From: Jerome Clark <email@example.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 99 10:43:04 PST Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 12:14:44 -0500 Subject: Re: 1999 UFO Alien Abduction Conference Announced >From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com> >Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 00:46:33 EST >To: firstname.lastname@example.org >Subject: Re: 1999 UFO Alien Abduction Conference Announced >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <email@example.com> >>From: Jerome Clark <firstname.lastname@example.org> >>Subject: Re: 1999 UFO Alien Abduction Conference Announced >>Date: Wed, 27 Jan 99 11:29:24 PST >>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com> >>>Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 22:23:11 EST >>>To: email@example.com >>>Subject: Re: 1999 UFO Alien Abduction Conference Announced >>>>From: Stig Agermose <firstname.lastname@example.org> >>>>Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 02:02:26 +0100 (MET) >>>>Subject: 1999 UFO Alien Abduction Conference Announced >>>>To: email@example.com >>>>Source: "alt.ufo.reports". ><snip> >>Second of all, unless you are claiming telepathic powers, I >>don't think you know what I'm going to say, and I resent the >>implication that I am involved in some sort of misleading >>propaganda effort. >I didn't claim telepathic powers. Instead, I suggested, based >on the past history of those speakers, that a certain point of >view will be in evidence. Are you suggesting that there will be >a contrary point of view? Are you suggesting that you are going >to suggest that some abductions might be the result of well >established psychological pathologies? Are you going to suggest >that some abductees might have invented their tales for the >attention that it brings them? For crissake, Kevin. Since clearly you can't be bothered to learn my actual views before criticizing them, I am almost tempted to respond sarcastically. Oh, what the hell, why not? NO, Kevin. I believe that _no_ abductions "might be the result of well established psychological pathologies." NO, Kevin, I don't believe in the existence of hoaxes. I believe that without exception, every single abduction story recounts an actual instance of intervention by alien entities. >Please note that I have not suggested that _all_ abductees have >psychological problems or have invented their tales. I'm only >suggesting that some do, a point that we, in the UFO community, >are reluctant to mention. I've got my serious hat again. I would sure like to know what this last sentence means, other than that apparently you're not reading the UFO literature much. For the past decade and a half, ufologists have furiously debated the meaning, significance, and nature of the abduction phenomenon. Some of this debate, in case you haven't noticed, has taken place on this very list. Many ufologists have argued for conventional or quasiconventional psychological explanations for abduction reports, and there has been a huge amount of discussion, a good part of it highly critical, about the utility of hypnosis. Ufologists have written entire books arguing skeptical views. Therefore, your assertion that ufologists refuse to recognize possible "psychological problems" of some abductees is simply as unfounded as some of the critical attacks on the Roswell incident that you have so eloquently refuted. In point of fact, the "psychological problems" of some abductees have been demonstrated empirically; see, for example, the crucial paper by Rodeghier, Goodpaster, and Blatterbauer ("Psychosocial Characteristics of Abductees," JUFOS 3, 1991). Have you read it? Frankly, Kevin, given your evident ignorance of the history of ufology's interaction with abduction phenomenon (not to mention your ignorance of the views of individual ufologists such as the undersigned), I am naturally concerned that your forthcoming book will merely recycle arguments familiar to others if not to you. The critical views themselves have been the subject of vigorous criticism and controversy, much of it covered in the pages of (for example) IUR and JUFOS (see, for example, Stuart Appelle's "The Abduction Experience: A Critical Evaluation of Theory and Evidence," JUFOS 6, 1995/1996, for a crash course on the many different approaches and hypotheses that have figured in ufologists' discussion of the phenomenon). I hope that your book advances this discussion, but so far, based on what you've said here, I see no reason to be wildly optimistic. Jerry Clark P.S. Those of you who may be interested in my actual views on the abduction phenomenon are referred to the discussions in The UFO Encyclopedia, 2nd Ed., pp. 221-24, 388-90, and 841-43. I think it is fair to say that where the phenomenon in general is concerned, I am an agnostic. My views. in fact, are close to those of Eddie Bullard and David Hufford. I might add here, by the way, that the abduction phenomenon and I go back a long way. I investigated my first case in the early 1970s.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp