this work
would like to do much more, but they are hampered by a
lack of funding and time. To date, all funding has been from
the pockets of the team involved. We would all be happier
if increased funding allowed us to undertake such work in
a more open and supported way. This study provides a
glimpse of what can be done to bring science to bear on
physical evidence in abduction cases. If you are able to
assist with funding please contact me, c/o P.O. Box W42,
West Pennant Hills, NSW 2125, Australia.
BACKGROUND AND PERSPECTIVE
As a scientist, I am aware of the fundamental position that
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. However,
such evidence also often requires extraordinary investigation
and research to obtain it.
J. Allen Hynek put his finger on the real problem in a
1981 issue of Frontiers of Science. Sadly, not much has
changed. He wrote, “we come face to face with the charge
that after 30 years of dealing with UFO reports we still have
no really convincing ‘hard data’. . . . I grow livid when such
charges of ‘no data’ are made. After years of frustration
without the funds to pay for adequate laboratory and other
professional work, I bristle at the lack of understanding on
the part of the scientific skeptics, who wouldn’t get to first
base without well-funded research projects with staff, travel
and laboratory facilities. . . . All we have are abortive, often
amateurish attempts at data gathering, data analysis, and
feeble attempts at laboratory studies (on a charity basis, of
course), all of which dwindle into inconclusion and frustration.
. . . It is my contention that ‘hard’ data may well have
been present in many UFO cases but their discovery and
definitive establishment has repeatedly gone by default for
lack of professional (funded) treatment. It has always been
a case of ‘too little and too late,’ necessitated by the use of
volunteers bolstered only by their unselfish devotion to the
pursuit of an overwhelming mystery.”
To date, some compelling evidence has been discovered
for the physical reality of mainstream UFO events:
• physical traces from UFO landing cases—Rosedale,
Australia (1980), Trans-en-Provence, France (1981), and
Tully, Australia (1966);
• electromagnetic effects in close-encounter incidents,
particularly car-stalling cases—Levelland, Texas (1957),
and Norah Head, Australia (1973);
• radar-visual encounters—the Sea Fury Australian
Navy pilot encounter (1954);
• physical effects on witnesses—the alleged fatalities
in Cooktown, Australia (1959), the Texas Cash-Landrum
encounter (1980), and the “chupa” encounters in Brazil,
where fatalities have been reported; and
• to a lesser extent, photographic evidence—the Australian
Benboyd UFO movie (1976).
Similar evidence to support the reality of abduction
events has been lacking or not compelling. And yet such
events have come to dominate the entire UFO scene. Indeed,
we have the extraordinary problem that the abduction
phenomenon is now seen as the core of ufology. The UFO
phenomenon itself has been abducted by the alien abduction
phenomenon. Until we have gained a much greater
certainty about abduction data, it should not be central to
our understanding of the UFO mystery. We are much more
certain about the physical dimensions of the mainstream
UFO phenomenon. We shouldn’t abandon the firm foundations
developed over decades for the extraordinary uncertainties
and fantastic claims that dominate the field today.
Most of the Australian
abduction cases I
have researched since the
1970s have prehaps told
me more about the human
condition than they
have about UFOs. Some
may wish to argue the
point, but the majority of
these cases have been
conspicuously devoid of
compelling physical evidence.
The 1993 Narre
Warren incident is one
of the few compelling
exceptions. Here we are
dealing with an event that
appears to involve physical
evidence and three
groups of apparently independent
witnesses
who may confirm a disquieting
reality.
A woman, Kelly Cahill, contacted me on
October 4, 1993, seeking assistance in understanding a
bizarre experience she had near the Melbourne suburban
housing estate of Narre Warren North, in the foothills of the
Dandenongs, Victoria, between Belgrave and Fountain
Gate, during the early hours of August 8, 1993.
This incident has been now extensively documented.
My own account of the complex episode has appeared in
“An Extraordinary Encounter in the Dandenong Foothills”
(IUR, Sept./Oct. 1994), and also in my book The Oz Files
(1996), pp. 9–16. Keith Basterfield described the case in his
UFOs: A Report on Australian Encounters (1997), pp. 123–
128, and Kelly Cahill has written about the incident herself
in her book Encounter (1996).
The incident appears to involve independent confirmation
of a CE3 and missing time in that at least two and
possibly three groups of people unknown to each other
witnessed the same UFO and entities, and experienced
missing time. Perhaps for the first time, independent witnesses
have offered strikingly similar information, thus
making a convincing case for the reality of the strange
events described. This reality is further strengthened by a
range of apparently related physical traces, including ground
traces, a low-level magnetic anomaly apparently consistent
with the location of the UFO encounter, and effects on some
of the witnesses.
