Scientific Proof of Alien Abductions
The closest evidence that meets these standards was reported by John E. Mack, a Doctor of Psychiatry and a professor at Harvard University. Dr. Mack specialized in psychiatric problems associated with repressed memories, often from abused or neglected children, and developed a method for helping his patients unlock these painful memories, confront them and eventually move through the trauma.
In his practice, Dr. Mack encountered hundreds of cases where adults revealed, often under hypnosis, memories of being abducted by alien beings. At first these memories were thought to be substitutes for actual sexual or physical abuse, too painful to be recalled even in the hypnotic state. But then Dr. Mack noticed that the reports were all very similar and contained details of the appearance, actions and interactions of the small humanoids, their space vehicles and even the surgical utensils used in the physical examinations that were the central theme of these memories.
At the time of therapy, Dr. Mack's patients were not yet exposed to the plethora of movies and books that popularized the UFO phenomenon. In fact, his patients often knew nothing of these things and were quite taken back when they were exposed to their own recollections under hypnosis.
Eventually, Dr. Mack documented over 200 cases and published his findings in a book called Abduction. The book was published in 1994, the same year that the series X-Files appeared on American television. This focused attention of the phenomena, both good and bad, and put Dr. Mack in the world's spotlight regarding UFOs and alien abductions.
Unable to explain why these repressed memories were all quite similar, many summarily rejected his findings and subjected him to ridicule. Nevertheless, Dr. Mack's work chronicles the phenomenon which has become the archetypal abduction experience that continues to happen even today.
In summarizing his observations of the abduction experience, Dr. Mack wrote:"I was faced with the choice of either trying to fit these individuals' reports in a framework that fit my worldview -- they were having fantasies, strange dreams, delusions or some other distortion of reality -- or of modifying my worldview to include the possibility that entities, beings, energies -- something -- could be reaching my clients from another realm. The first choice was compatible with my worldview, but it did not fit the clinical data. The second was inconsistent with my philosophical grounding, and with conventional assumptions about reality, but appeared to fit better what I was finding. It seemed to be more logical, and intellectually more honest to modify my cosmology than to continue trying to force my clients into molds that did not suit them."
[link to www.viewzone.com