Read First, Then Comment

[Oakstreet]

Mr. Steinberg and Mr. O'Brien:

Over the past two years I have listened to many of the Paracast podcasts. I find them informative, entertaining, funny, provocative and sometimes infuriating.

However, there is one thing in particular, I do find disappointing. Too often when a book or other written record is referred to, the guest (or host) may say, " I have not read the book" and then he or she goes on to offer pointed opinions about it!

This recently happened when Mr. Jim Moseley was interviewed. He was asked his opinion on the new book, "Area 51" authored by Annie Jacobsen. He replied that he had not read the book. Moreover, he said, his interest was principally in "Flying Saucers" and not in what went on at Area 51 (as if there could be no connection). He then dismissed Ms. Jacobsen's writing as essentially ill-informed if not preposterous.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, however if they are going to dismiss another author's book they should first read it. It is only fair. They may in fact discover that what they read is significantly different from what they have "heard." It is intellectually dishonest to offer a review of a book you have not read.

I will add I did enjoy Mr. Moseley's remarks on other matters. But I do feel he should read Ms. Jacobsen's book first and then offer his rebuttal and or commentary.

(Note: this thread was also posted to the forum for the online community)

Thank you.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Jim is basing his conclusions on summaries of the book. Don't expect him to take this any further.

 

[Oakstreet]

It's clear Jim has his ways of going about things and his opinions are well worth hearing. Nonetheless, I believe it is better if people read the author's words and not just the summaries before making pronouncements.

Thanks for the reply and best wishes to you and Chris for continued success with the Paracast. You do great work.

 

[Sentry]

We are in agreement that fair judgments on books should be made by people who have read them.

99% of the time.

I think we can give James Moseley a pass for not reading the (whole) Area 51 book. I gave Jim the heads-up on the Jacobsen book before it was published and saw that he got a review copy, as well as numerous reviews, excerpts, and my own commentary on it.

He has a knows the material, and is well qualified to comment on it.

 

[Oakstreet]

Jim's contributions to the field and his insights into these matters are indeed such that he can be given a pass. Although I would still prefer to hear his keen commentary after he has read the entire book.

I too found Ms. Jacobsen's related account of the Roswell case hard to accept. However, careful reading of the most controversial part of her book—the claim that the crash at Roswell was that of a Soviet craft that contained deformed children, makes clear she is relating an account given to her by a retired EG&G engineer who worked at Area 51. In his account he did not claim to have been at the actual crash site in 1947. Instead, he alledges that in 1951 remnants of the crash were sent from Wright Patterson AFB to Area 51 where he and other EG&G engineers examined them.

Ms. Jacobsen is telling a story related to her from a source she considers credible. As a reporter she is reporting what that source told her. This is something reporters do everyday—often citing anonymous sources and claims that cannot be fully verified.

In fact every writer on the Roswell incident has done the same thing. They have reported stories told to them by sources who claim, first, second or third hand knowledge of the events—claims that cannot be verified beyond the reputation and credibility of the person(s) making those claims.

The claims about the Roswell crash, related in Ms. Jacobsen's, book are therefore no more preposterous or implausible than those made by most so-called knowledgeable and credible writers in the UFO field. Certainly the Air Force has provided its share of whoppers and disinformation.