From: Steven Kaeser <steve.nul> Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 12:21:33 -0500 Archived: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 08:14:13 -0500 Subject: Re: Hopkins & Jacobs >From: Rick Nielsen <nilthchi.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 07:15:59 -0800 (PST) >Subject: Re: Hopkins & Jacobs <snip> >If any of the conclusions of Hopkins, Jacobs, Mack and others >are in any part true, then the abductees need rescue, and the >abductors need to be stopped. >But what exactly are we dealing with here? No one knows for sure. And therein lies the problem with trying to deal with abductions in a rational manner to "stop" the activity. I think it was acknowledge long ago by many that the act of "abducting" people is a horrific act that should be stopped if possible. But, I'm not sure how that could be accomplished under the circumstance. >We've gazed at the greys. We've dreamed the reams. We've even >experienced the experiencer's experiences. >Is there really a 'standard abduction experience'? Or do we >accept as 'canon' >the multitude of types of aliens and >contacts? (You can get an idea of the many types by checking >out the encyclopedic works of smarter folks than me, like Jerry >Clark, et al.) I believe there is a "standard" experience that researchers have identified, and that's part of the mystery. My understanding is that there are un-publicized "markers" that researchers look for to verify certain aspects of an alleged experience. This is similar to police investigations where they don't give all the facts to the press. I also believe that some of the key similarities in the abduction events relate to the descriptions of the craft and specifics of what they recall. >Once we decide what we're talking about, what standards do we use to support the subjects and to interpret the interviews? >Since we're talking about research involving human beings, we >need standards which respect all the rights of those >participating: We must first do no harm. We must have ethics. >We must have real peer-review. We have one researcher that sold his abduction case files to Bigalow's group, which caused quite a stir a number of years ago. I believe there is another case where case file information loaned by one researcher to another was publicly released without permission, so there is certainly a need to bring ethical behavior and "respect" to a much higher level in the genre. I would suggest that some of the issues you've raised apply to ufology in general, and not just to the abduction side of the equation. >And this is the very point that stops the ethical researchers. >This point creates an ethical dilemma for those who want to >continue and don't know how to resolve the matter. As we've >seen, with Hopkins and Jacobs, there were compromises and the >abductees were made to suffer more. In 1992 there was a week-long Abduction Conference held at MIT, which allowed researchers from all around the world to gather and share information. The book "Close Encounters of the Fourth Kind" is an author's view of the event, and the information presented is available in a publication that can still be found, I believe. This field is far larger than the three primary researchers we've mention here can account for, but they've been the most prolific over the years in writing about the subject. I have a few friends who believe they are abductees, and while I'm not necessarily convinced that they have, I can't look them in the eye and say that they haven't. Until I can, a mystery (in my mind) remains. Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp