UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Feb > Feb 9

Re: Review Of Sight Unseen - Miller

From: Stuart Miller <Stuart.Miller4.nul>
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 18:57:52 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 11:53:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Review Of Sight Unseen - Miller

>From: John Harney <magonia.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 21:29:44 -0000
>Subject: Re: Review Of Sight Unseen

>>From: Stuart Miller <Stuart.Miller4.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 15:15:43 -0000
>>Subject: Re: Review Of Sight Unseen

>>>From: John Harney <magonia.nul>
>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 20:54:39 -0000
>>>Subject: Re: Review Of Sight Unseen

>>>All Carol Rainey's stuff about scientific advancements is the
>>>sort of thing you can read about in "New Scientist" every week.
>>>It is hardly reasonable to attempt to use it to explain stories
>>>which are unsupported by physical evidence and which are more
>>>rationally explained, or at least described, with reference to
>>>delusions, unusual mental states and distorted memories.

>>Oh this is funny. I take it then that you are dismissing New
>>Scientist as some pop rag filled with Readers Digest style,
>>spoon fed simplistic nonsense. Or something similar. I've no
>>idea where Carol drew her material from but even if by chance,
>>some came from New Scientist or some other similar publication,
>>does that somehow make it invalid? Are you saying New Scientist
>>publishes lies and disinformation?


Firstly, thank you for a direct and straight forward reply.

Just a point I missed from your previous reply. There is plenty
of physical evidence, namely scoop marks on abductees bodies.
I'm guessing you might argue these are self inflicted or from
any other source other than an alien abduction?

>There's nothing wrong with the information in New Scientist as
>far as I know. The point is that it is irrelevant to cases of
>people who believe they are being abducted by aliens, or who are
>persuaded by Hopkins and friends that they are being abducted by
>aliens. Some of these people obviously need the services of
>mental health professionals, rather than having their fantasies
>reinforced by enthusiastic amateurs who develop increasingly
>crazy notions about aliens.

Firstly, it is a little unrealistic of you to wave away
someone's lifetime work simply because they don't have the
appropriate accademic accreditation, for that is what you are
doing with Hopkins.And I seriously doubt he has ever persuaded
anyone that they have been abducted. I am curious myself as to
why I find your writing so irritating and I think it is because
of the dismissive and somewhat haughty tone that is always
there. You may not believe in abductions and think the whole
phenomena is something "American", with all that implies, but to
be as abrupt as you are about this subject is being as unkind to
abductees as you believe Hopkins and his colleagues are also

I disagree with your comments about New Scientist. I would argue
that any publication which might help people understand what has
happened to them has got be useful, whether its got anything to
do with abductions or not..

You make mention above that "Some of these people obviously need
the services of mental health professionals". As you've
qualified it, what then is the position within your framework of
those who claim to have been abducted but who, in your opinion,
don't need psychiatric help? Delusional? Narcisstic? Surely any
adjective you produce is one inclined to imply the individual
needs professional help.

>Either abductions are physical, in which case the military would
>be dealing with them - which does not seem to be happening - or
>they are psychological, and treatment of such cases should be
>left to professionals.

Well, as you strike out the military option, what's left is that
all abductees do indeed need help from professionals. As you're
someone who, as we've already established, seems to hang a great
deal of weight on a person's accademic qualifications, could you
advise what your qualifications are that enable you to make such
a statement with authority? Why should we accept what you say?

What would be even worse John would be if you were to tell us
that you were in the mental health profession yourself. Then
you'd be guilty of making a diagnosis without even talking to
the client. If what you are offering is a non professional
opinion, to which of course you are entitled, then it behoves
you to make that point clear and not present your thoughts as a
done deal.

>I don't aim barbs at those who claim to have been abducted - I
>am concerned about those who exploit them, by sensationalising
>their accounts and claiming that abductions are physically real.

But on that basis John, The Lancet and the rest of them may as
well pack up and shut down if you remove from them the right,
with the client/patient's permission, for contributors to review
unusual or interesting cases. I suspect it's just in the case of
abductions that you would prefer this to be the reality.

>There are many on this list who take a very indulgent attitude
>to such people, but are constantly moaning that mainstream
>science doesn't take ufology seriously.

Let me fill in the blanks. This is because this is a serious
List filled with serious and intelligent people and there should
be no room here for nonsensical gibberish like talk of
abductions. Can I suggest you visit the Virtually Strange Home
page? Unless someone has held a gun to Errol's head, it would
seem that the List Moderator and Site owner doesn't feel the
same way. Would you like to be the one to tell him he needs
professional help? Best of luck.

>I don't know what your problem with Magonia is. No one is forced
>to read it. Those who don't like it can read the glossy UFO mags
>instead, with their exciting stories about the latest cover-up
>conspiracies, developments in anti-gravity propulsion, how the
>space people built the Pyramids, and other such garbage.

Unquestionably John, the tone and laguage in my previous posts
to you neither served me well nor was appropriate for this List,
and I apologise for that. But by way of an extremely small
excuse for my reaction, this last paragraph just about sums it
up. Your level of intollerance beggars belief. Do you have any
respect for other people's ideas and beliefs if they don't
corrspond with yours? Everything is dismissed, just like that. A
wave of the hand, the chain is pulled, and it's all flushed
away. I'm curious to ask just what exactly you do believe in in
relation to the principal subject matter of this List?

Stuart Miller

[ 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