Subject: Fwd = Albert Budden's response to Mike Williams (2/2)
From: Frits Westra <fwestra@...>
Date: 30 Jan 2002 19:11
Full text of Part 2 of Albert Budden's response to Mike
Williams. Part 1 posted in a separate message.
Frits
Forwarded by: fwestra@... (Frits Westra)
Posted on behalf of: Albert Budden, Middlesex, UK
Original Date: January 2002
========================== Forwarded message begins ======================
Replies to Mike Williams' comments and questions from Albert
Budden. January 2002.
Part 2/2
4) Williams says:
"Budden seems to believe his hypothesis covers ALL paranormal
claims. Hut his parameters are too large. They have to be
falsifiable."
There are three aspects mixed together here. Firstly, I do NOT
claim that all "paranormal" claims are explained by the EM
Pollution Approach. (or the EMPA for short) As all investigators
should realise, so many cases are a mixture of factors, some
totally unrelated. Investigators should also bear in mind that
we are not actually studying many of the phenomena at all, e.g.
UFOs, but reports of UFOs and other anomalies. So we are really
involved with the study of any stimuli that could give rise to a
UFO report, haunting, alien visitation and so on.
The mixture of causes that induces and renders understandable
such reports consists of:-
genuine spontaneous anomalies, the activities of human agency,
apocryphal story-telling usually relating to the current
authorised mythology, medical and neurological effects and
illnesses, unusual seismic phenomena and misidentifications of
events or phenomena that have mundane causes only revealed by
technical investigations.
(e.g. "The Hum" which could be heard continually by a whole UK
village. Typically, a local UFO group concluded that it was the
MoD testing a psychotronic weapon on an unsuspecting rural
population. It turned out to be domestic gas rushing through new
narrower pipes recently installed underground.)
That is to say, clearly not all phenomena are due to EM fields,
many are hoaxed, or are the outcome of sociological processes
due to entrenched belief-systems. Also, some phenomena are
caused by non-electromagnetic environmental processes such as
seismic activity and infrasound. Mental illness is another
source of strange reports.
It is the genuine spontaneous anomalies that become
understandable through the EM Pollution Approach, e.g. alien
abduction experiences, "hauntings", poltergeists, some UFOs and
entity "visitations", an example of which is:-
A huge glowing humanoid "spaceman" made up of strip-like
sections like the Michelin tyre man, which was seen by a
middle-aged housewife late one night for about half an hour from
her bedroom window, laying flat on his back across the roof of a
house in Wales, UK. A local newspaper carried the story.
Other phenomena and anomalies that have actually not only been
rendered understandable by the EMPA, but through the discovery
of consistent characteristics, have now been shown to be real
existing discrete consciousness phenomena that the
medical/psychiatric world should recognise and take seriously.
Other examples of anomalies shown to be explainable by the EMPA
are:-
"alien encounters", "guardian angels", some
out-of-body-experiences, self-reported ESP, the abilities of
specific "mediums" and "psychics", "missing time", certain
animal "mutilation" cases, anomalous activity of electronic
and/or electrical systems, the sensation of being in the
presence of an invisible being who is watching the subject
intensely, apparitions associated with a place, "ghosts",
phantom smells and taste anomalies, unexplained tactile
sensations, ghostly footsteps, "causeless" musical phenomena,
shadowy human forms and 3-D shadows, "cold spots", the ability
to cause electrical equipment to malfunction, (e.g. street-light
interference) strange mists and vanishing volumes of water, the
mysterious appearance of puddles of liquid around houses, etc
etc. (I could go on and I will take a chance and state that I
could even name an unexplained phenomenon that occurs everyday
in modern urban environments that is receiving governmental
attention that sometimes has fatal outcomes, that you have never
even heard of.)
All clear now Mr Williams? just try reading my book in detail,
and then I'm sure that you could answer many of your own
questions. It's all there.
Puzzlingly and rather oddly, Williams states that my parameters
"are too large". He does not seem to understand what the term
'parameter' means. The word 'characteristic' could be used
instead, or 'aspect' or 'factor'.
Perhaps he means that I have applied my approach too broadly,
and he is saying surely so many mysterious phenomena cannot an
be understood as due to EM field effects or exposure?
Well, I can actually sympathise with this comment, and have had
to deal with this criticism in my own terms, Out of all of Mr
Williams' statements, this criticism of trying to apply the
developed approach to explain so many enigmas is a fair comment.
It is a mistake that I have observed in other theorists who have
developed an approach that applies to certain classes of
phenomena wonderfully, but have then gone too far and spoilt
everything by writing books that try to stretch the concept to
cover "everything".
As the EM Pollution Approach (which includes all of the natural
geophysical sources identified by others) took shape in my mind
back in 1994, it was constantly being tested in very empirical
terms. This was due to the fact that an author who lived in the
north of England had the details of several raw uninvestigated
cases in the south, and he had asked me to investigate them for
him to use in his forthcoming book. ("Without Consent" by Philip
Mantle and Carl Nagatis) So I had the chance to actually look
for certain parameters and environmental features in the field,
if you will ignore the pun, in order to test and modify the
embryonic EMPA as it formed in its early stages. I must say that
the more that I went from location to location, visiting the
homes of "abductees" and other experiencers, the more stunned I
became.
