posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 07:47 AM
You're using classic debunking technique here. When you can't take the whole phenomenon apart, focus on a part of it, what you preceive as the
weakest link, such as a specific case or a specific researcher, and insinuate doubts about data, method and competence. That said, I don't think your
intentions were dishonest. Had you been a pure bred debunker, you would have then reasoned as if you had single-handedly debunked the whole UFO
And you are using the classic "true-believer" technique of employing labels and straw men in an overly defensive, knee-jerk response to a simple,
honest opinion which doesn't happen to perfectly align with your own.
Try rereading my post without your preconceptions of what my intent was. Read the WHOLE post.
I'm sorry if I you felt I was jumping down your throat, that wasn't my intention. It is justified to be critical and even skeptical to something
that flies in the face of your paradigm.
That said, I feel that a whole lot of people attack Hopkins based on assumptions and without really knowing the man or his work (not referring to you
here). I was using your post to address them.
Me a classic true-believer? Ok, but a classic true believer after reading all of Hopkins' books, and all of those of David Jacobs, and those of Mack
and those of their critics, and after visiting a large number of symposiums, conferences and lectures on the subject, watching documentaries, and
knowing persons who claim to have been abducted. My approach of the subject is that of someone who has seen unexplicable things in the sky, who
knows that the Universe is more than meets the eye, and I'll leave it at that.
As to my preconceptions on your part, if you feel like fleshing out your point of view and what your intention was I'm all ears.
27-10-2013 by Heliocentric because: liquid little stones skipping and skittering free on shared umbrellas
edit on 27-10-2013 by
Heliocentric because: (no reason given)
And the the true believer label was used for illustrative purposes only. Labels only hinder honest discussion as do your speculations of my actual or
hypothetical intent ["had you been a pure bred debunker..."]. These are straw man arguments.
I was commenting on one specific video, the subject of which was specifically the research of one specific man through the use of one specific
technique - hypnosis. I wasn't focusing on the "weakest link"... I was questioning the only link presented in the video. Neither was I attempting
to "take the whole phenomenon apart", as I have mixed views on the topic.
And this is as someone who has experienced what you would call inexplicable things.