http://rpc.technorati.com/rpc/ping
Around Christmas, Gary Heidnik cruised the streets looking for another woman. As he turned into Lehigh Street, he found her. Nineteen-year-old Lisa was on her way to a girlfriend's house when Heidnik pulled up beside her in the Cadillac. He leaned out of the window and made a suggestive comment but she became angry and told him she wasn't a prostitute. He quickly apologized and offered her a ride instead. Mollified by the change in his demeanor and his impressive car she accepted.
He lured the young woman to his home by buying her a meal and some clothes and offering to take her to Atlantic City. Then he drugged Lisa with some wine and when she passed out, he raped her, handcuffed her and took her to the basement with his other "slaves."
Now there were three young women of the ten that Heidnik planned to abduct. As they talked about their situation, they wondered how seven more women would ever be able to live in the small basement, let alone any children they might eventually have. Their only hope was that one of them or a future victim might be able to escape and get to the police.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Friday, March 12, 2010
informs 33.inf.002 Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire
http://rpc.technorati.com/rpc/ping
Part 1: Introduction
During a hypnotic regression early on in my research, an abductee told me that the aliens who had abducted her were deliberately shielding her from the shock of having to see what they looked like.* They were concerned about her emotional well-being and although she could see their bodies, the aliens were preventing her from seeing their faces. I listened to this account and felt that it was logical and rational. I found no reason to doubt it, although there seemed to be something slightly "off kilter" about it that I could not figure out. The problem I eventually confronted was whether her memory was correct or not. The solution to this problem lies within the interrelationship between psychological expectations of what takes place in an abduction, and the abduction phenomenon's objective reality. Often it is this relationship that informs the thought of both abductees and researchers and causes problems.
From the beginning of the abduction phenomenon, debunkers, critics, and proponents have organized their knowledge about abductions based on incomplete evidence and culturally determined attitudes. As knowledge grows, theories must be revised. As we learn more, the verities of the past become the naivetes of the present. All knowledge is subject to change as new evidence is developed. With this is mind, we must revise some of our assumptions in light of new, sometimes disconfirmatory, and even disturbing, information. Although there is much that needs to be rethought, I would like to discuss some theories and thinking that presently need critical reevaluation.
____________________
Part 1: Introduction
During a hypnotic regression early on in my research, an abductee told me that the aliens who had abducted her were deliberately shielding her from the shock of having to see what they looked like.* They were concerned about her emotional well-being and although she could see their bodies, the aliens were preventing her from seeing their faces. I listened to this account and felt that it was logical and rational. I found no reason to doubt it, although there seemed to be something slightly "off kilter" about it that I could not figure out. The problem I eventually confronted was whether her memory was correct or not. The solution to this problem lies within the interrelationship between psychological expectations of what takes place in an abduction, and the abduction phenomenon's objective reality. Often it is this relationship that informs the thought of both abductees and researchers and causes problems.
From the beginning of the abduction phenomenon, debunkers, critics, and proponents have organized their knowledge about abductions based on incomplete evidence and culturally determined attitudes. As knowledge grows, theories must be revised. As we learn more, the verities of the past become the naivetes of the present. All knowledge is subject to change as new evidence is developed. With this is mind, we must revise some of our assumptions in light of new, sometimes disconfirmatory, and even disturbing, information. Although there is much that needs to be rethought, I would like to discuss some theories and thinking that presently need critical reevaluation.
____________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
