tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post7757694485823745202..comments2024-03-18T16:51:50.688-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: The Schirmer AbductionKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-7805161835424610592020-06-28T13:15:42.705-07:002020-06-28T13:15:42.705-07:00Excuse me; error of automatical traduction: Actual...Excuse me; error of automatical traduction: Actually i want to said abot Warren Smith "<br />an author nothing serious. This makes sense of what I say about adding and deforming the case. Sorry so much, again.Gabriel Wuldenmarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04892949982538531572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-30498763373634523602020-06-28T12:24:44.848-07:002020-06-28T12:24:44.848-07:00Gabriel -
We move into some murky territory here....Gabriel -<br /><br />We move into some murky territory here. Although the Sprinkle regression was conducted in February 1968, it seems that much of the description about the interior of the craft and the creatures did not come out in that regression. It was on June 8, 1968, that the second regression was accomplished. The movie seems to not have been released until after that session which would negate the claim of contamination.<br /><br />However, I notice that there is a mention of box office receipts... not very much in the way of return, but that does suggest a theatrical release, and what we don't know is if there were trailers released prior to that, or if there were posters of coming attractions in the theaters to suggest something about the film.<br /><br />I tried to learn more about this but Smith had died before I began looking into it and I did ask my friend, Brad Steiger about it as mentioned. Given the release date of the film, it does seem to weaken the case for contamination. I did try to find ads in the local newspapers for the film and I don't know if there were any commercials for it on television (given the movie, I doubt there was much in the way of promotion with the exception of something on Disney's Sunday night show).<br /><br />I'm not sure that I would call Smith a serious author, given that he made up cases and reports to flesh out a story or book...<br /><br />At the moment, we know that Schirmer saw a UFO, that there seemed to be 20 minutes that he couldn't account for, Smith made up stuff (such as finding the landing traces) and that Schirmer's police career was adversely affected by the report.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-69413468299119082692020-06-28T04:25:33.766-07:002020-06-28T04:25:33.766-07:00Detractors have tried to dismiss this story by say...Detractors have tried to dismiss this story by saying that there are two similarities between the beings observed by the witness and the aliens from a contemporary series B movie titled "Mars needs women", since they also wore a hood attached to the head (leaving only visible the face) and the detail of the protrusion in the ear with protruding antenna (in the film, in both ears). However, although the film was filmed in 1967, it was not released in movie theaters, but went directly to TV, and it was not released to the public until August 24, 1968 (https://www.imdb.com/title/ tt0060672 / releaseinfo? ref_ = tt_dt_dt), well after (half a year) the sergeant explained his version.<br />Detractors have also said that the sergeant worked shift shifts each week, so his sleep patterns would be altered, and perhaps he daydreamed or hallucinated. However, he had worked that way for a long time and would have gotten used to it; there is no evidence that he had disturbed sleep in any way (in contrast to what happened to him after his experience). What's more, that same night, just before his experience, he had already intervened in two cases, including securing a bull about to escape, for which it is necessary to be wide awake and competent.<br />It has also been said that Warren Smith, a serious author who hypnotized the police again later, may have tainted the case. But researcher Brad Steiger, who was present at those sessions, confirms that Smith did not know what he was doing, although he adds an important detail: “Warren was not really familiar with the process and practically let Schmirer speak. I can't really remember that Warren asked especially important questions during the session, which was pretty straightforward. ” Another thing is that Warren, in his subsequent publications on the case, added and distorted.Gabriel Wuldenmarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04892949982538531572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-73870336136369563792019-03-31T09:40:06.645-07:002019-03-31T09:40:06.645-07:00Schirmer is probably just a Lonnie Zamora wannabe....Schirmer is probably just a Lonnie Zamora wannabe. People under hypnosis "remember" all sorts of things that never happened. No real proof.<br />Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09971677787437241130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-32558284380819180652008-10-16T07:38:00.000-07:002008-10-16T07:38:00.000-07:00According to the post, they searched the area wher...According to the post, they searched the area where Schirmer, after hypnosis, said the craft landed. Who is "they?" If Bill Wlaschin investigated on the morning after the initial report i.e. before hypnosis, presumably he wasn't in the putative right place. If Condon people weren't there either, is it possible Smith was the only one in the "right" place in the field? Was he asked why he didn't photograph the site? Ok, you have evidence Smith made things up. But, if the landing site was one of them, why wasn't it included in the list of confirmed/admitted hoaxes? After all, the Schirmer case is "ancient history," predating Bundy and MJ12. And hardly more important than the latter issue.starmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09884942748644499035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-54032500603435625292008-10-15T13:14:00.000-07:002008-10-15T13:14:00.000-07:00As near as I can tell, no one with the Condon Comm...As near as I can tell, no one with the Condon Committee ever tried to find the landing place and none of them saw the markings Smith claimed to have seen.