From: Greg Sandow <greg.nul>
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 14:42:11 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 15:06:23 -0400
Subject: Re: Magonia - The Truth Is There - Sandow


>From: Stuart Miller <stuart.miller4.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 18:32:24 +0100 (BST)
>Subject: Re: Magonia - The Truth Is There

>>From: John Harney <magonia.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:43:50 +0100
>>Subject: Re: Magonia - The Truth Is There

>>>The Pelican has asked similar questions before, but it seems he needs
>>>to keep on asking: Can a person who writes something like the above
>>>paragraph, and who is presumably not joking, be sane? The Pelican's
>>>answer must be No, otherwise the concept of insanity loses its
>>>meaning. The thing to be done, therefore, is to urge people like
>>>Jacobs, Hopkins and others to seek the appropriate treatments for
>>>their condition. They are unlikely to listen, of course, so their
>>>pernicious practices, such as conducting hypnotic regressions while
>>>asking leading questions about disgusting grey aliens, should be
>>>actively denounced and discouraged, and their writings
>should be given
>>>the critical scrutiny which will expose them as the irrational
>>>nonsense that they are.

>>Yes, and The Pelican stands by every word of the above. This is not
>>insult or abuse, but plain speaking. This practice of tinkering with
>>persons' minds by unqualified amateurs obsessed with mad theories about
>>grey aliens is deplorable behaviour and responsible people should miss
>>no opportunity to say so.

>Lets start with this "unqualified amateur" slur. Hopkins may
>well have been unqualified when he first sat down with an
>abductee. After more than 700 sessions with abductees since,
>then as a former counsellor myself I can tell you he is now
>qualified. Very, very adequately. He may not have letters
>after his name, which of course is the sort of status
>grinding badge that superficial gadflys insist on, but he is
>much better qualified by a very long way to sit down with an
>abductee than a qualified psychiatrist new to the field would be.

Let's remember something John Harney either never knew, has
forgotten, or has chosen to ignore. When Budd Hopkins started
working with abductees, he himself never hypnotized them. That
work was done by credentialed psychologists, who then taught
Budd to do it, and of course observed him doing it after he was
taught. They believed Budd was qualified. John Harney may wonder
if they're right, but he's only speculating. He certainly wasn't
there.

Later in Budd's abduction career, he was closely observed
(during his work on the "Witnessed" case) by two highly
professional psychotherapists, one of whom has been awarded the
Macarthur Prize, one of America's highest intellectual honors.
I've spoken to both these people. Neither agrees with Budd's
conclusions - neither believes that aliens (little, grey, or
otherwise) are abducting people. But both told me that they
admire Budd's methodology, and find it highly professional. I
published this in my IUR study of the "Witnessed" case, so it's
part of the abduction record.

And then there's this: No mental health professional who's
worked with Budd Hopkins, David Jacobs, or the abductees they've
worked with has ever concluded that these abductees have had
their minds "tinkered with." Nor has anyone qualified to examine
the abductees - and who has actually examined them, or given
them psychological tests - concluded that, as a group, they show
any significant psychopathology. Moreover, as I've observed
myself, the abductees themselves are far more independent of
Hopkins or Jacobs than John Harney might imagine. The only
people making the kind of assertions Harney makes are people
with no first-hand knowledge of what's going on - people
(including some professional psychologists, who should know
better) who have never examined abductees, and never looked
directly at the actual work abduction researchers do.

I don't know whether aliens are abducting anyone. I've also
found fault with some aspects of Budd's (and Dave Jacobs's)
work, as anyone knows who's read my 1997 study of the
"Witnessed" case in IUR, or my essay "The Abduction Conundrum",
published in Dennis Stacy's publication, The Anomalist. But
after reading John Harney's latest - and, of course, much else
that he's posted here over the years - I'm happy to borrow the
kind of language he himself loves to use, and label him an
arrogant, despicable buffoon.


Greg Sandow