by Melinda Leslie
leslie_tech1Twenty years ago I came to learn of my own experiences with extraterrestrial (ET) abduction. After only two years into my discovery process, I suddenly had a new form of encounter—one that included the involvement of military personnel in my experience. This new discovery led me to research the military or covert-ops involvement in other cases besides my own, and to learn that I was not alone. In fact, many abductees share a covert human involvement in their lives. I have now conducted over fifty formal interviews with abductees who have had these covert-ops experiences and am familiar with at least another fifty more. Over the years, these experiences became the focus of my research, but my definition of them changed as the research grew and changed. I have since come to see these experiences as the reverse engineering of ET abductees.

While attending UFO conferences and lectures, I find myself in conversations attempting to explain my research to people, during which they often ask, “What do you mean they’re reverse engineering abductees?” as they listen to me describe a military and/or intelligence community (mil/intel) interest in abductees. In my attempt to briefly summarize for them, I soon realized a more detailed explanation was required to grasp the greater implications of reverse engineering as it relates to the abduction subject; the bigger picture of where ET abduction meets technology meets UFO cover-up. But, before I begin, some background is needed.


MILABS: An Acronym is Born
In the UFO abduction and general ufology community the acronym “MILABS” (or MILAB) which is short for military (MIL) abductions (ABS) has become synonymous with a military presence, or government agency involvement, in ET abduction experiences. This abbreviation was originally coined by Dr. Helmut Lammer in a paper he wrote titled Preliminary Findings of Project MILAB: Evidence for Military Kidnappings of Alleged UFO Abductees (1996), and later became the title of his and wife Marion Lammer’s book MILABS: Military Mind Control and ET Abduction (1999). While credit is due to Dr. Lammer for coining the acronym, he was not the first to introduce the notion of a possible mil/intel involvement in the abduction phenomenon. For many years, the subject was widely spoken and written about by abductees such as Katharina Wilson (1993), Leah Haley (1993), Karla Turner (1994), Debbie Jordan (1994), Kim Carlsberg (1994), Mia Adams (1995) and even Whitley Strieber (1995) to name but a few. There was also research mentioning a military involvement in ET abductions in works such as the MUFON Transcription Project (1995), as well as The Andreasson Affair Phase Two by Ray Fowler (1980), where he writes about Betty Andreasson’s and Bob Lucca’s accounts of black helicopter involvement—all of this long before the use of the acronym that has come to define it.

In the time since its inception, “MILABS” has become a catch-all phrase used by researchers and abductees to reference many different types of possible experiences; from the presence of military uniformed personnel in an otherwise ET abduction scenario, to a litany of government mind control related activities, to an officially sanctioned government involvement in monitoring the lives of ET abductees, to an outright military cause for abductions in-lieu-of or excluding extraterrestrials altogether. Needless to say, the acronym, while generally accepted in the greater ufology community, gets loosely tossed about causing confusion. This problem has resulted in the person saying it means one thing, and the person hearing it often thinking something else altogether.

Due to the confusion, I started to redefine my research, not with an acronym, but with a statement boiled down to one sentence: “Covert intelligence and paramilitary re-abduction, harassment, and surveillance in extraterrestrial abduction experiences,” adding at times, “as evidence for the reality of UFO abduction,” so as to describe my research in an encapsulated form. My research suggests that a covert mil/intel pursuit of developing extraterrestrial technologies, in combination with the military, economic, and political gains that would be derived from such a pursuit, has resulted in making ET abductions a matter of national security. And I feel strongly that it also provides immense insight into why an official disclosure of the UFO reality has not been forthcoming.



I contend it would be a complete “dereliction of duty” if the national security apparatus were not monitoring the abduction phenomenon, given the sheer number of people claiming to have experiences worldwide, the totality of evidence for ET abductions, the technology to be gained and learned, and the implications of the covert nature of abduction experiences. And I suggest this targeting, monitoring, and re-abduction of abductees by covert mil/intel agencies may provide the strongest evidence for the reality of UFO abduction experiences. There is an abundance of evidence for covert involvement, such as extensive corroborating experience testimony, multiple forms of physical evidence, eyewitness testimony, accounts of military and intelligence insiders, and many forms of documented surveillance.

The variety of experiences reported by the abductees may include any one of, or combination of, the following types of activities:
* Being watched or being followed
* Black helicopter harassment
* Threats made to the abductee
* Phone interruptions and phone calls
* Email and/or snail mail tampering
* In person face-to-face confrontations
* Illegal break-ins to property
* Underground bases seen
* Abductions by ETs with human military personnel present
* Abductions by human military with ETs present
* Abductions by human military only without ETs present
* Mind control procedures
* In-depth interrogations
* Medical and genetic procedures
* Implants removed or inserted by humans
* Testing and development of psi abilities
* Involvement by military or intelligence insiders in the personal life of the abductee

Included in my research is evidence that such agencies are involved predominately out of a quest for ET technology: a quest to back-engineer technologies that operate on paranormal functioning (psi). Because of the development and control of those technologies, it is also one of the reasons behind the government’s suppression of the UFO subject (policy of non-disclosure) and, along with it, the suppression of our dormant human potential—a potential where advanced psi abilities are an everyday part of human experience. (For more in-depth information on the connection between psi and ET technology development please read the article Abductees and Beyond: The Human Re-Abduction Scenario and the Quest For Psi-Tech by my research collaborator Randy Koppang:

Why a Name Change?
I started to notice a great amount of confusion about the term “MILAB” and the scenarios it has come to represent, much of it appearing divergent from my research. The confusion seems to stem from both misidentification problems and incorrect assumptions regarding MILABS: (1) all abductions are actually perpetrated by the military and that there aren’t any actual ET experiences; (2) all ET abductions are mind control experiments; and (3) all MILABS are false, perpetrated by ET screen memories or hybrids in uniforms and don’t involve any actual human personnel. I find it interesting these three ideas are from such opposite ends of the spectrum; from there not being any ET abductions, to abductions being only the ETs with no military involvement. Never mind that each of these extremes excludes large amounts of information easily and abundantly found in the research of actual MILAB cases. I’ll address each of these three assumptions and where they most likely originated.

