From: Michael M. Hughes <michaelmhughes.nul> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:48:16 -0500 Archived: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 23:02:03 -0500 Subject: Woods/Jacobs - A Salient But Missing Point >From: David Cherniack <davidc.nul> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul>, >Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:48:15 -0500 >Subject: Re: Woods/Jacobs - A Salient But Missing Point <snip> >'Emma' whoever she is. would seem to be a profoundly disturbed >individual and David Jacobs is a profoundly easy target. His >conclusions about the abduction phenomenon are at a minimum >controversial, and at a maximum, quite possibly delusional. >Nevertheless, when I interviewed him for UFOs: The Secret >History I came to the opinion that he sincerely believed he was >warning the world about a real threat, and it was clear he had >been terrified by the the messages posing a danger to him and >his family. <snip> I only recently rejoined this List, but I'm unpleasantly *not* surprised by the rancor and lack of discrimination, grandstanding, and general noise that almost obliterates the blissful bits of signal that leak through. Some things never change! Despite plenty of unanswered questions, many have adopted the Emma Woods as saint vs. David Jacobs as devil (or vice versa) dialectic, and descended into shrill condemnations and ad hominem attacks. Why should I expect anything else? To those foaming-at-the-mouth, I ask, with all due respect: Might it be possible, as David alluded above, that: 1. "Emma Woods" was wronged by Jacobs's behavior (which it seems quite likely, even if just reading his own rather bizarre defense). 2. "Emma Woods" may have some psychiatric problems unrelated to David Jacobs's behavior. 3. David Jacobs may have some psychiatric problems of his own (believing, for instance, that hybrids are sending him threats via chat programs using "Emma Woods" computer). 4. David Jacobs may have been manipulated by "Emma Woods" for her own purposes. 5. There's more going on than we know, and not enough to shout at each other or create villains or saints. In other words, yet another (pardon my French) Ufological clusterf*ck, a dovetailing of two possibly delusional, all-too- human individuals caught in a mutually-reinforcing cycle of paranoia, confabulation, and egotistic gratification? Must it always be reduced to black and white and must we choose a "side"? Might both players in this little drama be right and wrong, honest and fibbing, self-aggrandizing and responding to real injustices, and possibly a little bit unhinged from being immersed in the morass of abduction research? I know it takes a bit of effort to rise above the good vs. bad dichotomy, but why not give it a try and give the insults a rest and see how this all settles out? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Michael M. Hughes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - http://michaelmhughes.com http://www.facebook.com/michaelmhughes http://twitter.com/michaelmhughes 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