Christopher O'Brien and Amazon Reviews

[rhcball]

As Mr. O'Brien is active on the forum, I was wondering if he or anyone connected to --whatever-- would care to comment on some Amazon reviews. I was debating getting some used copies of the Valley material, but there are at least two reviewers raising some objections which are somewhat intriguing. To quote one--

" The author's questionable reputation is well known in the local area and among other researchers. Those questioning the validity of the book are invited to interview the witnesses mentioned in the work, to see how accurately their experiences were "documented" by the author."

I figured I'd go straight to the mouths of horses here and beg for some illumination.

[And apologies if this was previously discussed somewhere, I'm not in the mood to go through years of dead threads]

 

[Double Nought Spy]

Just like a million other places online, anyone can post whatever drivel they please on that site. The Amazon review system is the subject of a lot of discussion, and I think Amazon blew it when they set it up. Compare it to something like the feedback system at eBay, and it looks like Amazon is just asking for crap. Chris's books are well worth buying and reading a couple of times. He doesn't need my help in defending his work, I just stopped in to comment on the awful mess that Amazon is turning into. For what it's worth, I own property in the San Luis Valley and I'm getting ready to visit there soon. I have met Chris and have a lot of respect for his work. In a field that's crawling with batshit crazy "investigators" and flaming con artists, Chris is in the minority of sane, sensible and honest people of the sort we need more of.

 

[Ron Collins]

As Mr. O'Brien is active on the forum, I was wondering if he or anyone connected to --whatever-- would care to comment on some Amazon reviews. I was debating getting some used copies of the Valley material, but there are at least two reviewers raising some objections which are somewhat intriguing. To quote one--

" The author's questionable reputation is well known in the local area and among other researchers. Those questioning the validity of the book are invited to interview the witnesses mentioned in the work, to see how accurately their experiences were "documented" by the author."

I figured I'd go straight to the mouths of horses here and beg for some illumination.

[And apologies if this was previously discussed somewhere, I'm not in the mood to go through years of dead threads]

Valle is as respected as they come in this field. I have never heard of anyone considering him sketchy or of misquoted or ill represented evidence. Now, his ideas can certainly be categorized as progressive. But, that in itself is not an indication of anything. Sounds to me as though the person making the post is tossing out insinuations and asking the reader to do the leg work to see if it pans out or not. Debunkery by insinuation of impropriety and not about specific content. Though I am often at odds with many of Valle's ideas, I urge you to read his stuff. They are typically very well written and present an important evolution of thought. You are guaranteed to take something worth while by the reading of them.


-- EDIT --
I am having a blond moment. I just realized you where talking about the San Luis Valley stuff and not Valle'. BUT, my answer is essentially the same.

 

[Kandinsky]

As Mr. O'Brien is active on the forum, I was wondering if he or anyone connected to --whatever-- would care to comment on some Amazon reviews. I was debating getting some used copies of the Valley material, but there are at least two reviewers raising some objections which are somewhat intriguing.

It's a good idea to ask people on this forum for their opinions about Chris O Brien's books. It's possible you won't gain an answer, but the question's valid.

The reason I think it's a good idea is that members here have read his books, listened to the DRM and Paracast interviews and know his work well. Even moreso, a couple of years ago, I noticed a couple of Hoagland's books had very positive reviews on Amazon by a doctor with a distinct name. I wondered if a vested interest was plugging his books and spent a bit of time tracking the guy down to see if it was a sock-puppet account. IIRC, he was a school teacher, recently moved north into Canada. Seemed genuine and I couldn't find a connection to Hoags or his publisher.

I guess the point is that anyone can write reviews on Amazon. Some will be fans. Some could be competitors. Judging the tone of the review might be the only way to get an idea? Listen to the interviews I mentioned and judge for yourself if you think C O Brien's books will be interesting to you. Forget the reviews.