The idea that all abductions are caused by the military and that there aren’t any ET ones has been proposed by multiple individuals over the years. The most notable are the researchers Helmut and Marion Lammer, authors of MILABS: Military Mind Control and ET Abduction (1999), and Dr. Steven Greer, Director of the Disclosure Project and author of Disclosure (2001).

In the case of the Lammers, they entertained the idea of mind control procedures having played such a large part in the MILAB scenario as to suggest that many experiences could be wholly due to mind control. Of course I can’t rule out that mind control may be the causal factor for some experiences, but it does not appear to be the sole reason for any of the cases in my research database. To the degree the Lammers demonstrated that mind control procedures are heavily involved in some experiences, I agree they are. For many years, I fought with the idea that mind control played an important part in experiences, but have since realized it is part-and-parcel part of the MILAB experience.

Mind control methods show up in the procedures used to control the abuductee during an experience, but even more so in the procedures to suppress the abductees’ memory of the experience. At this point, I can definitively say that MILAB perpetrators have honed the combined use of intimidation, fear, drugs, and hypnosis down to a science. But, at the same time, mind control falls far short of explaining all the forms of evidence abundant in these experiences and it does nothing towards addressing all the reasons why there is a covert mil/intel interest in abductees. Later I’ll get into why it’s happening.

After a closer read of the Lammers’ book it becomes clear that they are only offering mind control as a possible explanation for the experiences along with that of ET causality. They never attempt to explain all abduction reports as solely mind control, and were only noting MILAB experiences in some cases. In the Lammers’ defense, in Helmut’s paper written previous to the book, titled Preliminary Findings of Project MILAB: Evidence for Military Kidnappings of Alleged UFO Abductees (1996), he wrote:

I think that abduction cases involving abductee reports of being abducted by the military as well as ET beings are very important for two reasons: 1) If the UFO community has evidence that a covert military intelligence task force is involved in the abduction phenomenon, we would know that this phenomenon represents a matter of national security. 2) The alleged military involvement in the abduction phenomenon could be evidence that the military uses abductees for mind control experiments as test-targets for microwave weapons. Moreover, the military could be monitoring and even kidnapping abductees for information gathering purposes during, before and after a UFO abduction.

My thoughts exactly! His statement concurs with the main points of my research thesis and clearly demonstrates that he does not believe that all abductions are done only by the military.

In the case of Dr. Greer, he has implied on several occasions that because all abductions are “negative” (in his interpretation) they are caused only by the military and that there are no real ET abduction experiences. I think his views on this need to be taken with a giant grain of salt. In the past, I’ve generally been a supporter of Dr. Greer’s disclosure efforts and feel he should be commended for those efforts, but in this case, I strongly disagree with his conclusions. I once spoke with him briefly about MILABS and he contended that his information that abduction is only being performed by the military comes from the accounts of some yet to be disclosed “insiders” who spoke with him regarding personal experiences of being involved in perpetrating false ET abduction scenarios.

In an interview by Randy Peyser in 1999, Greer said that these individuals claimed to be on “abduction squads” creating scenarios using human-built “UFOs and biological matter” used “to make it look like there are extraterrestrial events going on which are, in fact, 100 percent human in origin.” He also said, “people who have had real ET encounters have subsequently been targeted for this kind of faux experience to confuse the database and put a spin of fear on the subject.” I cannot help but wonder if what was actually being disclosed to him by these individuals were true accounts of MILAB re-abductions, happening because the abductees were having very real ET experiences, and that his retelling of these accounts is greatly influenced by Dr. Greer’s very public personal views regarding his own ET contact experiences.

He has always related his personal contact experiences as having been only “positive” benign events. He has insisted that all “real” contact experiences are only “positive” and therefore any “negative” ones, or those perceived as being “scary,” are not real. Thus, upon hearing these insiders’ accounts of involvement, he may have heard what he wanted to hear—experiences that did not conflict with his anti-abduction position. I believe he chooses to have a very one-sided view due to his own contact experiences, and is conveniently able to explain away any he perceives as “negative” as being military in origin now that these insider folks have seemingly confirmed it for him.

After my first draft of this article was already written, I came across a paper by Dr. Michael Salla, one of the lead researchers in the Exopolitcs movement of ufology, on his website, titled Exopolitcs Vs. Exospin: A Response to Dr. Steven Greer, where he critiques Dr. Greer’s views and wrote:

…Greer regularly refers to the (MILABs) phenomenon offered by Dr. Helmut Lammer to support his thesis that all alleged abuses attributed to extraterrestrials can be ascribed to MILABs imitating extraterrestrials or to individuals projecting psychological traumas onto benign extraterrestrial visitors. This is a distortion of the evidence provided by Dr. Lammer who does not exclude the possibility that extraterrestrials are violating human rights during the abduction phenomenon, only that the military is attempting to replicate extraterrestrial methods and violating human rights in the process.