<BR/><BR/>Let me clarify one point. I knew Warren Smith, had been to his house and listened to his stories. Smith always had his camera with him. If the lighting had been bad when he found the markings, he would have gone back the next day. That he had no pictures and that no one else EVER reported the markings, is the best indication that this was another of Smith's inventions.<BR/><BR/>Also remember the Blums used the material from Smith without critical comment which suggests to me (based on the copyright date of the book) that they were unaware of Smith's reputation... that didn't really emerge until the sometime in the 1990s.<BR/><BR/>Smith asked me once if I ever made up cases when I wrote about UFOs and I told him no. He told me about some of the things he had invented and I ran into others later. He was going to create some "Ted Bundy" diaries... he had letters that proved the original MJ-12 documents were authentic... he would make up whatever he needed.<BR/><BR/>Which is not to say that Schirmer did any of that. Schirmer appears to be a young man (then) who was caught up in a UFO sighting that others, for whatever reason (okay, Sprinkle and others wanted to validate the Hill case and Smith wanted to make money) exploited. Schirmer was caught in the middle of all that.<BR/><BR/>Once again, the point is that the investigation was bungled and these are the reasons why.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-1410862047848010512008-10-15T11:31:00.000-07:002008-10-15T11:31:00.000-07:00"Later, he would tell investigators that the craft..."Later, he would tell investigators that the craft hadn't been hovering above the highway but was sitting in a field near it."<BR/><BR/>From what I've read of the case, in Blum's BEYOND EARTH, page 111, Schirmer indicated, under hypnosis, that he saw the craft leave the highway, so he had to go up a mud road to approach it in a field. In other words, it wasn't a matter of either/or, it was in both places.<BR/> <BR/>What I'd like to know is, did the Condon investigators look for evidence in the field, or just the highway? <BR/><BR/>"Smith claimed that he was a photojournalist."<BR/><BR/>A bit strong compared to the original: "Smith, who suggested that he was something of a photographer.." A photojournalist would definitely have a camera. I don't know if someone who "suggested" he "is something of a photographer" would. Or that his pictures would come out good even if he did.starmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09884942748644499035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-84669751214004370192008-10-15T10:37:00.000-07:002008-10-15T10:37:00.000-07:00These flawed cases remind us there is no solid Arm...These flawed cases remind us there is no solid Armed Forces backed, or connected, UFO Group, which could provide the steady stream of observations, and pay checks to the field work as necessary.<BR/><BR/>Even if there were a secret UFO Group already in existence today, it couldn't be more than satellite, radar and GCI type controllers giving raw data to someone like the National Security Space Office (NSSO). There is no Public Relations function, of any kind, if there is a group.<BR/><BR/>The point is, we always needed one. The need never really left. We were just left out of it.Bob Kofordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01739226809252915992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-54935591218205198012008-10-15T08:43:00.000-07:002008-10-15T08:43:00.000-07:00No one is suggesting that Schirmer invented the ta...No one is suggesting that Schirmer invented the tale... In fact, I don't think anyone in this investigation was lying with the exception of Warren Smith. He made up the landing traces.<BR/><BR/>The problem here is the use of hypnotic regression, which, in the late 1960s was seen as a pathway to the truth. People didn't lie under the influence of hypnosis. Many people held tht belief and I remember Jim Harder telling me that repeatedly as we investigated the Roach abduction.<BR/><BR/>We now know that people can confabulate under the influence of hypnosis and that there is a real phenomenon known as "Pleasing the operator." In other words, the subject, when asked the same question over and over will eventually give the answer that the hypnotist wants to hear. Read some of the transcripts in the various abduction books and you'll see how the investigator, often without realizing it, "conditions" the subject to give the proper response.<BR/><BR/>How many times have you read about these hypnotic blocks erected by the aliens that the researcher is eventually able to break through using a variety of techniques. Maybe it's just that the subject, understanding what is wanted, unconsciously adjusts the answers to what the researcher wants.<BR/><BR/>The point here, once again, is to provide a look at a flawed investigation, influenced by an unethical writer and published as if everything said was the truth.<BR/><BR/>So, once again, I empathize with Schirmer and he didn't deserve the scorn heaped on him (not unlike the Vietnam Veterans who were blamed for the war when it was those in Washington who gave the orders). The documentation shows that he saw something and reported it. Only later did others begin to talk of abduction and all.