To my utter surprise I had guessed correctly about the
"electrical histories" that existed in all of the "abductees"
backgrounds, as they all without exception admitted to being
struck by lightning, or having a near-miss, or had suffered
major electrocution at some time in their lives, or had ball
lightning float close to them as a child.
I could hardly believe it, as it was only the previous week that
I had visited the Breakspear in Hertfordshire, which was the
only hospital in Britain who treated electrical
hypersensitivity, (or EH for short) and was given precisely half
an hour by the two top doctor-directors of the hospital, to ask
questions about the EH condition in an interview. After a few
minutes, I was staggered but thrilled to learn that the EH
condition was brought on through the subject suffering what the
two doctors referred to as a 'major electrical event' (or MEE
for short) Here was something definite to look for in
"abductees", and a few days later I found it in spades. These
were the specific "electrical histories" I then discovered in
all of the "abductees" I visited the following week.
To cut a long story short, encouraged by this success, I began
to investigate all manner of cases that came my way, including
"hauntings", "alien contacts" and "alien encounters", and of
course, more "alien abductions". Now in addition to MEEs, I was
looking to see if any of these experiencers lived in hot spot
locations. Again I was stunned each time I arrived at the
various homes, as it was so obvious that they were all EM hot
spots, before I even switched my TriField on.
Power lines loomed over a roof of one, a mini-cab office was a
neighbour of another "abductee", with a powerful RF transmitting
antennae in the communal back-garden a few metres away from
where she slept, another case of "haunting" involved a microwave
repeater which was positioned barely two feet from the side of a
house and so on for over 11 cases, all displaying not only these
two major parameters, but up to another 22 others I had listed,
prompted by the information-chatter from my subjects.
Not all 25 parameters (listed on page 28 of "Electric UFOs")
were present in every case, but the core ones were, indicating
that I was dealing with a medical syndrome, one of its later
symptoms being vivid hallucinations and visions of being taken
away and operated upon by various types of alien...
After two months of this, I knew I had made real progress in
unravelling the "alien abduction" phenomenon, and had begun to
think about other modern enigmas, and read accounts of them in
books. This was not as good as first-hand investigation, but it
began to dawn on me that EM energies, natural or otherwise may
be implicated in many mysterious phenomena in a variety of ways.
What if these rogue energies were an undetected common factor in
a wide range of anomalies?
However, as soon as the thought struck me, I also became
convinced that I was suffering from "investigator's bias" where
I was interpreting everything in terms of "The Theory", and I
laughed at myself. I had seen it so many times in others, and
here I was doing it myself!
However, over the next six months or so, it gradually dawned on
me that for once I had stumbled upon a factor that actually
seemed to really have a very broad application, which was both
curious and very unusual. The more I looked into the involvement
of EM fields in anomalies, the more I seemed to find how they
could be instrumental in causing phenomena. No type of anomaly
seemed immune.
For example, animal mutilation cases came to my attention after
an article appeared in New Scientist on experiments by an
Australian researcher called Chris Andrews who shot
lightning-like electrical arcs through deeply anaesthetised
sheep, to find out how animal and energy interacted.
Andrews results showed that the electrical arcing took paths of
least resistance through the animal and its external openings
such as mouth and throat, anus, sexual organs, ears, eyes etc.,
acted as wave-guides, causing the current to flow most readily
along nerves, blood vessels, alimentary canal, throats and so
on.
I began to look at many photographs of cases of animal
mutilation where the seared flesh and gaping wounds showed
thermal cauterization preventing bleeding. I was struck by the
fact that the cauterized "mutilations" centered around the same
areas as Andrews' experiments showed how body-openings acted as
wave-guides for the powerful currents involved in such
electrical arcing. It certainly suggested that electricity was
implicated in the strange traumas to the animal bodies.
I later found a statement by one Ms Howe in the USA, who had
been studying animal "mutilation" cases for some time, which
said that unidentified lights in the air were invariably
associated with "mute" cases. The conclusion that almost
suggested itself was that some sort of electric fireball was
earthing its electrical energies through grazing animals,
inducing the cauterized traumas as they "quenched" their thermal
energy by contact with the animal's tissue.
I had found yet another anomaly that seemed to have electricity
or electromagnetics centrally implicated. The next day,
co-researcher Anne Silk wrote to tell me that she had found a
pattern that suggested that crop-circles occurred at points
equidistant between two in-phase radio-frequency transmitters.
This was just too much for me to take, and as I had never been
interested in crop-circles, I did not try to check this.
Now I realise that one of the reasons that EM fields seem to
have such wide implications for so many anomalies, is because
classes of phenomena which had always been thought of as
distinct and unrelated to each other, were in reality just
different variations of the same electromagnetic processes. That
is to say, I realised that fundamentally, with certain
exceptions, ghosts and aliens were just different versions of
the same thing - field-induced hallucination. Huge categories of
psychical research and ufology merged via the unifying banner of
electromagnetics.