I referred Kelly Cahill to John Auchettl and his group
Phenomena Research Australia (PRA). They had two different
laboratories confirm several unusual anomalies and
magnetic problems at the apparent site of the UFO landing.
Some interesting changes in soil chemistry were detected—
an above-average sulphur content, the presence of pyrene
(which occurs in coal tar and is also obtained by the
destructive hydrogenation of hard coal), and tannic acid—
in a crescent-shaped indentation. There was a triangular
formation of dead grass on the ground, spaced out in the
site.
These physical dimensions represent compelling evidence
for a reality underlying abduction events. The case is
a striking example of the importance of focusing on the
physical evidence for extraordinary UFO events. Such a
strategy will provide for insight into the nature and purpose
of UFO activity.
However, cases like Narre Warren are rare. Most
abduction events have little or no direct, unambiguous
evidence. Implants, missing fetuses, scars, and other abduction-
related anomalies still have not been sufficiently substantiated.
Over the years, I have been fortunate to have been able
to work with an informal network of scientists who all view
the UFO phenomenon as worthy of serious attention. (Many
of my “invisible college” colleagues prefer to contribute
anonymously because the UFO problem is seen as a forbidden
science. The frustrating thing is not that many scientists
are skeptical about UFOs, but that they ignore what is often
powerful evidence. However, the impact of the “court of
science” and the “politics of science” is powerful, so ufology
has not yet won the support of mainstream science.)
One approach we have been investigating is biological,
involving the use of powerful DNA techniques to examine
physical evidence from abduction episodes. Indeed, if these
bizarre events occur at some physical level (at least as we
understand it), then potential physical DNA evidence should
be available. We have been studying some specimens, in
particular a controversial hair sample. As the following
report will show, we have undertaken a mitochondrial DNA
sequence analysis of a hair follicle from an apparent alien
abduction case. This method has allowed us to provide a
measure of reality to an experience that would otherwise be
deemed just too bizarre. Without this level of scientific
validation, the incident would be no less unbelievable than
most other abduction episodes. But now the case has the
benefit of scientific evidence that lends it credibility and
hints at unusual and hitherto unsuspected connections.
ALIENS AND HAIR?
Most aliens in abduction episodes, particularly the socalled
“grays,” are described as hairless, but in a significant
number of cases hair is mentioned. Tall, Nordic-like beings
have been reported, as in the Travis Walton case of 1975.
Separate from his initial encounter with small, fetuslike
aliens, Walton reported seeing three tall humanoids, two
men and a woman, each similar in appearance and with the
same coarse, brownish-blonde hair. The woman’s hair was
longer, past her shoulders. There are many other cases like
this. The apparently bald grays have only dominated abduction
reports in the last two decades, especially since Whitley
Strieber’s Communion (1987). Budd Hopkins in Intruders
(1987) described “hybrid children” with thin, wispy hair.
David Jacobs in The Threat (1998) records extensive
abductee interactions with human-looking hybrids.
The concept of hybrids in abduction accounts is difficult
to reconcile with our current understanding of the
limitations of interspecies breeding. Indeed, given the possibility
that we may be dealing with a vastly technologically
superior species that is very likely biologically different
from us, alien-human hybrids seem both scientifically
improbable and logically implausible.
We might reason
that if aliens have visited us through advanced space travel
or some space-time wormhole, the barriers to combining
different biochemical building blocks might have also been
solved. But, even then, why create such hybrids? Maybe
David Jacobs’s scenario should be turned on its head:
Perhaps alien-human hybrids are a cover for a much simpler
agenda—the preservation of our stock, not theirs. But this
is wild, unsubstantiated speculation.
Michael Swords has
presented some excellent reviews of this problem in “Extraterrestrial
Hybridization Unlikely,” MUFON UFO Journal,
November 1988, and “Modern Biology and the Extraterrestrial
Hypothesis” in the MUFON 1991 International
UFO Symposium Proceedings. An entertaining discussion
of the problems can also be found in Jeanne Cavelos’s book
The Science of the X-Files (see the chapter on “Grays,
Hybrids, and UFOs”).
next:
PETER KHOURY
and much more:
http://www.cufos.org/strange_evidence.pdf
( There is a good photo of Peter Khoury at link.
To me he looks a clean cut fellow but none
of us can say whats in his INNER WELL. S. )
..
author:
Bill Chalker, an IUR contributing editor, is one of Australia’s
leading researchers. His book The Oz Files was published
in 1996 by Duffy and Snellgrove.
..
STRANGE EVIDENCE
BY BILL CHALKER
his is a complex and difficult story to tell. We
have taken a hair sample that was allegedly from
an alien abduction episode and subjected it to
DNA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis—
a technique that has not been used before in UFO
investigation. Without this evidence, the case would be like
any other alien abduction account: a bizarre story without
any evidence to support its reality. The evidence we have
uncovered suggests connections that may require us to
consider new hypotheses on the biological nature of at least
some of the beings implicated in alien abduction experiences.
