I dunno how robust hypnosis really is, or how much it invites dub in and creative plasticity in the mind. There's a lot about mutual creation of thought we don't understand. One of the things about this subject, though, is how unconnected sources come up with commonalities and similarities in their descriptions. Ya gotta wonder about that. It's not just obsessive copying of popular press descriptions, I suspect, because there are a lot of cases where these similar threads of description started surfacing before the mass media started hawking them. A similar conundrum runs through Whitley Striber's books. None of what his people insist they experienced is credible, from a pragmatic viewpoint like Ole Gnu's, but how the hell do they come up with such similar descriptions from people who have never talked about their "experiences" before? Jungian archetypes? What is UP wid dat?

Anyway the fact that someone has seen an unidentified flying object is not a reflection on their sanity, or necessarily on their perceptions. It just means they're not really good at sorting out visual impressions and analyzing them. Hell, I couldn't tell the difference between a 747 and an L1011 from 20,000 feet away, myself.


A