II
Secondly, I am only too aware that for a hypothesis to be
scientific, it should be possible to test it's validity by
experimentation or by duplicating methods that were used, to see
if the same results are obtained independently or not. That is
to say, if it could be shown to be false or true.
One simple way of doing this with the Electromagnetic Pollution
Approach is to ask "abductees"/experiencers (or physically check
environments for yourself) if the parameters I have listed apply
to them or not. These are contained in the '25 Questions' on
page 28 of "Electric UFOs". If they say "no" to most of the
questions, it is an indication that the hypothesis is false and
does not apply to "abductees".
If however, they answer in the affirmative to most of the
questions, especially five key questions, then obviously the
hypothesis does apply to them. In my book they are questions 4,
10, 13, 16 and 20.
Also, it should be remembered, that not all of the information
asked for by the questions will actually be known by the
"abductee"/experiencer, e.g. if there is a transmitter of
radio-frequencies near their house. Most people do not even know
what a transmitter looks like. So this is something that the
investigator would have to check up upon themselves. Also, not
everyone is aware that they have food allergies, and there are
ways of discovering this if it applies to them or not. Also, the
presence of an EM hot spot means little by itself, as they are
all over the place. It is the incidence of a significant
proportion of the other 24 parameters that eventually develop
that become the convincing evidence that mounts as each question
is answered. The incidence of an EM hot spot is a necessary but
not a sufficient condition in the evidential mix. If Mr Williams
really bothers to read "Electric UFOs" in detail, he may realise
that I am describing a certain psychological profile and a very
specific electrical history.
Does Mr Williams really think that I would go ahead and publish
these questions for all to see, if they had not already been
thoroughly checked up upon many times in many different ways
over several years? He has clearly got the totally mistaken idea
that the approach I have developed is a very simplistic one. Or
does this over-simplification on his part really just reflect
his own limited levels of understanding?
6) Mr Williams says:
"Budden implies that ALL paranormal events are mag. Change =
neurological change = paranormal claims. A more realistic
belief might be.. Some paranormal events may cause field
changes = neurological change = paranormal claims."
I could hardly believe what I was reading when I got to this
section of Williams' ideas. Is he serious to suggest that "A
more realistic belief' is that magnetic fields are being created
"paranormally"? I have already stated that I do not think that
all reported "paranormal" events are caused by EM fields, but
are due to a mixture of causes, including hoax, sociological
effects and non-EM environmental processes, such as seismic
forces, infrasound etc. However, Mr Williams is suggesting that
it is the "paranormal" events that are causing the EM field
changes, and astoundingly, even thinks that this is amore
realistic option!
I must begin to address this suggestion by Mr Williams by
stating at the outset that "paranormal" events do not exist at
all. The events that are usually regarded as "paranormal" are
really events and processes that science has not yet understood,
and the "paranormal" realities of yesterday are the "normal"
realities of today. That is to say, as we learn more about
events and processes that are thought of as "paranormal" and are
eventually understood, they become "normalised", and are no
longer thought of as "paranormal". So it is illogical to retain
the view that there are classes of phenomena that are
intrinsically and permanently outside of "the normal". Science
advances and what was regarded as supernatural is eventually
understood in terms of causations.
For example, in pre-scientific times, the rings of toadstools
found on grassland were regarded as "fairy-rings" and it was
thought that "the little folk" made them. But when the science
of botany developed, it was shown that these rings were due to a
sub-soil fungus. The same basic process is still happening - the
normalisation of the "paranormal".
In fact, this is exactly what I am doing by developing the
Electromagnetic Pollution Approach that Mr Williams is trying
his hardest to resist. Quite simply, through empirical
investigation and research into specifically chosen
realities/phenomena regarded as "paranormal", I have discovered
the causation processes responsible for them. I am so sure of
the correctness of these discoveries, that I can and have
predicted that certain parameters will be present in cases that
I have not yet discovered, but have by others. And further, my
discoveries regarding causation processes.
So in effect, because of this continual process where
"paranormal" events become understood and "normalised" by
scientific investigation and research, Mr Williams' suggestion
that it could be "paranormal" processes that are bringing
electromagnetic hot spots into existence, is meaningless. Also,
what could possibly be his evidence for the existence of such
processes?
Actually, the way that he uses the term "paranormal" suggests
that he thinks that there are causeless events and processes,
permanently mysterious things that happen that are not caused by
anything except maybe "spirits" or aliens. This is
sensationalist nonsense.
He also uses "paranormal" in the same way that some people use
the term supernatural - miraculous events outside of any
possible context that science could investigate. Here it is the
realms of faith and religion that are being considered, not
science. In fact, I suspect that this is where Mr Williams is
coming from - the world of belief-systems, which fulfil a
quasi-religious need for him, which transforms his everyday
mundane world into something more exciting. He should get out
more.
He should certainly realise that his ideas and frames of
reference regarding what he regards as "paranormal" are and have
radically changed, and his ways of thinking are out-of-date
"thought dinosaurs". While you were busy looking backwards, a
quiet conceptual revolution regarding ghosts and a1iens has
taken place, Mr Williams. You are way behind the times.
Albert Budden.
--[end of part 2/2]-----
========================== Forwarded message ends ========================