Blood Types of Abductees, Experiencers and Contactees: What Could They Indicate?
By Global ET Research
Contributions from Kathleen Marden, Denise Stoner
ICAR’s Team and Directors, Joe Montaldo and November Hanson and Richard Bonenfant, Ph.D.
Abductee? Experiencer? Contactee?
Another attempt to catalog blood types of abductees, experiencers and contactees was explored by Directors November Hanson and Joe Montaldo, and other members of their organization ICAR, International Community for Alien Research.
For some people, there is no difference between ET contact terminologies used, but for others there is a great deal of difference. To offer a short explanation for the three differing adjectives used, the following descriptions may be helpful. According to ICAR’s experience, “…abductees are people who are taken against their will. They have no foreknowledge and do not want to help the beings, and are more fearful and angry.”
On the other hand, contactees are, according to ICAR, “…people who are consciously aware of their contacts and are in some ways, willing participants; trying to understand why, who, what and where. They are people who are moving forward toward understanding why they are being abducted.”
Experiencers are people who fall somewhere between abductees and contactees. They are “abducted” but they are (we think) “somewhat okay” with their situation. What is important to understand, especially for the old-timers who were around during the 50’s is, today’s contactees do not view themselves the same way contactees of the 1950’s viewed themselves, and current day contactee reports differ as well. That is, of course, a completely different topic and we are happy to leave it to others to debate.
Efficacy of Questionnaires
Before we cover ICAR’s findings from their questionnaires, a short discussion about concerns regarding questionnaires in general should be reviewed. “While questionnaires are inexpensive, quick, and easy to analyze, often the questionnaire can have more problems than benefits. For example, unlike interviews, the people conducting the research may never know if the respondent understood the question that was being asked.” ICAR’s questionnaire was short and straightforward so we believe that with the exception of “eye color,” everyone who filled it out understood exactly what their questions pertained to.
Questionnaires also tend to produce low return rates, whether they are mail or online questionnaires. This may have been the case with the Marden-Stoner questionnaire and the reason may have been due to the length. It was a well constructed questionnaire that covered an array of different types of information pertaining to ET abductions or contact. ICAR’s sample was a more significant 1,400+ returns, but there may be some limitations with these results, which we will cover briefly later in this article.
Another problem with questionnaire return rates is that “…often the people that do return the questionnaire are those that have a really positive or a really negative viewpoint and want their opinion heard. The people that are most likely unbiased either way typically don’t respond because it is not worth their time.” Gender is another factor we need to consider, and if it pertains directly to a questionnaire, it should ask for the person’s sex, i.e. “male” or “female.”
Questionnaires should also include the category of “intersex,” which “…refers to the group of people that don’t perfectly fall under the category of male or female. They are still a part of our community, however not many questionnaires have a box to check for people that fall under Intersex.”
ICAR’s findings were derived from four different questionnaires posted to 5 different Facebook pages, one MySpace page, “two different contactee questionnaires for ICAR abductees,” the MUFON forum and 10 Internet sites. If we’ve done our research correctly, the blood type questionnaire comprises most of the data in ICAR’s article, followed by The Reptilian Questionnaire which yielded the list of Reptilian Traits. Other questionnaires from which ICAR is currently gathering data are the Grey Alien Abduction Questionnaire, Dreams and The Experiencer Project, and The NOW Project.
There were four questions on ICAR’s blood type questionnaire:
(1) What type is your blood?
(2) What is your blood type?
The first two answer choices were included in two charts and covered: O neg, O pos, A neg, A pos, B neg, B pos, AB pos, AB neg.
(3) Are You A Contactee?
Answer choices were Yes, No, Maybe.
(4) What is your eye color?
Answer choices were Green Hazel, Blue, Brown
This seems simple enough, but on closer examination there are important considerations and limitations involving these four simple questions.
Having constructed polls and scientific questionnaires in the past, we can appreciate the number of hours and the incredible amount of work involved in creating, processing and writing both the Marden-Stoner Commonality Report and ICAR’s Contactee Blood Type Report.
ICAR believes this is the largest study of this kind that has been undertaken. Unfortunately, we cannot be certain that some people did not fill out multiple questionnaires and may have been counted more than once. With the Marden-Stoner Commonalities Report, their sample size was much smaller, but they had contact information on each individual and could request follow up information and be better able to determine if the individuals filled out their questionnaire more than once.
What is your eye color?
Answer choices were Green Hazel, Blue, Brown
Because humans can have green eyes without having hazel eyes and visa versa, this question might have been more accurately constructed with a three part answer. Indeed, the predominant eye colors of humans are much more varied and include Amber, Blue, Brown, Gray, Green, Hazel, Red and Violet. We wonder how many people had eye colors other than the three choices given in the questionnaire, including albinism, which affects all ethnicities with prevalence estimated to be one in 17,000 people. If a relationship between eye color and extraterrestrial contact indeed exists, we think one way to improve the questionnaire process is to have all documented eye colors, including albinism related eye colors, included in later questionnaires.
Are You A Contactee?
Answer choices were Yes, No, Maybe
If a person is not certain they are a contactee (abductee or experiencer) this information needs to be included in some form within the questionnaire’s results. Were the participants who marked “maybe” included or omitted from the overall results? Since we do not know, these responses or non-responses could skew the overall findings. Another suggestion we have that might improve the questionnaire process and resulting discoveries is to take all three terms (abductee, experiencer, contactee) and include them in the questionnaire. People who consider themselves “abductees” probably do not identify with the term “contactee” and visa versa.
The Rh Factor
ICAR’s observations were derived from a total of 20 different Internet based sources numbering “over 1,400” abductees, contactees and experiencers (we assume) having participated in the study. Bear in mind the “actual numbers of unique respondents” factor. This is simply something we can’t know with certainty for this study. We return again to the Rh factor. The information we have on this blood factor and the contact phenomenon are based on self reports. Even we at Global ET Research can state emphatically that a majority of people involved in contact have reported to us that they have Rh negative blood. However, these types of reports only show trends and are “baby steps” if you will. They do not prove that a correlation exists, much less a “cause and effect” relationship.
The Rh blood group system has two sets of nomenclatures. Both systems reflect alternative theories of inheritance and most studies normally refer to the less complicated theory when explaining it:Z
“The Rh blood group system (including the Rh factor) is one of thirty-three [33!] current human blood group systems after ABO.” Regarding the Rh factor, “an individual either has, or does not have the Rh factor on the surface of their red blood cells…This term strictly refers only to the most immunogenic D antigen of the Rh blood group system, or the Rh− blood group system. The status is usually indicated by Rh positive (where Rh+ does have the D antigen) or Rh negative (where Rh− does not have the D antigen) suffix to the ABO blood type. However, other antigens of this blood group system are also clinically relevant,” and this is where things can become very complicated. Aside from a person’s basic blood type, ICAR and the Marden-Stoner questionnaires looked at the overall and simpler Rh− factor versus the Rh+ factor. There is nothing wrong with this and it is not meant to be taken as a criticism. We are only attempting to point out the complex nature of human blood groups and that each aspect may have a relationship to ET contact.
According to ICAR’s findings, the Rh factor may play a significant role in their study as it did in the Marden-Stoner Commonalities Report; although at this point, there is no way for either group of researchers to determine if the numbers are statistically significant. Much larger and more stringent studies will have to be undertaken in order to determine this. This is exciting because it means we should continue to pursue larger and more refined explorations into commonalities among abductees, experiencers and contactees.
Continue Reading Part III: Distribution of Blood Types Worldwide and ICAR’s Conclusions.
Top of Page