…While his effort to spin data concerning extraterrestrial activities in a positive light may be perceived by some to be well intentioned, it is in reality both naive and dangerous to distort public perceptions in this manner given the extensive data suggesting that extraterrestrials have been involved in systematic human rights violations and that some government agencies have been complicit in these.” Dr. Salla goes on to say Greer’s view is “…a highly selective approach that supports a preconceived conclusion of only advanced benign extraterrestrial visitors to our planet.

Dr. Salla points out that Greer’s view is at odds with many of his own Disclosure Project witness testimonies. Thank you Dr. Salla, apparently I’m not alone.”

When I spoke to Dr. Greer, I told him I would like to talk with his insider contacts and he vehemently refused. I wonder if given the chance to interview these individuals, I might discover their experiences are actually more consistent with what one might expect from a MILAB perpetrator. I suspect the information might be more in line with the case evidence and not so supportive of Dr. Greer’s limited view that there are “no bad ETs”. Fellow MILAB researcher Joe Montaldo and I have both spoken with such insider types, who have claimed to be involved as perpetrators, but so far those accounts have only supported the abductees’ experiences and not one of these individuals has ever said they perpetrated a completely false ET abduction scenario.

The idea that all abductions are mind control experiments can originally be attributed to a publication written by researcher Martin Cannon titled The Controllers: A New Hypothesis of Alien Abduction (1989), in which Mr. Cannon made the argument that a covert mind control program may account for some alien abductions. In a conversation I had with Mr. Cannon, he expressed anger and frustration that so many people in ufology had taken his paper to mean that he was claiming that all ET abductions were mind control experiments, when in fact he only meant to suggest a possible explanation for “some” ET experiences. He actually thought many abductions probably were carried out by ETs and said his theory was only that, a theory. After our discussion, I asked him to provide me with a statement in writing clarifying this for the record, and he did. This document states clearly that he offered The Controllers only as a possible theory and that he has always supported an alien hypothesis as well.

Conditioned Response
Given all I’ve said here it’s easy to see why many abduction researchers and ufologists have a negative knee-jerk reaction when they hear the term “MILAB.” There are instant assumptions made that the person using the acronym could range from (1) there are no ET abductions and giving an all too easy reason to explain them all away to (2) there is some outrageous mind control program manipulating hundreds of thousands of people across the globe into believing they are all ET abductees. Never mind that such views are completely void of voluminous ET abduction research data and evidence accumulated over years of dedication by serious researchers, as well as being void of the data found in MILAB accounts.

Given this insight, the view expressed in the following story is understandable. I occasionally attend abduction researcher and therapist, Yvonne Smith’s, CERO (Close Encounter Resource Organization) support group. Recently after one of our meetings, I had a discussion with Yvonne regarding my ongoing MILAB research. She stated that during various public appearances and UFO conferences at which she speaks she is often approached and asked if she thinks all abductions were done by the military rather than ETs. She said the person asking her will often say “MILAB,” implying it only means a military cause for all abductions. I then explained and clarified my research to Yvonne, but this incident serves to demonstrate a real problem with the public’s misperception of the subject.

Well-known ufologist Jacques Vallee, in his book Revelations: Alien Contact and Human Deception (1992), also asserted that many ET abduction cases may be psy-ops deceptions perpetrated by U.S. intelligence agencies. With respected researchers stating such a possible cause for abductions, no wonder ufology has developed the conditioned response that MILABS could mean such a thing!

I understand that nothing strikes fear in an abduction researcher more than someone trying to convince them of a purely human cause (non-ET based) explanation that negates years of research, overwhelming evidence, hard sought recognition, appreciation of abduction survivors, and overcoming ridicule for both researcher and abductee alike—not to mention the respect of abduction research itself as part of ufology, rather recently won and still tentative at best.

The idea that MILABS may be hybrid ETs in military uniforms has been expressed by a handful of individuals, most notably that of Dr. David Jacobs. Dr. Jacobs is a friend of mine and a few years back I spoke with him regarding this subject. What he generally believes was stated in his book The Threat (1998), where he says that abductees mistake human-like ET hybrids dressed in military uniforms for U.S. military personnel and that these ETs bring abductees to abandoned military bases or unused areas of active bases where they examine and interrogate them. Therefore, according to him, there is no evidence that the military is involved in abductions.

Obviously there are a few problems with this view, the first being that in most abductee accounts, the military bases are anything but abandoned. Rather, there are many complex military activities going on. Also, how would hybrid ET beings have access to unused areas of active bases and why would they be interrogating abductees about their ET experiences? Last but not least, his view does nothing to explain all the harassment and surveillance evidence or the presence of ongoing intelligence insider “minders” interacting with abductees in their day-to-day lives.

In addition, in the 1998 MUFON Symposium Proceedings, Dr. Jacobs wrote that he thought that only abductees who are not well-known claim to have military experiences. This is not true. Some of the best known and most famous abductees were the first to come forward, people like Whitley Strieber, Debbie Jordan, Leah Haley, Katharina Wilson, and Karla Turner.

I feel that Dr. Jacobs is misinterpreting some of the strongest evidence in support of his own theories. Certainly if his theory regarding the ETs as a type of “threat” are correct, and if the number of abduction cases is anywhere near what the researchers claim they are, wouldn’t those folks who run the intelligence apparatus have figured this out too, and wouldn’t they then have had to make abductions a matter of national security? Additionally, wouldn’t the intelligence apparatus, using one of its working arms such as the military, have an interest in studying such a “threat”?

