Page Content (OCR)
191). About this time, the concept of “psychotronic technology’—i.e., mind control by means of physical devices—en- tered UFOlogy (Sachs 1980, pp. 200, 262). Andreasson’s abduction report was followed by that of a Canadian woman named Dorothy Wallis. She described a similar implant under hypnosis, which seemed to explain an earlier ‘“compul- sion” to meet with the aliens (Klass 1989, p. 122). When we appeared together on the Canadian television talk show program The Shirley Show (which aired April 15, 1993), I suggested that Mrs. Wallis’s story appeared to _ imitate Andreasson’s. She countered that her abduction came first, but I observed that she did not come forward until about 1983 and that Andreasson’s much earlier publication gave the latter the stronger claim (Nickell 1995; Wray 1993). In time, David Jacobs, a_historian- turned-abduction-researcher, found the Andreasson/Wallis-type implant to be stereotypical among abductee claimants. The object is as small as or smaller than a BB, and it is usually smooth, or has small spikes sticking out of it, or has holes in it. The function of this device is unknown: It might be a locator so that the targeted individual can be found and abducted; it might serve as a monitor of hormonal serve as changes; molecular it might facilitate the changes nee and_s entrance; needed for and it transport and entrance; it might facilitate communication . . . Some- times nosebleeds after this occur procedure. Both child and adult abductees have = seen physicians for 14 1 Both child and adult nosebleed problems, , odd _ holes and have discovered inside their Several abductees have reported that a ball-shaped object either dropped out of their nose or was expelled when they blew their nose. All of these expulsions happened before they knew they had been abducted; in each case they thought they had inexplica- bly inhaled something and discarded the object or lost it. [p.96] before Actually, one of these items did survive and was thoroughly investigated by the Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS) in the late 1980s. Possessed by a self- claimed abductee, the “implant” had supposedly been stuck up the man’s nostril by his extraterrestrial abductors, but was later dislodged when he caught a cold and blew his nose. CUFOS investiga- tor Don Schmitt accompanied UFO of these items did one the had Schmitt tor Don Schmitt accompanied UFO historian Jerome Clark, editor of CUFOS’s journal International UFO Reporter, to m1 Don tor exchanges, the man unwrapped _ the object. “Don and I stared at it incredulous- ly. It was a ball bearing. “Despite the obvious identification, the CUFOS team the the man sought the man’s X-rays, which “showed nothing out of the ordinary,” Clark states. Nevertheless, CUFOS went on to have the alleged implant scientifically exam- ined, whereupon it proved to be “an utterly ordinary terrestrial artifact’ (Clark 1992). In contrast to Jacobs’s similar-but- generally-unavailable brain/nasal implants are the current devices. The change in the situation is remarkable. Since 1994 alleged implants have been surgically recovered but they’ve become notably diverse: one looks like a shard of glass, another a “triangular” (or possibly “star-shaped’’) piece of metal, still another a carbon fiber, and so on. None was located in the brain or nasal cavity, instead being recovered from such 51 noses. [Jacobs 1992, pp. 95-96] Alas, Jacobs relates, claimed abductee, meet the man in an Illinois restaurant. As Clark relates the incident, after brief