Meet Them Where They Are At:
A Sensible and Compassionate Model for Abduction Investigation
Bill Konkolesky
Note: the terms abductee (abduction) and experiencer here are synonymous to indicate individuals who have been in contact with and/or taken by anomalous entities.
Research into the phenomenon of ‘alien abduction’ has seen a broad spectrum of approaches since its inception in the modern era when the Antonio Villas Boas and Betty and Barney Hill events first drew the attention of UFO investigators more than 60 years ago. Jumping into this arena were serious psychologists, scientific ufologists, grassroots investigators, curious dabblers, spiritualists, debunkers, media exploiters, and fellowship-seeking abductees/experiencers. To no one’s surprise, this has led to a wide and uneven variety of results with the multitude of processes employed. While the collective investigations have yielded a tremendous bounty of information, because of the variations in what aspects are being explored and how, it leaves almost no consistency when assembled into a single body. To put it plainly, there is no apples to apples here (in fact, it’s more like apples to bicycles in some cases). If there is value to consistency in results, there should be consistency in approach.
The well-being of and benefit to the experiencer should be the primary objective in abduction investigation and using this as a sensible, simple compass, a relatively unified approach to investigation can be created. Here are a couple of ground rules to keep in mind.
1. The experiencer will always know more about what they’re going through than the investigator will.
2. If the experiencer isn’t getting at least as much out of the investigation as the investigator, they’re doing it wrong.
To highlight how this is an ideal starting point, two of the aforementioned categories of investigators will be reviewed here, the scientific ufologist and the spiritualist. For clarity of the potential issues involved, utmost versions of each will be used.
The experiencer will always know more about what they’re going through than the investigator will. The scientific ufologist, while basing their assertions on a carefully collected body of data on the abduction phenomenon, can inadvertently overlook aspects of an individual’s unique and unexpected experiences that may be meaningful. Creativity and a high tolerance for going down rabbit holes is helpful here. If there’s one thing true about this phenomenon, it seems like no two people have the exact same recollections about everything they’ve been through and the beings they’ve encountered. This makes building a consensus model challenging, though great care must be taken to gather all details in order to potentially see fresh patterns that can provide new breakthroughs of understanding. The spiritualist, who quickly inserts talk of an existing infrastructure of cosmic brotherhood when they speak to the experiencer is effectively putting the experiencer’s life story into a box, rather than listening, which again leads to overlooking information that the experiencer may now be reticent to share because it doesn’t fit the spiritualist’s narrative they’ve been influenced to adopt. If the experiencer has indeed encountered a benevolent space sister, it is much more valuable to have heard it from them independently, rather than front-loading them with such a concept.
If the experiencer isn’t getting at least as much out of the investigation as the investigator, they’re doing it wrong. The scientific ufologist, while adeptly capturing data points of an encounter event, can tend to treat the experiencer as a data point to include on the same level of relevance as other data points such as time of day, duration of event, height of entities, and weather. The data collection is impersonal to the experiencer. Not only aren’t they directly valued as the focal point, they can feel like they’re just being mined for information. It’s like taking a survey. The respondent knows that the information they’re sharing isn’t directly benefiting themselves, but rather being absorbed into a corporate database that, once tabulated, may hopefully indirectly benefit them or others like them in the future. Alternately, the spiritualist may have some honeyed words with para-religious trappings to put anxious experiencers at ease, but it circumvents the experiencers first exploring an unfettered recall of their encounters.
The above (perhaps extreme) examples of investigator behaviors are a small sample of how investigations can go sideways, begging the question of whether there’s an ideal path. There is. Investigation is a careful multi-step process if the experiencer is like most, having a rich lifetime of encounters.
When an experiencer first connects with an investigator with whom they wish to share their account(s), a phone or video call (such as zoom) is recommended. If the two don’t bond interpersonally, then this is the easiest way for either or both to decide not to pursue things further between them. There understandably may have been an email exchange prior to this but a real time conversation is a big step in the trust process. After pleasantries, the discussion should focus around a single event (many experiencers can and will talk non-stop at length with their various encounters and it can be overwhelming and confusing to the investigator). The investigator should convey an interested but neutral attitude, not oversharing their personal insights. This gives both the experiencer and investigator an opportunity to establish a foundation and get to know each other.
The experiencer should then be directed to write a list of all of the strange unexplained events that have happened to them (including paranormal events that may not necessarily appear to be UFO related) and put them into a timeline. This allows the experiencer a modest sense of control by documenting and ordering all the things that were beyond their understanding and often influence.
The next conversation between the experiencer and investigator can be in person if both wish or again by phone or video call. Going through the events chronologically is a good idea. Variations of this approach can be worked out situationally (for example, taking the events of adulthood first before childhood or saving some minor and/or questionable events until later). This allows the experiencer to unpack things in a patient and orderly fashion, which is good for both them and the investigator. Details should mostly stick to the facts at this point. Personal insights into meaning should be kept to a minimum from both parties. This process is likely to take several conversations and new events are often remembered by the experiencer while this is ongoing. Toward the latter part of this, if the experiencer is willing and if there is a qualified regressionist, this can now be considered. Any regressionist should ideally be open-minded and not ask leading questions nor overshare on their thoughts about the phenomenon while this is proceeding. Any questions deeper than “What happens next?” “Can you tell me more about that?” and “How do you feel about this?” during a regression should be carefully contemplated before asked.
Once this process is completed, the experiencer should be given the homework assignment of whether they detect any patterns or meaning in their timeline of events. Once they are done, the experiencer should feel as though they own their story and can critically ruminate on it in light of any additional information they receive on the topic.
At this point, the investigator can widen the aperture on their end, feeling free to share their opinions, recommending content for reading, viewing, or listening, and connecting the experiencer with others within the UFO and paranormal community, especially others with similar accounts, allowing the experiencer to grow with new information while they now hold a solid baseline of what has happened to them and how they feel about it.
To sum all of this up, yes, this can be a lot of work, but to conduct a quality investigation, the investigator should meet the experiencer where they are at and gently guide an extended, episodic discussion to differentiate objective detail from either side’s opinion while leaving no stone unturned. The experiencer will always know more about what they’re going through than the investigator will and if the experiencer isn’t getting at least as much out of the investigation as the investigator, they’re doing it wrong. The future of abduction research should follow this model to gather the greatest amount of data that can be compared and contrasted to a reasonable degree within a greater body of collected accounts and, most importantly, help good folks navigate the unexplainable in their lives.