I’m guessing anyone who’s interested in the first article has read it by now. I enjoyed some of the humorous responses. Yep, it’s another one-size-fits-all explanation from the psychiatric community. They can’t seem to deal with those abductees who have conscious memory, having nothing to do with hypnosis. But some good points in it: (1) The paucity of “uninvolved witnesses” is a good point, though abduction researchers would not say there are none (but they’d have to say there are “almost none,” which isn’t good). (2) That false memories CAN be generated — i.e., there is real clinical research that verifies this (regardless of how that is transferrable to the abduction issue). To be truly scientific about it, we’d need to catch someone in the act of creating this false memory to know that it is the CAUSE of the abduction event. Without that, we have only the possibility (and it’s a reasonable one – it just needs verification).
On to the second article (just follow the link):
2. Fantastic Accounts Can Take Many Forms: False Memory Construction? Yes. Escape From Self? We Don’t Think So. By: Arndt, Jamie; Greenberg, Jeff. Psychological Inquiry, 1996, Vol. 7 Issue 2, p127, 6p; Abstract Comments on the article ‘Toward an Explanation of the UFO Abduction Phenomenon: Hypnotic Elaboration, Extraterrestrial Sadomasochism, and Spurious Memories,’ by Leonard S. Newman and Roy F. Baumeister, which appeared in the April 1996 issue of the journal ‘Psychological Inquiry.’ Implausibility of the escape-from-self explanation of UFO abduction memories.