If abductions are a question of national security, wouldn’t abductees be a part of that question? How better to study the matter than to monitor, surveill, and interrogate those involved? While it would be difficult to do so with ETs, it is not so with abductees, especially if given good reason with enough black budget monies to be thrown at it (more on this later). So, if Dr. Jacobs is correct, then of course mil/intel communities are going to be interested in abductees. The evidence for MILABS actually validates his research, its importance, and the ultimate reality of ET abductions overall.

The reason for a name change is simply that the acronym MILAB puts such an emphasis on the experience being military driven, which in turn causes so much derision. The perception it conjures falls short of including all of what is going on in the experiences and also falls short of addressing why. It is doubtful that the military is actually directing this program. It is more likely that a covert intelligence and ET information management group (I call this the “cabal”) uses military personnel to conduct and carry out its operations. My guess is even UFO crash retrievals aren’t directed by the military, just performed by them. The term MILAB places an overemphasis on the military part of the equation and casts the military in a very negative light. They’re probably not the ones giving the orders—the cabal is.

Back to the Future
Let me be clear that my research data does not point to a military in-lieu-of ET abduction thesis, but quite the contrary; a military/intelligence community involvement because of ET experiences. It is because the ET experiences are absolutely real that these guys have any interest whatsoever in abductees! And, their interest is predominately in what we, the abductees, know regarding the ETs, their motives, and what we know about ET technology.

Hence, moving forward, I can’t help but feel a redefinition is needed. In the past, I attempted with my original definition (“covert intelligence and paramilitary re-abduction….”); that is, until I was interviewed by radio host Tim Binnall on his internet show Binnall of America. At one point during the show, I was explaining how during a MILAB interrogation the abductee is often questioned about ET technology. When I said this Mr. Binnall said, “It’s like they’re reverse engineering via the abductees,” but at the time I thought he said, “It’s like they’re reverse engineering the abductees,” (no “via”) and I reacted with the profound sense he had “hit the nail on the head” and asked him if I could quote him. I never previously thought about it in those exact terms, but realized as he did, that is precisely what is going on. He was right, they are reverse engineering via the abductee, and I was right, they are reverse engineering the abductee.

RE-ABS: An Acronym is Reborn
I’m sure that many, if not most, readers upon seeing the title of this article thought “re-abductions” upon seeing the acronym RE-ABS. Well, you’d be right, or at least half right. The obvious play on words is intentional. But, while it does mean re-abduction in the form of experiences where some individuals are being abducted by military subsequent to an ET experience (with or without the presence of ETs), or are taken again by ETs with military personnel also present, it also means R.E. -ABS as in reverse engineering from abductees and/or reverse-engineered abductees.

Someone recently explained to me that they were confused as to what the term “reverse-engineered” meant as is it is used so much throughout ufology (also referred to as “back-engineered”). Their comment helped me to realize this widely used phrase may not be as well understood as I, or other researchers, have assumed. So, for those of you who may need clarification, here is the Wikipedia (online encyclopedia) and Wictionary (online dictionary) definitions:

Reverse engineering (RE) is the process of discovering the technological principles of a device, object or system through analysis of its structure, function and operation. It often involves taking something (e.g., a mechanical device, electronic component, or software program) apart and analyzing its workings in detail to be used in maintenance, or to try to make a new device or program that does the same thing without copying anything from the original. Reverse engineering has its origins in the analysis of hardware for commercial or military advantage. The purpose is to deduce design decisions from end products with little or no additional knowledge about the procedures involved in the original production.

Reverse-engineer. To derive or duplicate the design, technical specifications, manufacturing methods, or functionality of an object by studying an existing product, prototype, etc.

Reverse engineering. The process of analyzing the construction and operation of a product in order to manufacture a similar one.

When UFO researchers use the above terms, they are generally referring to the concept that captured, crash-retrieved, shot down, given, or loaned ET technology is either taken apart or examined closely to determine how it works, in order to duplicate it, or to develop something in human technology that mimics it.

Crash Retrievals + Reverse Engineering + ET Abductions = RE-ABS
Formula for a New Paradigm
This formula, while playing off the obvious technical mathematical theme, conceptualizes what my research is saying. I know that most folks would not see how adding such seemingly different ufology research concepts would or could add up together. Yet, in my research the relationship is the key.

As I stated in the beginning, this targeting of us abductees by governmental agencies is some of the strongest evidence for the reality and importance of the ET abduction phenomenon. If there is no such thing as ET abduction, why would these RE-AB related events be happening to us, to people who have nothing in their lives to warrant any kind of covert mil/intel interest in them other than that they claim to have experienced an ET abduction?

Harassment, surveillance, and re-abduction by these agencies suggests there must be something very important about us and our ET experiences or why is all the time, energy, and money being spent? To most readers, the concept of covert black budget programs existing within governmental systems is well understood. Many highly secret covert programs’ financial accounting is buried in such “black budgets,” seemingly overlooked by those to whom government is entrusted. Yet, make no mistake; the appropriation of monies within black budgets is still within someone’s approval process. Somewhere in a chain of command the decision is being made to allocate money towards said “project.” That “project” still requires a “budget” regardless of how white, grey (pun intended), or black it is! And in all standard business practices, budget line items still require justification.

