A Review of a Review — by the author

Posted On November 8, 2013

….Here’s an author’s review of the review published on the Amazon.com website about UFOs, ETs and Alien Abductions. Author’s comments are presented in italics throughout the review.

By Keep it real – Published on Amazon.com
Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase

I had high expectations for this book. So did the author whose goal was presenting “facts about UFO’s and extraterrestrials.” That objective wasn’t met as ‘facts’ aren’t separated from hearsay, hoaxes, or other possibilities. However, the book is a pretty good summary of the UFO arena, but not on a scientific level, not close.

Two examples of my complaint about this book (i.e. the lack of science within it).

First, in his discussion of an ‘abduction case’ in which he had first hand experience (meeting one of the alleged ‘abductees’), on pages 119 and 120 he recounts the allegations of ‘Richard’ and ‘Dan’ which supposedly provided confirmation of the event. At the end of his summary about ‘Richard’ and ‘Dan’ the author says their complicated saga played out behind closed doors so he doesn’t know what happened to them. Author fails to mention that this supposed ‘Richard’ and ‘Dan’ were never identified. All of the details pertaining to them on pages 119 and 120 were from letters sent to Hopkins. Someone, still unidentified, wrote the ‘Richard’ and ‘Dan’ letters, which I suspect contain false information. I don’t believe there ever was a ‘Richard’ or ‘Dan’ but just someone who fabricated both sets of letters. The author of this book never even mentions that they were never identified, never even entertains the possibility that the letters are fake.

….The reviewer disbelieves the information presented about this case, but does not tell us why he disbelieves. “The author of this book never mentions that they [two of the principals in the case] were never identified, never even entertains the possibility that the letters are fake.” I have no reason to “entertain that possibility” when I have seen and listened to the original evidence, as I have, and have concluded that the evidence and the original researcher —  Budd Hopkins – are both reliable. The reviewer continues “I think the odds that this case involved a real abduction by ETs is zero”. Your reviewer is giving you his opinion, but his opinion is only that. In my opinion, the odds that “this case involved a real abduction” are closer to 1.

There is no scientific or any other kind of analysis of this particular case in this book. I think the odds this case involved a real abduction by ETs is zero. (Yet I believe UFO’s are probably extraterrestrial and there might have been some or even many abductions.)

Second, in the only attempt at science in the book, he compares images drawn by people Hopkins thinks were abductees who saw what they think was alien writing with a control group who made up images upon imagining they were on a UFO. Author says he compared 24 ‘abductees’ with 24 in the control group. This has potential for being interesting. However, by my count the book shows only 31 symbols by perhaps 9 people. Yes, what he shows seems to show a difference between the groups, but if drawings of 48 people were studied, why am I allowed to see only 31, probably drawn by fewer than 10 people. I don’t even know by how many people because he doesn’t say. I’m just guessing fewer than 10 based on how they look and how they are organized. Nor do I know who any of the ‘abductees’ are, which is important because some cases I know about are much more likely to be fakes or delusions than others. Thus the possibility of some scientific analysis regarding these symbols just doesn’t materialize within this book.

….The reviewer should have followed citation no. 6 on page xix (just after this research was described) to page 201, where the following research is cited: Stuart Appelle, Don Donderi, J. Bellissimo and Budd Hopkins: “Common symbols are remembered by people self-reporting alien abductions (San Francisco, CA: Association for Psychological Science, 2009). “The possibility of some scientific analysis” indeed did materialize: in fact, the analysis preceded its summary presentation in the book.

This would be a decent book for someone who wants a basic summary of UFO cases since Roswell, but it isn’t what I expected from a scientist looking at the evidence. I don’t have any better sense of the real nature of the abduction phenomenon from having read this book. Working it all out scientifically would be too much to ask of anyone, but I hoped for a few new insights into some of the cases he discusses, but it wasn’t there. It is true that “a scientist looks at the evidence” in the book, but no scientific evidence is provided.

….The reviewer probably skipped chapters 7, 8, and 9, titled, respectively, The abduction narrative, What we know, and Science and UFOs. Chapter 7 summarizes what is known about abduction cases, Chapter 8 summarizes what is known about the performance and operating characteristics of UFOs and extraterrestrials, and Chapter 9 explains – scientifically – why scientists either ignore or ridicule the UFO evidence. The reviewer skipped the hard parts!

If all of the details regarding the symbols by the ‘abduction’ group and the control group were provided so we could study them, it might be possible to discern something. Even if there is a difference between the two groups, however, I can think of possible reasons other than ‘abductees’ seeing writing inside UFO’s. What about disinformation spreading around, or hoaxed information spreading around, etc? Without more data we can’t make any kind of meaningful analysis.

….Good for the reviewer. He or she  is paraphrasing what I wrote on page xix after describing the symbols experiment: “This symbol evidence is consistent with, but not sufficient proof of, the conclusion that the abduction experiences were real.”

Those who already believe in abductions will like this book as it supports their ideas. Those who don’t believe in abductions will also like this book because it provides no evidence to refute their ideas. But for those like me who are looking for evidence it ultimately fails in its objective to give us what can be called ‘facts’ and certainly no scientific facts.

….My review of the reviewer’s review is that he or she has read the book with insufficient attention to detail, that, contrary to the reviewers’ opinion it includes a summary and analysis of about sixty-five years of facts, and I confess I don’t understand what the reviewer wants when he or she asks for facts or scientific facts. The book is a narrative of facts and analysis, and it all seems to have gone over the reviewer’s head.

› Go to Amazon.com to see the review 3.0 out of 5 stars