The Ballads of Emma and James

[tyder001]

Now that would be show.

 

[Kandinsky]

Now that would be show.

With Jacob's hypnotic skills, he'd need to be blindfolded and wheeled in like Hannibal Lecter.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Not realistic. Ritzmann and Vaeni are strictly promoters of the opposition to the work of Hopkins and Jacobs. They aren't likely to contribute anything that the critics, such as "Woods" and Carol Rainey, haven't already expressed.

Hopkins is ill, and I don't expect him to be in any position to want to participate, nor would Jacobs. In the case of Jacobs, there remains the potential for legal action, and his comments would be extremely guarded, though I gather he might be expanding the statement posted on his site.

More to the point, such an episode, even if it were practical (and it's not), would shed lots of heat, with very little light. We do plan to talk about UFO abductions, but these controversies are sideshows, and will only be mentioned in passing. They are not entitled to main course status.

 

[Kandinsky]

More to the point, such an episode, even if it were practical (and it's not), would shed lots of heat, with very little light. We do plan to talk about UFO abductions, but these controversies are sideshows, and will only be mentioned in passing. They are not entitled to main course status.

In the banquet hall of abduction research, Hopkins and Jacobs are the expensive main meals. If people were expecting finest fillet steak and were potentially receiving beef jerky...customers would be interested.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

In the banquet hall of abduction research, Hopkins and Jacobs are the expensive main meals. If people were expecting finest fillet steak and were potentially receiving beef jerky...customers would be interested.

Or scream.

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <wunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <wontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> Yes there are, but not a huge number. My shortlist of researchers looking into the abduction phenomenon over the past years/decades, some of whom employ hypnosis for memory recovery some of the time, might include:


Yvonne Smith at CERO in LA (sometimes criticised as a self-promoter but reliable and sound)

June Steiner at OPUS in the Bay area (reliable, sound, pretty good, works away quietly and diligently)

John Carpenter in Missouri (excellent)

Jed Turnbull in NYC (reliable and sound)

Dolores Cannon in Arkansas (nice lady, good intentions, questionable conclusions)

Mary Rodwell in Australia (busy with hundreds of cases, good intentions, questionable conclusions)

Elaine Douglas (friend of Don's so won't say too much)

Barbara Lamb (believe she's stopped working with abductees but used to be good)

Dr. Edith Fiore (practicing psychiatrist, good but doesn't connect the dots)

Ann Druffel (ex-MUFON & doesn't do much now but did in the past)

Kevin Randle (OK for balance but not too smart when evaluating abduction evidence)


and if you want to get to the less substantial ones you could include people like Joe Montaldo, a number of MUFON teams including those collected together over the years by Ray Fowler, and a lots of people who do not advertise or publish anything and are off the radar.

Anyone got any other suggestions?

Frankly, a show with researchers who have not been in the media, such as June Steiner or Jed Turnbull, may be the most insightful, if they are willing to openly discuss on the radio what they have found through their work. This would address the viewpoint, one way or another, that this phenomena is largely about Hopkins and Jacobs wrongfully implanting ideas in the minds of patients, and would give listeners another set of data points.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I have no problem with this, and we'll work towards finding the right mix of researchers, to see what sort of episode we can set up.

 

[ArchieBedford]

Ritzmann and Vaeni are strictly promoters of the opposition to the work of Hopkins and Jacobs. They aren't likely to contribute anything

I think we can all agree that neither Ritzmann nor Vaeni have any original research or casework to present, and have nothing interesting to say either on this or for that matter, any other subject. If you want someone to parrot the ideas of Jacques Vallee then ask Ritzmann, but I'm reasonably literate and can read Jacques' books for myself thanks.

You would think it might be obvious to them where trying to make a name for yourself by trashing other people's reputations and work might lead, but apparently neither of them are that smart.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Parenthetically, I got two vicious emails from Carol Rainey in response to my comments about her article in Paratopia. I won't publish them here, since they were without substance. Her sole bone of contention is that single sentence in our last newsletter, where I said her article was referring, in part, to Budd Hopkins' reputation for, shall we say, "straying" over the years. As I said in another thread, I should have phrased it differently, since the piece largely concentrates on Hopkins' and Jacobs' alleged fixation on abductions with apparent sexual overtones.

Her response to my refusal to bow down and beg forgiveness was to constantly misspell my name, as if calling me Steinhoff, or Steinfield, or Stein-something was somehow equivalent. I guess she believes we're all back in elementary school. Sigh.