So, given the extent of what must be involved in RE-ABS with operational task force teams, facilities in use, transportation logistics, data management, and military or intelligence personnel at every stage of the events, someone is justifying such an immense expenditure—right? My research into the experiences reported shows many common threads shared in those experiences. One such thread is an interest in ET technology by these agencies. So, how do you justify the money that would have to be allocated for such experiences? The technology, that’s how!

From crash retrieval cases alone we know the UFO management and technology cabal is obviously pursuing the technology! Thus, black budgets would be involved in running an operation such as a crash retrieval. In his research of the subject, Ryan Wood, author of Majic Eyes Only: Earth’s Encounter with Extraterrestrial Technology (2005), suggests there may be as many as 74 known incidents of UFO crash retrieval operations. Even if the actual number is less, obviously someone is justifying the expense for those operations. And again, the justification would be the pursuit of ET technology.

Besides wanting to retrieve the technology, they would also be asking “how does it work?” Now, add that question with the sheer number of ET abduction cases out there, and wouldn’t it stand to reason that somewhere along the way they would have to have asked, “Could some of these abductees know something?” Especially if those managing the ET issue within the covert world are aware to any degree the depth of abduction research and the number of individuals involved worldwide?

It would be their job to know. Their job to know that two different Roper Polls conducted have respondents the Roper organization says statistically represent approximately 4,000,000 (four-million) ET abductees in the continental U.S. alone! Their job to know that U.S. abduction researchers numbering in the double digits have on the average between 500 and 1,500 separate documented cases each! And that in other countries, ET contact accounts are either generally accepted by the populace and therefore underreported, or are not tracked and remain unaccounted for in most U.S. abduction research. Of course, these numbers would be known to those whose job it is to know—the same cabal managing ET information and technology.


No Dereliction of Duty
leslie_OVmonitorI repeat, it would be a complete and total “dereliction of duty” for those who are managing the subject to not be involved in monitoring abductions and thus monitor the abductees involved. Anything happening to that many people, especially something as covert in nature as ET abductions, would have to be a matter of national security. So, it should come as no surprise whatsoever to anyone who seriously looks at the abduction subject, the numbers of cases, the nature of the whole problem with ETs taking people seemingly against their will, and all the forms of complex evidence that goes with this subject, to hear that abductions have become a matter of national security. Enough to warrant monitoring and surveillance of the participants, and even occasional questioning of those involved!

To this add the justification for a huge black budget expense, a rather convenient one of military technology, and the only questions that should be remaining are, “Why didn’t the abduction research and/or greater ufology community figure this out earlier?” and, “Why aren’t there even more cases involved?” An obvious answer as to why there aren’t even more cases of RE-AB involvement is that same budget that is justified to a great extent may also be limited to an equal extent. If you are an abductee with mil/intel involvement, they must really think you have information they want; after all, they’re spending all that money on you. Congratulations, you are a black ops project!

From my research, there are four predominate categories of information the covert-ops cabal wants from the RE-AB experiencers: (1) the ETs’ motives and agenda, (2) ET and abductee genetics, (3) ET and abductee psi abilities, and (4) ET technology and its operation. In their efforts to get their hands on ET technology, they gather and reverse-engineer craft and they also gather and reverse-engineer abductees. It appears they are doing this for the exact same reasons: the development of advanced programs and technologies, back-engineering of ET craft, information on the ETs themselves, and control over every aspect of these issues. I have deduced their push for technology may exist for the following three reasons:

Militarism. The old military mindset may be at work here and would certainly apply if the mil/intel community thinks the ETs may be a threat. Whether they are preparing for a “hot war” or a “cold war” with ETs, it sure justifies a whole lot of black project spending. Even if they are only preparing for some possible future scenario, that could be seen as justification enough for a military buildup in the form of ET-tech.

Politics. They may be attempting to level the playing field and hold their own with the ETs, or working towards eventually joining as an equal partner in the “galactic community”.

Economy. The bottom line may be the bottom line. ET technology would be potentially lucrative in preparation for commerce and trade with ETs, as well as in the military-industrial complex’s development and application for more mundane uses, let alone the economic potential from the advancement of military technology and any development of breakthrough ET-related technologies. Recently, I heard an insider say that “ET technology is an infinite source of wealth” for the management cabal and their secret programs.

Covert-Ops Reverse Engineering of ET Abductees

All of this begs the question: What specifically does the military/industrial/ET-info management cabal want to reverse-engineer from the abductees? Here is a list of important questions derived from the abductees’ accounts shared with me thus far:
1. What makes us an abductee and why are the ETs interested in us?
2. What is it about our genetics that interests the ETs?
3. What genetic changes or enhancements have been made to us?
4. What do we know about ET motives or about an ET agenda?
5. What mind control procedures can they learn, develop, or practice from/on us?
6. What are our psi abilities and have they been enhanced?
7. What are our mental abilities and have they been enhanced?
8. How do we do ET psi (i.e. telepathy and psychokenisis)?
9. What have the ETs told, shown, or taught us?
10. What do we know about ET technology (i.e. propulsion or weapons)?
11. How do abductees operate ET technology and can we operate a piece the mil/intel guys may hand to us?
12. What types of training procedures can they develop from us?
13. What medical info can they develop from us or practice on us?
14. How do we process and retain ET information?
15. How do we adapt to the ETs or to living with our experiences?
16. What can they duplicate and apply to our technology or to our personnel?

