As it stands lately, Archie, you don't appear to accept any criticism of Hopkins/Jacobs or abduction research. You've endorsed Jacobs' spurious diagnosis of Woods being 'BPD' and further attacked her character in other posts.
Hi Kandinsky
No, Jacobs has never diagnosed "Alice" as having BPD. He has no qualifications to make such a diagnosis. The evidence of her campaign has been shown to six or seven separate psychiatrists, and THEY have all diagnosed her as a slam-dunk, classic BPD case. Reseach the syndrome if you want to understand it.
I have been following this sorry mess since 2008, a couple of years before the pair-of-dopes offered her a platform to trash their hate-figure under an assumed name. Jacobs' work is a major threat to Vaeni's ideology.
---------- Post added at 07:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:09 PM ----------
Carol Rainey's points are discarded because of her motivations as an 'ex.'
I know Carol quite well personally (was last with her in October), and know her motivation behind this hit-piece. Her ridiculous claims will, eventually, be comprehensively debunked. Most of them are outright lies, and can be demonstrated to be so. I don't know if you have any idea how many people who were involved in investigating the cases she talks about are outraged and disgusted by her hit-piece. Just because someone doesn't jump onto an internet chat forum to set the record straight immediately does not mean that action is not being planned, or will not be taken. I am standing well back from it.
---------- Post added at 07:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:14 PM ----------
What makes you so determined to dismiss questions and critics of Hopkins/Jacobs as mentally ill or stupid?
Because I know them both personally, and know otherwise. If you knew them personally, you'd know too.
---------- Post added at 07:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:16 PM ----------
I'm well aware of Jim's MO and got both barrels from him recently. People like Clancy and McNally have an opinion on the abduction phenomena and, whether I agree with them or not (the data bothers me), they might make interesting guests. I don't agree with a lot of Jim's conclusions, or his assumptions, but I'd listen to them.
Agreed. I have dealt with these people personally and just have my own opinion, that's all. Maybe I express it too forcefully from time to time: if so, thanks for pointing it out.
---------- Post added at 07:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:18 PM ----------
Despite your opinion of Vaeni and Ritzman, the episodes with skeptics/scientists as guests have been really interesting. I think Tyder's had a great idea.
Sure. I concur. I have absolutely no problem with true skepticism: on the contrary, if you read my posts on these forums you might conclude me to be highly skeptical in attitude. But I know what I know, from personal experience, and I know this thing is real.
However, Oberg is not a skeptic: he's an ideological debunker of the religious-zealot kind. I have dealt with him, and he's impossible. The "research" of Clancy and McNally on the abduction issue is seriously methodologically flawed and so obviously conclusion-led it's laughable. Shame on Harvard University Press for publishing such shallow, incompetent rubbish. It does not even begin to address the data, which are substantial, persistent and compelling. If Gene invites them on the show, and if they agree to be interviewed, well great; but put them up against a genuine researcher like John Carpenter for example and they'll have a tough time indeed.
Peace.