 

[rhcball]

I only bring them up because they seemed to indicate that the reviewers were from the area, and that people in the region weren't unanimously endorsing the book and the presentation of their testimonies. This might be a stupid place to try to get a presentation of that point of view. I've heard most of his interviews and read as much of Stalking the Trickster as I could before typos and Myspace blog citations burned me out.

I'm suffering from snake oil toxicity, so there's been a desire to get as full of a picture as possible about the various prominent researchers and their data. The more I've been trying to balance the information, the more mundane the whole thing/scene is becoming (which breaks my weepy little heart in a lot of ways).

 

[tyder001]

I was reading a review of a certain "paranormal" investigator on Amazon the other day. The reviewer said something along the lines of " Since not even his own peers take think much of his work this is not worth reading." Really? What "peers?" That is the problem with so called "skeptics" and yes so called beleivers are guilty of the same kind of junk. If you "throw" an negative comment out there and just muddy somebody in the mind of the public then you don't even have to be bothered by their opinions or worldview. It's an old trick and I've seen it done both on a political and personal level.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

As Mr. O'Brien is active on the forum, I was wondering if he or anyone connected to --whatever-- would care to comment on some Amazon reviews. I was debating getting some used copies of the Valley material, but there are at least two reviewers raising some objections which are somewhat intriguing. To quote one--

"The author's questionable reputation is well known in the local area and among other researchers. Those questioning the validity of the book are invited to interview the witnesses mentioned in the work, to see how accurately their experiences were "documented" by the author."]

I've always wondered who it was that posted that review. Of course, I have my suspicions that it was a disgruntled CO MUFON investigator who didn't take kindly to my independent field work in the SLV trenches and decided to take an unfounded pot-shot at my work, because I eclipsed his non-existent parade. Sometimes when a highly motivated person arrives and splashes your little pond dry, those attached to the mud puddle (but don't do the work) cop an attitude...comes with the territory... As to the veracity of the comment about my "reputation" in the SLV; the 157 release forms signed by witnesses to unusual events speaks loudly. I've never counted, but I seem to recall at least 10 law enforcement officials, not to mention Department of Interior officials, Forest Service workers, ex-military types and even a town mayor signed release forms for their names and experiences to be used. I suggest that anyone who wants to spend the time tracking down any or all of the witnesses named in my book go ahead and ask them. Each and every one signed off on the actual part of the books where they are mentioned. I even got a release form signed by the BBC about a BBC host's visit to a cattle mutilation site. Go ahead and try to get the BBC to sign a legal document about anything paranormal--I dare you! *smile*

As far as other "paranormal" investigators in the San Luis Valley (?) having issues with my work, that's total BS. Except for David Perkins and Tom Adams, Dr. Lynn Weldon and Leo Sprinkle, I can't think of any others that ever did field work there... uhh, well, unless you count Steven Greer, that's about it. Go ahead, ask any of them about the veracity of my work, etc... I'm proud of my years of hard work! Greer probably will not respond because I've dogged him quite a bit over the years, but he still conducts ATTU trainings there like clockwork--15 years and counting...

 

[rhcball]

Cool man, I appreciate you giving your side. The disgruntled MUFONite angle makes a lot of sense. I have one of your SLV books on order at the library, I look forward to it.

(I also appreciate your view on the cattle mutilation situation--it's pretty realistic and plausible [though the mutilations at Skinwalker indicate there's another aspect to it, creating yet another highly muddled situation]).

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I was reading a review of a certain "paranormal" investigator on Amazon the other day. The reviewer said something along the lines of " Since not even his own peers take think much of his work this is not worth reading." Really? What "peers?" That is the problem with so called "skeptics" and yes so called beleivers are guilty of the same kind of junk. If you "throw" an negative comment out there and just muddy somebody in the mind of the public then you don't even have to be bothered by their opinions or worldview. It's an old trick and I've seen it done both on a political and personal level.

All you need to do is go look at the reviews of any Richard Dawkins book. You'll see that the people that gave his book a 1 star gave a creationist book 5 stars. The opposite is probably true, as i know I would give something something that was pro creationism a 1 star review since it isn't based in physical proof, so of course I would be right