These questions come directly from the abductees’ accounts of what the interrogators asked during the re-abduction scenarios. They make logical sense when you follow a crash-retrieval and reverse engineering developmental curve. First, there were the retrieved ET craft, then there were the retrieved components and gadgets from those craft, then there were the pilots, operators, and technicians. These individuals would otherwise be known as the personnel. It is logical when you develop the hardware, you’re left asking, “Who’s going to operate it?” and “How are they going to do it?” Logical, right?

Don’t you think those involved with the management ever thought to consider the personal accounts of those with hands-on ET tech experience; those who may have operated it, worked its components, navigated, or flown it? Of course they would have! Let’s suppose that crash retrievals are about having ET tech and reverse engineering; it then becomes about having human tech imitating what ET tech does. Then, reverse engineering crashed (shot down or retrieved) alien craft is not about the cabal having ET hardware, but it’s really about having human tech that does the same thing ET tech does.

Reverse engineering the abductee may also be about learning how to abduct people; hence, all the practice and development of mind control procedures. Obviously, they’re getting better at it. But, that would more likely be secondary, a useful byproduct. Reverse engineering the abductee is more likely about having personnel that are able to do what abductees are able to do. Besides abductees having lots of hands-on ET tech experience, some have also proved to be very resilient in dealing with the effects of interaction with the ETs and adapting to their experiences.

No wonder I’ve also come across the use of abductees in military and covert-ops training exercises in my research. Not because they plan on using abductees in some future scenario, although they may be, but more likely to develop training procedures vis-à-vis the abductees. After all, it would be too big a risk to use abductees directly. We are too unreliable, prone to go public at any moment, too talkative, would insist on disclosure, and usually don’t have the military, covert-ops, or intelligence training needed. Face it, we’re just not “yes men!” But, what we do have can possibly be taught to these kinds of folks. It appears they may be trying, anyway. To put it simply, if reverse engineering the craft is about the technology, then reverse engineering the abductee is about the personnel. Or, better yet, it’s about the personnel and the technology. Because, when the covert-ops cabal interrogates and tests an abductee, they get both technical and operational information.

Another way to look at this is you need a hybrid person to operate a hybrid technology. No wonder they also have an interest in abductee genetics. And to possibly be even more accurate, you need a hybrid functioning person to operate a hybrid functioning technology.

Know RE-ABS, Know Disclosure; No RE-ABS, No Disclosure
leslie_bruisesInterestingly, my research ends up redefining the UFO covert-op’s policy of non-disclosure along with the abduction paradigm. There can’t be a truthful official disclosure without addressing the abduction phenomenon. It is likely ET abduction remains one of the prime reasons why the policy of non-disclosure remains. If this is true, it helps one to understand that disclosure may not be forthcoming anytime soon. And, there certainly can’t be disclosure without someone answering for the obviously illegal and unconstitutional actions of those involved in perpetrating the events experienced in RE-AB scenarios. While I do support some need for amnesty, as suggested by fellow RE-AB abductee Jim Sparks in his book The Keepers (2006), for those involved in the ET information management cabal, certainly not everyone gets off the hook.

I believe we may be able to learn a great deal about the UFO cover-up from the RE-AB abductees by looking at what they have experienced, and what they’ve been questioned about by their human abductors. RE-AB abductees have witnessed things in their covert-ops experiences that the cabal is involved in. Just as the cabal learns about ET tech and ET plans from the abductees, ufologists may be able to get a better idea of the cabal’s plans by carefully examining these cases! For example, here are some possible areas of inquiry suggested by the study of these experiences:

1. Why are people being abducted by ETs in the first place and what does the cabal know about it?
2. What does the cabal know about ET genetics and have abductees been genetically enhanced?
3. What does the cabal know about the ET motives or agenda?
4. Are the mil/intel communities interacting with ETs and are they training people to interact with them?
5. What medical breakthroughs have we learned or discovered in this process?
6. How much ET technology have they developed and what are its capabilities?
7. Do we have fully functioning gravitational craft or “free energy” devices and where are they?
8. What are the unanswered technological questions?
9. What are the problems and has our knowledge of physics advanced?
10. How much ET technology is being used and how is it being used?
11. Why is it being used, what are the plans for it, and to what ultimate end are they developing it?

Knowing the answers to these questions would go a long way in providing ufology a roadmap for how to bring about official disclosure. It is time for the ufology and abduction research communities to take the RE-AB evidence out of the closet. After all, it is some of the best evidence we have for the reality and importance of ET abductions. It is imperative to understand the RE-AB scenarios and the impact these experiences are having on covert technology development programs, and in so doing, the impact they are having on the cover-up.

Could it be that abductions are a central reason why a policy of non-disclosure is still in place? What if abductions are the main reason the ETs are even here? And what if the military/industrial/ET-info management cabal has known this? Hence why abductions became a matter of national security. Maybe they always were.

In RE-ABS research, ET abductions are no longer the bastard stepchild of the UFO research community, relegated to being considered only in very separate terms as if somehow unconnected, or at best marginally connected, to the other areas of ufology research.

Ufologists can no longer afford to separate crash retrievals, reverse engineering programs, technology development, the accounts of insiders, national security issues, UFO history, the cover-up, and our disclosure efforts from the abduction phenomenon. To leave out any aspect of the UFO equation that may lead to a better understanding of a human military/intelligence cabal agenda, an ET agenda, or of a human/ET cabal agenda, is to have only an incomplete picture of the phenomenon. RE-AB research builds the bridge for the inclusion of abduction in the disclosure discussion. A partial disclosure is no disclosure at all. All you have then is a repackaged, new and improved cover-up.

Avoidance, Reluctance, and Denial
There are additional problems that contribute to our not seeing as many of these RE-AB cases in the literature as one might expect. One major factor is that many abduction researchers have RE-AB cases, but fail to acknowledge them in their writings or presentations. This reluctance is greatly influenced by their misperception of the subject, as I’ve already detailed here. My thought is that many abduction researchers have become so careful to not undermine any credibility they’ve sweat blood to achieve, that it becomes easier to ignore or downplay the controversial subject of MILABS.

Instead of seeing these experiences and the evidence for them as the ultimate evidence in support of all their research efforts, instead of seeing it as the evidence that they are right, that abductions are real, ETs are here, and technology is used, they see it as something that complicates and possibly undermines their main thesis—that abductees have experiences with ETs. But, in so doing, they are left with troubling dichotomies. On one hand they sidestep a major piece of evidence in favor of their thesis being correct rather than risk having the “baby thrown out with the bathwater” by leading people to consider that a human involvement might somehow diminish an ET one. I can’t help but wonder if this is due in great part to their misperception resulting in a military in-lieu-of ETs concept instead of what the experiences show, that it’s a military because of ETs concept.

As a case in point, I challenge the reader to pick up just about any book written by an abductee since 1990 and you’ll discover that nearly all of them include some aspect of the RE-AB scope of activities. They include everything from accounts of low-grade surveillance by humans, technology used in the harassment by human agencies to full-blown re-abduction accounts by covert military and/or intelligence types. What is curious is that these same abductees in their books often thank major abduction researchers for helping them with their experiences. Many of these books have glowing forewords in support of the author’s experiences written by these researchers.

Yet, these same researchers, when approached or asked if they have MILAB cases, are quick to discount such experiences! Yet, they count these cases in their research totals since they are working with these abductees. What we end up with is RE-AB cases being suspiciously absent in abduction research. It’s a strange dichotomy that these same abductees’ ET experiences are recognized while their RE-AB ones are conveniently overlooked. And unless you read a majority of these books, you do not notice that RE-AB related information is so prevalent in them. The researchers’ failure to mention these aspects, or reluctance to look at them, can now be better understood.

I’m sure I don’t need to remind the abduction researchers that their first responsibility is to the abductees, especially if they are attempting to provide therapy in some form. The reluctance to address these types of experiences or their negative position towards MILABS overall has resulted in many abductees being extremely reluctant to share these types of events with them. Instead they find me, and when I ask them if they shared these accounts with a researcher, the abductee is quick to tell me, “Oh no, they wouldn’t understand.” It’s unfortunate that I’ve had to hear this so many times. Sometimes, the abductee says they did try to share it, only to have this part of their abduction account ignored. Or the researcher expressed some negative comment that let them know not to “go there” and they self-edited their account.

More Avoidance, Reluctance, and Denial


In all fairness to the abduction researchers, the RE-AB abductees are guilty themselves of having contributed to the misunderstanding. We’ve contributed by not insisting that the researchers address these experiences. After all, part of the reason abduction researchers don’t have many accounts in their case files is because the abductees are not sharing their harassment, surveillance, or re-abduction experiences with them. The truth is many abductees have experienced RE-AB type of activity (see original list in this article), even if they don’t report it. Recently I had two opportunities to be reminded of this. Both situations were in abduction support groups I attended.

At one of the meetings I mentioned my research when I was asked by the therapist leading the group to share about myself. In an effort to keep my response brief, I only mentioned my research in giving my background and because I assumed this group did not have many RE-AB experiences or interest in this aspect, but apparently I was wrong. Upon my mention of the research, I immediately noticed more than half the group (of approximately 20 people) were nodding their heads hard in the affirmative and making facial expressions clearly implying they had experiences relative to what I was explaining. Even I was surprised by their reactions. And the therapist who leads this group remains unaware of the possible MILAB experiences amongst her own cases.

Then I attended the support group at this year’s International UFO Congress. As various attendees shared their abduction experiences, I noticed that some of them were including experiences of different RE-AB related activities. Struck by the number of people who were including such information, I interrupted the therapist leading it to ask the group a question. After getting the okay, I asked how many people knew they had military involvement in their experiences and seven people raised their hands. There were only about thirty people present. Once again, I was surprised. It’s important to note that this group was a completely random sampling of abductees who were experiencing various forms of ET abduction and who were at different levels of acceptance of their experiences.

From my seventeen years of RE-AB research, I have come to know that many abductees have these experiences, and I’m constantly reminded of just how prevalent they are. But on seeing those seven hands go up, I couldn’t help but realize how surprised many abduction researchers, not to mention general ufologists, would be by this. This very random sampling of abductees represents a statistically bigger picture of RE-AB involvement. Even I have a hard time conceptualizing that eight (adding myself) out of every thirty abductees may have involvement with RE-ABS! Such numbers would have staggering implications. Even two out of every thirty would be staggering. Even though I’ve lived with my own RE-AB experiences, I’m constantly amazed at the depth and complexity of the experiences shared by others. I’ve also noticed that the number of cases seems to be on the rise.

Additionally, I have noticed a denial amongst many abductees much like that of the researchers. As the overall confusion persists regarding the nature of the MILAB subject, I notice abductees sharing in it. Some of those abductees move into a state of denial regarding the possibility of their own MILAB experience. I can’t help but wonder if this may be for the same reasons too. Even more so than the researchers, abductees are concerned about issues of credibility. It’s understandable that they might shy away from admitting to an experience that could be perceived as somehow discrediting their ET experience. I understand how difficult it is to accept these experiences. I’ll share one thing I hear across the board from all the RE-AB cases I’ve worked with. They have all said their mil/intel experiences are more difficult than their ET ones—harder to experience, harder to come to terms with and harder to live with.