<BR/><BR/>This is a report on how not to conduct an investigtion. I would hope that others would learn from it and we could advance our understanding of alien abduction instead of getting locked into an arena that is now more than a decade out of date.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-62369560001356227842008-10-14T21:00:00.000-07:002008-10-14T21:00:00.000-07:00What is your opinion on how he was harassed (inclu...What is your opinion on how he was harassed (including death threats, and attempts) after he came forward publicly. He supposedly suffered in different ways from the beginning. He had been given more than ample reasons not to talk about it any more, <BR/><BR/>and yet, it appeared as if he placed too much importance on the incident to drop it, and in my book, that counts for something. <BR/><BR/>There are very few individuals who would remain attached to their story, such as he has, even after all of the types of troubles it seems to have brought his way (if the threat, and violent attack stories are true, that is). <BR/><BR/>By this I am not implying that I approve of embellishments, because I don't.<BR/><BR/>It's just that it would have been so much easier for him to just give it up, at some point...but he didn't....not unlike another witness, named Jesse Marcel. He also could have given up, and changed his story...but he didn't either! Why? Did he become rich? Did it bring him lots of glory? No. <BR/><BR/>I listened to an audio interview with Officer Schirmer, thanks to Frank Warren's Web <BR/><BR/>Log, and found him to be calm, and rational, and I -admittedly according only to what I <BR/><BR/>heard on the tape- think he was generally being truthful.Bob Kofordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01739226809252915992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-46235601036374317512008-10-14T12:29:00.000-07:002008-10-14T12:29:00.000-07:00Smith claimed that he was a photojournalist. There...Smith claimed that he was a photojournalist. There is no valid reason for him not to take photographs unless he was inventing evidence where none existed. Remember, Smith told me that he sometimes invented things to stretch a story. He took no photographs because he didn't see anything.<BR/><BR/>Remember, I'm not advocating that Barney saw the Bellaro Shield, only that it has been suggested. I think the aliens of Hocus Pocus and Frisby on the Twilight Zone is a better match.<BR/><BR/>I will note here that in 1960s, there weren't dozens of TV channels so that you were locked into watching what the networks threw at you. I will also note that just because they didn't normally watch a program doesn't mean that they didn't happen to catch one episode or that they didn't see promos for that episode. And, I will note that I'm not saying that Barney did see it, only that we can't, in 2008, say that he didn't see that particular episode or see something related to it.<BR/><BR/>To be fair, when the Michigan sightings, and the location of the sightings were mentioned to Hynek, his off-the-cuff response was that it sounded like swamp gas. The Air Force, and the news media, jumped on that explanation...<BR/><BR/>Nearly everyone who studies UFOs say that 90 or 95% of the sightings can be identified. People do mistake Venus for something inside the atmosphere. To offer a proper explanation for a sighting doesn't make one a debunker (though in the classical sense of the word, you could argue that you have removed the bunk from a sighting).<BR/><BR/>My point remains... did you look at the flaws in the investigation of the sighting? Do you understand that Smith made up stuff? Did you read Brad Steiger's answers to my questions? Do you understand that the hypnosis, at least in part, was misapplied?<BR/><BR/>What this all tells me is that the Schirmer abduction isn't a solid case.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-78825188737477603552008-10-14T10:45:00.000-07:002008-10-14T10:45:00.000-07:00Was Smith asked why he took no photographs? Maybe ...Was Smith asked why he took no photographs? Maybe poor lighting when he was there?<BR/>It is not "fine" to suggest a mundane solution to a multiple witness or landing trace case. Those who do are often (with justification) labelled anti-UFO or debunkers. Look at Hynek and his "swamp gas." In the early days of UFOlogy, even humanoid sightings were automatically dismissed as "too unbelievable." I wouldn't say abduction reports are relatively sacrosanct.<BR/>We've discussed "the Belaro shield" before. Neither of the Hills watched the OL and the hours Barney worked appear to rule out him viewing the episode, or any.starmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09884942748644499035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-54909209875760200842008-10-14T08:43:00.000-07:002008-10-14T08:43:00.000-07:00Twenty-two-year-old policeman Herbert Schirmer wou...Twenty-two-year-old policeman Herbert Schirmer would have a bizarre experience on December 3, 1976. While making his normal patrol rounds in Ashland, Nebraska, he saw what appeared to be red lights atop a large truck. He had checked locations along Highway 6, and just hit the intersection of two highways, 6 and 63, when he saw the red lights.As he moved on down Highway 63, he came to a stop, and shined his headlights on the red-lighted object. He immediately knew the object was no truck. The red beaming lights were coming through what Schirmer described as "portholes."