Abduction Digest, Number 70 Thursday, August 13th 1992 (C) Copyright 1992 Paranet Information Service. All Rights Reserved. Today's Topics: Ambiguities Re: "Vision" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke) Subject: Ambiguities Date: 31 Jul 92 09:10:00 GMT Vlad: I was rather disappionted to read Prof. Jacobs' recent response to you, which resulted from the "Missing Abductees" thread. I felt that your point about about his using "footwork" (to characterize your previous statements as being in agreement with his point -- when they weren't) was well-taken. You have correctly pointed out that Prof. Jacobs seems to be trying to portray himself and Budd Hopkins as *the authorities* on abduction research. This was underscored by the arrogant, condescending and patronizing statement that: > If you wish to learn about the abduction phenomenon as I, > and my colleague, Budd Hopkins have confronted it, then > communications can go forward. In the earlier discussion concerning people who claimed to have had an abduction experience in spite of the fact that there may have been witnesses present who saw no abduction take place (i.e. the Puddy case) Prof. Jacobs made this statement on May 27: > Keith Basterfield has said that he has two cases of this > happening, but my discussion with him about this and my > research into one of his cases suggests that he is in error > on both accounts. On June 3, I posted a message to Prof. Jacobs asking him to explain the basis for his conclusion that the conversation and research on one of these cases could show that Keith was in error on *both* accounts. He never responded to this message. Accordingly, I found his statement on June 28 to be very ironic in this context: > I believe that careful, systematic investigation of each > and every case, regardless of claims and regardless even of > consciously-recalled memories, is of the utmost importance. Figure that! Professor Jacobs seems to be used to discussing this topic with people who are satisfied with unsupportable, conclusory pronouncements, such as "FPP is a non-starter". Perhaps he is "in over his head" trying to continue an online discussion with people such as yourself, who expect explanations for these conclusions. Let's face it: Dr. Jacobs is a history professor and Budd Hopkins is an artist. They are not mental health professionals or even scientists. I do not mean to belittle their contributions to our understanding of the abduction phenomenon. They have been substantial, although we must realize that their roles are those of anecdote collectors and organizers, who have brought this subject (and their substantial database) to the attention of the only people qualified to make sense of it: mental health professionals. Prof. Jacobs frequently points out that most mental health professionals have no background or familiarity with abduction research. Nevertheless, he should defer to the authority of mental health professionals when it comes to trying to rule out a particular personality disorder or other psycological problem in reaching a conclusion on any given case. There is no credibility in having a layperson render psychological or psychiatric opinions which are included in any given abduction case. Similarly, I don't believe that people, who are not licensed mental health professionals, should be performing hypnosis on other people. The Australian law is a good one because it protects the unwitting public from having their psychological well-being placed in the hands of an incompetent. Anyway, I hope that the discussions in this forum can continue in a courteous and fruitful manner. Jerry Clark's editorial in the May/June _IUR_ is quite timely. I was particularly impressed with this noteworthy observation by "The Sage of Canby": > And remember, whenever two persons agree absolutely, > one of them is unnecessary. -- John -- John Burke - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom.Davis@f201.n350.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Tom Davis) Subject: Re: "Vision" Date: 10 Aug 92 16:51:00 GMT Two possibilities come readily to mind. One interesting, the second dangerous: it is possible that you had a psychic experience of undetermined cause; it is also possible that you may have suffered a minor stroke - based on similar visual experiences of those I know who have had such events. I would not presume to ask your age, but if you are 30 or over, I would suggest mentioning the event to your family doctor - just to rule out the possibility of a medical event. If that pans out, why not try a good hypnotheripist to relive the event for more detail? -- Tom Davis - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Tom.Davis@f201.n350.z1.FIDONET.ORG ******************************************************************************* Submissions abduct@scicom.alphacdc.com Administrative requests abduct-request@scicom.alphacdc.com FTP archive grind.isca.uiowa.edu:/info/paranet/abduct Permission to distribute Michael.Corbin@paranet.org Private mail to Paranet/Fidonet users firstname.lastname@paranet.org UUCP gateway {ncar,isis,csn}!scicom ********************End**of**the**Abduction**Newsletter************************