In one such recent example of denial, an abductee expressed to me that she just assumed it was normal for military personnel to be involved during some of her abductions. What could possibly be normal about seeing military people during your abduction in any capacity? I’ve spoken with many RE-ABS who’ve shared similar sentiments, especially those who’ve experienced only the most minor of surveillance or harassment, such as phone calls or black helicopters.

Along with other abduction researchers, I have had cases of military personnel who’ve had ET abductions and have seen military personnel as other abductees in the context of being taken by ETs. This would make some kind of sense, but if they appear in the abduction in any other “official” capacity, suddenly the whole paradigm is different. Additionally, I and other MILAB researchers have interviewed military personnel who have had RE-AB experiences while serving; that is, they’ve been abducted by military while in the military.

The involvement of these mil/intel agencies in any aspect of the UFO abduction phenomenon takes the concept of “cover-up” out into the stratosphere. At that point, we’re well beyond a mere cover-up of information regarding ETs, when we include a joint participation or collusion between ETs and mil/intel personnel in abduction practices!

Yes, many abductees rationalize their experiences of harassment, surveillance and seeing military personnel as just “par for the course” in the high-strangeness of their personal experiences. Some of this attitude is understandable, given that it’s hard enough to just come to terms with having ET experiences. Once you wrap your head around that one, suddenly the presence of military humans doesn’t seem so strange. What you end up with is a comfortable denial of sorts, regarding the presence of these humans.

Some abductees also find comfort in the view as expressed by Dr. Jacobs, that these experiences are somehow being perpetrated by ET hybrids who just look human. But one needs to ask, why would hybrids be wearing human military uniforms? Many RE-AB abductees have determined they saw authentic military uniforms from specific branches of service. Also, why would hybrids be flying black helicopters circling repeatedly over our roofs in broad daylight? Why would hybrids be confronting us in public settings or in front of family or co-workers? Are hybrids monitoring our phones, tampering with our emails, breaking into homes and offices, and parking in vans on the streets right outside our front doors? Probably not! Yet, all these occurrences are common in MILAB research.

Once the denial of their military aspects is fully realized by the abductees, they get angry, very angry. After all, it’s one thing to be abused at the hands of something other (something “alien”), but it’s altogether different at the hands of humans, let alone humans we’re taught to believe are there to serve, protect, and defend mankind. Unfortunately, the anger over any human involvement often throws the abductee back into denial of the experience, avoidance of its implications or causes them to retreat into denial of the ET part of the equation. This may be the cause for why some RE-AB abductees conclude and think “all my experiences are only the military”. Never mind what caused them to realize they were having ET experiences to begin with, i.e. the history of their own discovery process that led them to that conclusion, their evidence for ETs, or the fact that the only reason the military is interested in you is because they want to know about your ET experiences. And how do we know this? Because, in the interrogations the questions are about the ETs (why, how, agenda, genetics, psi abilities, technology, etc.), and because they pick up the abductee after they’ve had … what was that … oh yeah … an ET experience!

It’s actually uncanny. For some abductees, fessing-up to their own RE-AB experiences forces them to re-examine their ET experiences: to realize that not only were their experiences absolutely real, but that their experiences and they, themselves, are actually a matter of national security! For the abductee, this is a big pill to swallow. The strategy of avoidance, reluctance, denial, and an unwillingness to share their experiences with researchers comes much more easily.

It’s no wonder that the MILAB subject is overlooked by the abduction research community, and almost completely ignored by the ufology community. It turns out that ET abductions, their significance in the policy of non-disclosure, their relationship to other areas in ufology such as crash retrievals, back-engineering, and technology development, is more important and more deeply entrenched than has ever been recognized, and thus plays a more integral role than has been previously known.

I’m not really trying to get anyone to change the name—to replace one acronym with another. Many say that ufology has too many acronyms as it is. Even I’ll continue to occasionally call the phenomenon “MILAB” out of sheer habit.

The actual problem is not the name, but the paradigm. I am asking that ufology expand its current abduction paradigm to include an even greater appreciation for the reality and significance of the abduction phenomenon as it relates to the overall UFO subject. And in particular, appreciation of the fact that abductees are being reverse-engineered by the military and/or intelligence ET management cabal to access many forms of ET information, and for all the benefits and possibilities that information holds. Ufology must shift its paradigm to include the data that abductees are being reverse-engineered, because these experiences are an indispensable and integral part of the picture—that abductees are reverse-engineered in experiences known as MILABS … I mean … RE-ABS. P

leslie_bio_picMelinda Leslie has been public with her own abduction experiences for 20 years, researched covert-ops involvement for 17 years, and interviewed over 50 abductees with this involvement. Melinda’s research is featured in the new book, Camouflage Through Limited Disclosure: Deconstructing a Cover-up of the Extraterrestrial Presence by Randy Koppang. Melinda has lectured for numerous organizations and conferences, including MUFON, the X-Conference, the Bay Area UFO Expo, UFO Expo West, the International UFO Congress, the Whole Life Expo, and more. She has been a guest on numerous radio shows including Coast-to-Coast AM, and appeared on several television shows. For 9 years Melinda was Director of a UFO lecture series hosting the most prominent names in ufology. Melinda may be reached at [email protected].