<BR/><BR/>-------------------<BR/><BR/>Mobin<BR/><A HREF="http://www.drivenwide.com" REL="nofollow">Promoter</A>dashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16542167142165723166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-84460790910022656362008-10-14T08:41:00.000-07:002008-10-14T08:41:00.000-07:00The point here was not that Schirmer saw Mars Need...The point here was not that Schirmer saw Mars Needs Women. It was a minor point that the alien Schirmer drew resembled, to an extent, the aliens that appeared in that movie and that the movie was in general release at the time.<BR/><BR/>The main point here was that Schirmer had a UFO sighting and that under questioning while in a state of hypnosis added a great deal of detail including an abduction. I was unable to learn how he was prepped for those hypnosis sessions other than in general terms. It would have been interesting to learn if alien abduction had been introduced there, prior to the hypnosis.<BR/><BR/>I will also note that nowhere do I suggest that Schirmer was lying and if I wanted to label this at all, I would say confabulation... that is, an unconsicous adding of detail.<BR/><BR/>I will point out that under hypnosis, as applied by researchers, there is a constant pressure to remember more details, not to mention leading questions and that pressure can lead to confabulation.<BR/><BR/>Finally, I will note that it is only in abduction research that you are unable to solve cases. Multiple witness, landing trace, photographs, you can suggest solutions and that is fine. Suggest a solution for an abduction case and suddenly you are an anti-abduction propogandist.<BR/><BR/>Look at the way Warren Smith manipulated the case, created evidence where none existed, and twisted things around to his own point of view. Did anyone notice he claimed that he had been told that people were being held against their will? Did you notice he claimed to have found landing traces but took no photographs?<BR/><BR/>No, all I get are arguments that Mars Needs Women had nothing to do with the descriptions and that nothing from the Outer Limits has shown up in abduction research. At the risk of further inflaming passions here, I will point out that Martin Kottmeyer, among others, suggested that Barney Hill was influenced by the Bellario Shield from the Outer Limits.<BR/><BR/>This certainly not an attempt to "squash" abduction research, but an attempt to bring some logical and rational thought to the process.<BR/><BR/>And remember, it was Budd Hopkins who said that there were no traditional "sci-fi" gods and demons that preceeded abduction reports... yet we can look at all sorts of science fiction that suggested abduction from the really awful Killers from Space to Close Encounters.<BR/><BR/>Look at the entire article again rather than come up with a knee jerk reaction to it. It's a long article and all that you see is that Schmirer's aliens look like the aliens in Mars Needs Women. Did you even notice that some of the research conducted about the case was badly flawed?KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-79212879777259471262008-10-14T08:05:00.000-07:002008-10-14T08:05:00.000-07:00On September 29, 1959, G. Johanssson, a Swede, saw...On September 29, 1959, G. Johanssson, a Swede, saw, through the window of a UFO, two seated humanoids with large eyes and pointed chins etc. "Each had an earphone in one ear." This was eight years before that "Mars needs Women" movie. And bear in mind(for those who just can't "buy" abduction accounts)this was NOT an abduction story. It appears that some humanoids DID wear the earphones. I suggest UFO accounts were the basis for sci fi, not vice versa.starmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09884942748644499035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-65253240364208888212008-10-14T06:12:00.000-07:002008-10-14T06:12:00.000-07:00It is amazing how UFO researchers claim all these ...It is amazing how UFO researchers claim all these people saw were inventions of some B grade funny sci-fi movies. I lived back there. These movies were hardly attended and when they were it was by teenagers. They were funny and we laughed our heads off they were not scary.<BR/>I wonder why people aren't seeing the other type creatures in abduction. Some of the Outer Limits episodes about little crabs alien escape convicts that really should have produced some abduction confabulation. it was the stuff of nightmares. Why not that? Why aren't people seeing superman or the thousands of other alien creatures. To me this is a red herring. So everyone now can believe this police officer lied because he was imperfect <BR/>I don't, although I do believe people can will not believe something that is unbelievable even after they see it and experience it. You like other researcher strain the Nat an swallow a camel. Why would this cop do this something that would destroy his credibility for year. This is another example of UFO researchers doing everything they can to squash abduction scenarios. <BR/>Of course these possible ET wouldn't dress up like b grad movies... they are just to unaware to sow their own disinformation. <BR/>Joe Capp<BR/>UFO Media Matters<BR/>Non-Commercial BlogJoseph Capphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12428219762980782866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-86799992381067977292008-10-14T05:04:00.000-07:002008-10-14T05:04:00.000-07:00Was Schirmer asked if he saw "Mars Needs Women"? I...Was Schirmer asked if he saw "Mars Needs Women"? I think there were reports of humanoids with earphones years before 1967.<BR/>I understand the site of the alleged abduction was not where Schirmer initially saw a UFO (at an intersection) but some distance away. Where the investigators looking in the right place?starmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09884942748644499035noreply@blogger.com