UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Feb > Feb 11

Re: Review Of Sight Unseen - Miller

From: Stuart Miller <Stuart.Miller4.nul>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:14:40 -0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 08:03:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Review Of Sight Unseen - Miller


>From: John Harney <magonia.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 22:17:07 -0000
>Subject: Re: Review Of Sight Unseen

>>From: Stuart Miller <Stuart.Miller4.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 18:57:52 -0000
>>Subject: Re: Review Of Sight Unseen

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

<snip>

>If someone visited his doctor and asked him to have a look at
>his scoop marks, or other strange marks on his skin, the doctor
>would presumably tell him what they were and prescribe
>appropriate medication if necessary, or if he didn't know what
>they were he would probably refer him to a dermatologist. I
>don't think it likely that the doctor would explain that the
>marks were caused by the Greys who use incredibly crude methods
>for obtaining tissue samples - not even if he had read Budd
>Hopkins's books.

The point about the scoop marks is that they are an anachronism.
As you will know from the book, they are the scar tissue left
over from a now dated medical procedure that is no longer used.

The point is, why are abductees turning up with these markings,
particularly when none of them have ever had this procedure?

And much to my shame, I had forgotten something that Greg Sandow
kindly mentioned in his message. Abductees have, on countlerss
occasions, been subjected to psychiatric examination and found
to be in sound mental health. This is a proven fact John and it
does rather remove the main block of your argument. Do you have
any other point to make that might convince the rest of us that
abductees are bonkers?

>The point I am trying to make is that in evaluating abduction
>reports we should admit that some things are difficult to
>explain in conventional terms, but at the same time we must
>retain some grip on reality if we hope to be taken seriously. If
>we don't expect to be taken seriously but just want to argue
>among ourselves or entertain people then I suppose it doesn't
>really matter.

Good point, but obviously where we differ is where the line is drawn. I
think that Bud puts forward a fairly convincing case that something is
amiss.

As for being taken seriously, forget it. We never will be. You
cannot fight a propaganda campaign that's been waged against us
for the last 50 years.

<snip>

>Probably more South American than North American. Many early
>reports came from South America, but the details were rather
>different to the stories of the Greys as developed by Hopkins
>and Jacobs. The Villas Boas case introduced the idea of
>interbreeding with aliens. However, some of the early reports
>were of failed attempts at abductions, the aliens being repelled
>by shotgun blasts!

OK John, we'll forget about the entire American continent and
mark them all down as "dodgy".

<snip>

>>>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.

>The doctors who write in The Lancet do not generally indulge in
>fantastic speculations as to the causes of their patients'
>illnesses.

You think? You have to ask yourself why cases are featured in
the first place. Often, it is because they are bizarre or very
unusual or else in some way advance the cause of medical
science.

And while this is a subjective statement, I don't believe Bud
sensationalises the cases he writes about. They do that
themselves.

>>>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 would never presume to tell Errol what to allow on this List;
>that would obviously be ridiculous.

My point, which I didn't make very well, was this. I have no
idea what the List Moderator's views are on abduction, but
hypothetically speaking, let us assume they broadly mirror
yours. Yet he is still prepared to give the subject space on the
site. He is prepared to be tolerant of other ideas even if they
conflict with his own. I don't sense that from you, at least in
relation to this topic.

<snip>

>I am not the only one on this List to be dismissing a great deal
>of what passes for "ufology". There have been many posts
>recently complaining of pseudo-scientific nonsense and crazy UFO
>conferences. I realise that many people find this sort of stuff
>entertaining, and they want to believe in it, or at least to
>achieve a pleasant suspension of disbelief. Personally I find
>wild speculation and downright lies masquerading as science or
>scholarship profoundly irritating.

No disrespect intended but I am wary of those who need to drag
in the whole world in order to bolster their arguments. At this
moment, I am not interested in what others might think about
what appears on this List, just you John.

I appreciate your efforts in trying to keep this general subject
nailed down and stop it drifting off into the realms of total
flakedom, but I think most people would find it difficult to
ignore the claims of many hundreds of thousands of others who
have had strange experiences that cannot easily be explained.
You can write some of them off as cranks or attention seekers
but you can't write them all off, by a long way.

I think the whole concept of abductions might be difficult for
you, which is fine, but I guess what I am asking for is maybe a
bit of kindness and patience in this direction. I'm not accusing
you of not caring, clearly you do as I think part of your
irritation with this is your perception of the harm being done
to abductees as a result of the publicity given to them. But
like it or not, this seems to be a real phenomenon and it is
deserving of our attention and interest.


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