UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Feb > Feb 5

Re: Review Of Sight Unseen - Harney

From: John Harney <magonia.nul>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 21:15:29 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 07:44:08 -0500
Subject: Re: Review Of Sight Unseen - Harney

>From: Stuart Miller <Stuart.Miller4.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 17:27:53 -0000
>Subject: Re: Review Of Sight Unseen

>>From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 00:08:05 +0100
>>Subject: Re: Review Of 'Sight Unseen' By Hopkins & Rainey

>>>From: Gildas Bourdais <gbourdais.nul>
>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 15:42:28 +0100
>>>Subject: Re: Review Of 'Sight Unseen' By Hopkins & Rainey

>With respect gentlemen, I think you are missing the point here.

>I am not suggesting that the book should not be subjected to
>analytical review, but by the very nature of the subject matter,
>it will inevitably fall down on that score. I am sure there are
>countless holes in it that can be picked till they bleed.

>I regard the book, which I enjoyed enormously, as a very brave
>attempt by the authors to take the subject of abduction one
>stage further. And in doing so I think Hopkins and Rainey have
>taken a massive and admirable gamble with their professional

Hopkins has a professional reputation as an artist; what he does
or does not believe about UFOs is hardly relevant to it.

>If Hopkins is convinced of the veracity of a witnesses testimony
>(and as he revealed, he has various means of checking) and yet

If he _really_ has various means of checking why doesn't he tell
us what they are?

>the story falls outside even the parameters of the extremely
>broad boundaries that this subject already imposes, then what is
>he to do? Given his intellect and experience, he will attempt to
>offer some "reasonable" explanation, and that is exactly what he
>and Carol have done. All that Carol, on the science side of

Reasonable explanation? What reasonable explanation? You're
joking, surely?

>things has done is to pull together a number of both existing
>and original ideas, as well as solid facts, put them together in
>a reasoned and thought out manner, and then say, "This is what
>might have happened". She's not saying, "This is definitely what
>happened".  It's placed before you gentlemen for your reasoned
>and considered opinion. As I read it, they don't want you to
>take what they say as fact. These are ideas, intelligently
>posited and thoughtfully constructed and laid before the reader
>to think about. Of course, it is your choice to reject or

The ideas are utterly crazy and incoherent. It isn't a question
of accepting or  rejecting - Hopkins and Rainey's pseudo-
scientific speculations just don't make sense.

>Hopkins admits that it took him, as I remember, close to two
>decades to get his thoughts in order on this. He's aware of the
>risk he's taking, and it appears, not without some discomfort. I
>for one applaud his and Carol's bravery. I think it is a
>landmark book and, as I mentioned in my own review, I think
>their ideas will gradually, over time, gain acceptance and
>filter through into mainstream thinking. Rip it apart,
>gentlemen, by all means, but I will not be looking at the detail
>too closely. My preference is to stand back and take a broader

That's right - so long as it's a good read, why bother with the
details or whether it makes sense or not? If you like fantastic
yarns, why not read science fiction?

John Harney

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com