Anyway, I said that her beef was with Hopkins and Jacobs, not with me. My modest interest in this matter is rapidly closing in on outright disgust of anything related to these controversies.

 

[trainedobserver]

An 'innocent' show suggestion...how about Jeff Ritzman, The Clueless One, Bud Hopkins and David Jacobs for a 'round table' discussion? Sounds like fun huh?

Only if The Hybrid can IM in with questions and vague threats!

No but seriously, there should also be a representative from the Institutional Review Board (IRB).

 

[jjflash]

You also have to wonder about the people who wrote those threats and then say, well, it's not me, it's the hybrids taking over my body.

I hear ya.

Some relevant and interesting points have been made. Some arguments consisting of circular logic have been presented too, in my opinion, but I suppose that is par for the course.

While extreme thinking - one way or the other - is inherently full of problems, I would hope we could all agree that the pendulum of perspective within the UFO community is not in danger of swinging to the side of extreme critical thinking any time soon. Rest assured we have a ways to go before any activism needs to be conducted within the UFO community to relax the standards of definitions of research and resulting evidence. Same with the American general population:

Less than half of students proficient in science

By Christine Armario, Associated Press - January 25, 2011

Very few students have the advanced skills that could lead to careers in science and technology, according to results of a national exam released Tuesday that education leaders called alarming.
Only 1 percent of fourth-grade and 12th-grade students, and 2 percent of eighth-graders scored in the highest group on the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress, a federal test known as the Nation's Report Card. Less than half were considered proficient, with many more showing minimal science knowledge...

"Our ability to create the next generation of U.S. leaders in science and technology is seriously in danger," said Alan Friedman, former director of the New York Hall of Science, and a member of the board that oversees the test...

"I'm at least as concerned, maybe even more, about the large number who fall at the low end," Friedman said. "Advanced is advanced. But basic is really basic. It doesn't even mean a complete understanding of the most simple fundamentals."

Full article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_sc/us_report_card_science

 

[tyder001]

I'm afraid we may be falling behind in math and science and reading and other skills that we at one time were world leaders in. One thing I do wonder is if the internet is going to be something that changes for good or ill the way we learn and communicate. I know that I get on a web page and before you know it I have clicked so many links that I find myself several pages and even subjects from where I started out. Of course over the course of years everything from the printing press to the radio to the t.v. has been blamed for the ruination of society. I am optimistic that humans will adapt but this does leave a lot of room for thought. Especially in science and reading skills.

 

[stephen dedalus]

While extreme thinking - one way or the other - is inherently full of problems, I would hope we could all agree that the pendulum of perspective within the UFO community is not in danger of swinging to the side of extreme critical thinking any time soon. Rest assured we have a ways to go before any activism needs to be conducted within the UFO community to relax the standards of definitions of research and resulting evidence. Same with the American general population[.]

Agreed. While I've stressed the importance of understanding the limits of conventional research, it's clear that such research--when conducted responsibly--is capable of producing the most consistently reliable insight available to us before it reaches those limits. Scientific illiteracy is a problem that I fear is only going to get worse and worse. I'm not sure if we can attribute it to the general anti-intellectualism that seems to be asserting itself as a defining aspect of American culture, or if attention spans are shrinking as television and internet usage rewires our synapses. Maybe we've internalized postmodern distrust of institutions and institutionally-sanctioned forms of knowledge production so completely that we overstate the case against science without consciously recognizing that we're doing it.

 

[ArchieBedford]

Maybe we've internalized postmodern distrust of institutions and institutionally-sanctioned forms of knowledge production so completely that we overstate the case against science without consciously recognizing that we're doing it.

Well I don't want to push Jacques Vallee's ideas too much as I have some issues with his more outlandish and unsupported theories, but he did predict exactly this development more than 30 years ago, in "Messengers of Deception."

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Robert Sheaffer's take:

Abductology Implodes - Very Interesting. - Skeptic Talk - tribe.net

 

[ArchieBedford]

Robert Sheaffer's take:

You take seriously anything Sheaffer ever writes, or indeed give credence to anyone who has anything to do with the Skeptical Enquirer?

And do you really think that if, hypothetically in the next couple of years, the personal attacks on Hopkins and Jacobs the past months are revealed substantially to be personally motivated and vindictive lies/hoaxes, Sheaffer will publish a piece recanting this shit, and apologise for it? He's just serving up his complacent there-is-no-such-thing-as-the-paranormal ideology, and uses whatever he can to feed it.

That SI crew are almost as high as Vaeni and Ritzmann in the shallow and unprincipled opportunist league. Almost.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

You take seriously anything Sheaffer ever writes, or indeed give credence to anyone who has anything to do with the Skeptical Enquirer?

And do you really think that if, hypothetically in the next couple of years, the personal attacks on Hopkins and Jacobs the past months are revealed substantially to be personally motivated and vindictive lies/hoaxes, Sheaffer will publish a piece recanting this shit, and apologise for it? He's just serving up his complacent there-is-no-such-thing-as-the-paranormal ideology, and uses whatever he can to feed it.

That SI crew are almost as high as Vaeni and Ritzmann in the shallow and unprincipled opportunist league. Almost.

Lol, calm down. It wasn't that bad. Just reiterating the same positions some others have expressed. What I found especially interesting about it is that he seemed to be using these stories as a pronouncement for the death of the entire abduction subject. I suspect we'll be seeing a lot more of that.

 

[Elendil]

Well, while Sheaffer makes me puke, especially when he delves into the realms of politics/political economy/his achievement shite, some stuff he quotes is right on. Fuck it, it's on - unless Raney is outright lying:

So what happened recently that has left Abductology for dead? In a deadly one-two punch, a woman who was one of Jacobs' subjects is publicly accusing him of unprofessional conduct, and has recordings to back herself up. This was followed by Hopkins' ex-wife spilling the beans about his extreme loosey-goosey "investigative" methods, and showing him absurdly credulous in accepting subjects' obvious fabrications, in fact sometimes actually complicit in helping cover them up!

And even though I hate it, Sheaffer and his ilk have got a good case on their hands. How do you get over the fact that two of the biggest names in the abduction research are stained? We're not talking about small mistakes here: the same thing that Jacobs used against Clancy - taking anyone from the street as a real abductee without a check - can now be used against Hopkins. SI's field day has begun...

 

[jjflash]

I agree, Wickerman, that Sheaffer's perspective is worthy of consideration, if not completely valid.

How do you get over the fact that two of the biggest names in the abduction research are stained?

Many are of the opinion they were stained a long time ago. Hopkins' and Jacobs' premature and sensationalized claims of fact never did stand up to competent scrutiny, and there is no gray area in defining a fact.

The good news is that sincere truth seekers want to know, well, the truth. Wherever the truth leads us, some of us would rather know than be fed lies by grandstanders.

There indeed seems to be a core paranormal phenomenon amidst the lies, half truths and delusions that make up ufology. I, personally, would prefer to know more about what that phenomena actually consists of than be perpetually told the smoking gun has been discovered, only to find out upon closer review that there is virtually no evidence whatsoever to support the latest claims of the fantastic. I therefore view it as a very good thing to get the issues on the table and hold self-described researchers accountable for their actions.

Maybe we've internalized postmodern distrust of institutions and institutionally-sanctioned forms of knowledge production so completely that we overstate the case against science without consciously recognizing that we're doing it.

I think that is much more of a concern than not:

College Students Lack Critical Thinking Skills, But Who’s To Blame?​

Doug Mataconis · Tuesday, January 18, 2011 ​

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/college....-whos-to-blame/

...An unprecedented study that followed several thousand undergraduates through four years of college found that large numbers didn’t learn the critical thinking, complex reasoning and written communication skills that are widely assumed to be at the core of a college education.​

Many of the students graduated without knowing how to sift fact from opinion, make a clear written argument or objectively review conflicting reports of a situation or event, according to New York University sociologist Richard Arum, lead author of the study. The students, for example, couldn’t determine the cause of an increase in neighborhood crime or how best to respond without being swayed by emotional testimony and political spin.​

 

[stephen dedalus]

We're not talking about small mistakes here: the same thing that Jacobs used against Clancy - taking anyone from the street as a real abductee without a check - can now be used against Hopkins.

This is probably the single most serious issue, with the most potentially damaging implications, that has emerged from these developments. If Rainey's accusations are legitimate, the next step is determining when Hopkins began to fall prey to his own credulity. Did he screen potential subjects appropriately when compiling the research for Missing Time and then become lax later on? Has he ever screened appropriately, perhaps using the symbol alphabet he's supposed to be compiling? Or has this been a problem since the very beginning? As others have observed, these accusations are going to lead some to dismiss abductions entirely, or at the very least to expunge the contributions of Jacobs and Hopkins from the relevant literature. Determining if/when Hopkins started to allow himself to be deceived will be an important factor in deciding whether this extreme reactionary response to his work, and to abduction study in general, is justified or not.