The United States of Esoterica

Official forum of
It is currently Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:48 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:02 am 
Low Initiate Freemason

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 10:57 am
Posts: 195
"[W]e are witnessing the collapse of alien abduction research."

Are we really? The question ought to be asked: Just what constitutes alien abduction research?

I think there's an importance to the Emma Woods case, and that the recent repudiation of Jacobs and Hopkins in public opinion -- some public opinion -- is a minor watershed of sorts. But this kind of sweeping pronouncement just strikes me as ridiculous.

What institutes are closing as result of the Jacobs expose? What special projects have lost their funding? What research facilities are closing their doors?

The obvious answer: none. This can't be overstated. There is no such thing as "alien abduction research". Just independent investigators trying to legitimize themselves and confer upon themselves a uniformity of outlook by way of the label.

It's highly questionable whether Jacobs and Hopkins have even been universally discredited thanks to the recent revelations. They still have numerous followers. They still have defenders. Those who seem most outraged by Hopkins/Jacobs are those who doubted their conclusions to begin with. And this bunch continues to organize itself, as the article mentions, around the dubious banner of opposing the so-called "extraterrestrial hypothesis". --In other words, substituting one simple-minded idea with another.

I can't think of another "alien abduction researcher" besides Hopkins and Jacobs. Except for John Mack -- and he's dead. There are those who devote some space here and there to alien abductions, but no one else I can think of who makes alien abduction his or her central preoccupation. So just who is it who's been discomfited by the exposure of Jacobs and Hopkins? What's the massive fallout?

This is an intelligently written article with some nice characterizations of the current state of affairs. But overstating or distorting the significance of the Emma Woods case, etc., is the same gesture the anti-Jacobs/Hopkins camp employs, making the article itself sound dubious and come off as possibly partisan. Of course, quoting Michael Shermer is enough to make people think you're mentally challenged.

Balls on Fire

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group