Unlike many investigators and researchers in this
area, I will not rush to judgment on what all this means. This
is the first study of its kind. If we had 100 more like it, we
would certainly be a more confident in getting an answer.
Some of the professional scientists involved in this work
would like to do much more, but they are hampered by a
lack of funding and time. To date, all funding has been from
the pockets of the team involved. We would all be happier
if increased funding allowed us to undertake such work in
a more open and supported way. This study provides a
glimpse of what can be done to bring science to bear on
physical evidence in abduction cases. If you are able to
assist with funding please contact me, c/o P.O. Box W42,
West Pennant Hills, NSW 2125, Australia.
BACKGROUND AND PERSPECTIVE
As a scientist, I am aware of the fundamental position that
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. However,
such evidence also often requires extraordinary investigation
and research to obtain it.
J. Allen Hynek put his finger on the real problem in a
1981 issue of Frontiers of Science. Sadly, not much has
changed. He wrote, “we come face to face with the charge
that after 30 years of dealing with UFO reports we still have
no really convincing ‘hard data’. . . . I grow livid when such
charges of ‘no data’ are made. After years of frustration
without the funds to pay for adequate laboratory and other
professional work, I bristle at the lack of understanding on
the part of the scientific skeptics, who wouldn’t get to first
base without well-funded research projects with staff, travel
and laboratory facilities. . . . All we have are abortive, often
amateurish attempts at data gathering, data analysis, and
feeble attempts at laboratory studies (on a charity basis, of
course), all of which dwindle into inconclusion and frustration.
. . . It is my contention that ‘hard’ data may well have
been present in many UFO cases but their discovery and
definitive establishment has repeatedly gone by default for
lack of professional (funded) treatment. It has always been
a case of ‘too little and too late,’ necessitated by the use of
volunteers bolstered only by their unselfish devotion to the
pursuit of an overwhelming mystery.”
To date, some compelling evidence has been discovered
for the physical reality of mainstream UFO events:
• physical traces from UFO landing cases—Rosedale,
Australia (1980), Trans-en-Provence, France (1981), and
Tully, Australia (1966);
• electromagnetic effects in close-encounter incidents,
particularly car-stalling cases—Levelland, Texas (1957),
and Norah Head, Australia (1973);
• radar-visual encounters—the Sea Fury Australian
Navy pilot encounter (1954);
• physical effects on witnesses—the alleged fatalities
in Cooktown, Australia (1959), the Texas Cash-Landrum
encounter (1980), and the “chupa” encounters in Brazil,
where fatalities have been reported; and
• to a lesser extent, photographic evidence—the Australian
Benboyd UFO movie (1976).
Similar evidence to support the reality of abduction
events has been lacking or not compelling. And yet such
events have come to dominate the entire UFO scene. Indeed,
we have the extraordinary problem that the abduction
phenomenon is now seen as the core of ufology. The UFO
phenomenon itself has been abducted by the alien abduction
phenomenon. Until we have gained a much greater
certainty about abduction data, it should not be central to
our understanding of the UFO mystery. We are much more
certain about the physical dimensions of the mainstream
UFO phenomenon. We shouldn’t abandon the firm foundations
developed over decades for the extraordinary uncertainties
and fantastic claims that dominate the field today.
Most of the Australian
abduction cases I
have researched since the
1970s have prehaps told
me more about the human
condition than they
have about UFOs. Some
may wish to argue the
point, but the majority of
these cases have been
conspicuously devoid of
compelling physical evidence.
The 1993 Narre
Warren incident is one
of the few compelling
exceptions. Here we are
dealing with an event that
appears to involve physical
evidence and three
groups of apparently independent
witnesses
who may confirm a disquieting
reality.
A woman, Kelly Cahill, contacted me on
October 4, 1993, seeking assistance in understanding a
bizarre experience she had near the Melbourne suburban
housing estate of Narre Warren North, in the foothills of the
Dandenongs, Victoria, between Belgrave and Fountain
Gate, during the early hours of August 8, 1993.
This incident has been now extensively documented.
My own account of the complex episode has appeared in
“An Extraordinary Encounter in the Dandenong Foothills”
(IUR, Sept./Oct. 1994), and also in my book The Oz Files
(1996), pp. 9–16. Keith Basterfield described the case in his
UFOs: A Report on Australian Encounters (1997), pp. 123–
128, and Kelly Cahill has written about the incident herself
in her book Encounter (1996).
The incident appears to involve independent confirmation
of a CE3 and missing time in that at least two and
possibly three groups of people unknown to each other
witnessed the same UFO and entities, and experienced
missing time. Perhaps for the first time, independent witnesses
have offered strikingly similar information, thus
making a convincing case for the reality of the strange
events described. This reality is further strengthened by a
range of apparently related physical traces, including ground
traces, a low-level magnetic anomaly apparently consistent
with the location of the UFO encounter, and effects on some
of the witnesses.
I referred Kelly Cahill to John Auchettl and his group
Phenomena Research Australia (PRA). They had two different
laboratories confirm several unusual anomalies and
magnetic problems at the apparent site of the UFO landing.
Some interesting changes in soil chemistry were detected—
an above-average sulphur content, the presence of pyrene
(which occurs in coal tar and is also obtained by the
destructive hydrogenation of hard coal), and tannic acid—
in a crescent-shaped indentation. There was a triangular
formation of dead grass on the ground, spaced out in the
site.
These physical dimensions represent compelling evidence
for a reality underlying abduction events. The case is
a striking example of the importance of focusing on the
physical evidence for extraordinary UFO events. Such a
strategy will provide for insight into the nature and purpose
of UFO activity.
However, cases like Narre Warren are rare. Most
abduction events have little or no direct, unambiguous
evidence. Implants, missing fetuses, scars, and other abduction-
related anomalies still have not been sufficiently substantiated.
Over the years, I have been fortunate to have been able
to work with an informal network of scientists who all view
the UFO phenomenon as worthy of serious attention. (Many
of my “invisible college” colleagues prefer to contribute
anonymously because the UFO problem is seen as a forbidden
science. The frustrating thing is not that many scientists
are skeptical about UFOs, but that they ignore what is often
powerful evidence. However, the impact of the “court of
science” and the “politics of science” is powerful, so ufology
has not yet won the support of mainstream science.)
One approach we have been investigating is biological,
involving the use of powerful DNA techniques to examine
physical evidence from abduction episodes. Indeed, if these
bizarre events occur at some physical level (at least as we
understand it), then potential physical DNA evidence should
be available. We have been studying some specimens, in
particular a controversial hair sample. As the following
report will show, we have undertaken a mitochondrial DNA
sequence analysis of a hair follicle from an apparent alien
abduction case. This method has allowed us to provide a
measure of reality to an experience that would otherwise be
deemed just too bizarre. Without this level of scientific
validation, the incident would be no less unbelievable than
most other abduction episodes. But now the case has the
benefit of scientific evidence that lends it credibility and
hints at unusual and hitherto unsuspected connections.
ALIENS AND HAIR?
Most aliens in abduction episodes, particularly the socalled
“grays,” are described as hairless, but in a significant
number of cases hair is mentioned. Tall, Nordic-like beings
have been reported, as in the Travis Walton case of 1975.
Separate from his initial encounter with small, fetuslike
aliens, Walton reported seeing three tall humanoids, two
men and a woman, each similar in appearance and with the
same coarse, brownish-blonde hair. The woman’s hair was
longer, past her shoulders. There are many other cases like
this. The apparently bald grays have only dominated abduction
reports in the last two decades, especially since Whitley
Strieber’s Communion (1987). Budd Hopkins in Intruders
(1987) described “hybrid children” with thin, wispy hair.
David Jacobs in The Threat (1998) records extensive
abductee interactions with human-looking hybrids.
The concept of hybrids in abduction accounts is difficult
to reconcile with our current understanding of the
limitations of interspecies breeding. Indeed, given the possibility
that we may be dealing with a vastly technologically
superior species that is very likely biologically different
from us, alien-human hybrids seem both scientifically
improbable and logically implausible.
We might reason
that if aliens have visited us through advanced space travel
or some space-time wormhole, the barriers to combining
different biochemical building blocks might have also been
solved. But, even then, why create such hybrids? Maybe
David Jacobs’s scenario should be turned on its head:
Perhaps alien-human hybrids are a cover for a much simpler
agenda—the preservation of our stock, not theirs. But this
is wild, unsubstantiated speculation.
Michael Swords has
presented some excellent reviews of this problem in “Extraterrestrial
Hybridization Unlikely,” MUFON UFO Journal,
November 1988, and “Modern Biology and the Extraterrestrial
Hypothesis” in the MUFON 1991 International
UFO Symposium Proceedings. An entertaining discussion
of the problems can also be found in Jeanne Cavelos’s book
The Science of the X-Files (see the chapter on “Grays,
Hybrids, and UFOs”).
next:
PETER KHOURY
and much more:
http://www.cufos.org/strange_evidence.pdf
( There is a good photo of Peter Khoury at link.
To me he looks a clean cut fellow but none
of us can say whats in his INNER WELL. S. )
..
author:
Bill Chalker, an IUR contributing editor, is one of Australia’s
leading researchers. His book The Oz Files was published
in 1996 by Duffy and Snellgrove.
..