UFO UpDates Mailing List
From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com> Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 12:32:16 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 21:47:12 -0500 Subject: Re: On False Memory >Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 14:29:15 -0500 >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net> >Subject: Re: On False Memory >To: updates@sympatico.ca >>Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 01:25:47 -0500 (EST) >>From: Russ Estes <BGBOPPER@aol.com> >>Subject: Re: On False Memory >>To: updates@sympatico.ca >Russ Estes wrote: >>When I first became aware of this list I thought, what a great >>idea, an insiders list where the sharing of information could >>possibly get us closer to the real answers. How silly I was to >>think that. It was easy to see that opposing opinions turned to >>personal battles at the drop of a hat. I often wanted to throw >>my two cents worth into the ring but then I thought that life is >>far too short to waste my time battling or dueling with others >>for no other reason than to stoke a fire that is already >>blazing. >Hi Russ. >I find your highly selective labeling amusing. It's cute how any >implied insults toward those who report abduction experiences >(when it comes from 'your own views') are to be taken as a noble >intellectual inquiry of some kind, while any opposing views (or >God forbid, should someone actually take offense at _Kevin's_ >unsubstantiated statements) are labelled 'rants' or 'personal >attacks.' BTW, has your name been mentioned? Why am I 'suddenly' >talking to you and not Kevin? Hmmm, interesting phenomenon. You >talk to one head and like the game, Smack the Mole you find that >another one has 'popped up' to take its place! <lol>You two >guys are a pisser. Chinese tag team eh? Well, John, since my first comments were not directed at you, then why am I talking to you? I thought this was an open forum in which all the list members were encouraged to express their opinions. I wasn't aware that we had to wait for an invitation from you, or a comment directed from you, before we could participate. >>I have seen questions asked and challenges made . Of course >>when some answers were posted the questioner would reject any >>comments out of hand or attack the motives of the individual >>who dares to post an opposing view. >Comical. Turn it around and aim it back at yourselves! What >prompted my original response was Kevin's "out of hand attack" >of John Mack's "opposing views" with the >statement/proclamation: "This is nonsense!" It seems to me the >pot calls the kettle black here. :) Mack's comment was, and is, nonsense. I waited to see if anyone would bother to check the studies to which he referred to learn what, if anything, they had to do with personal memories. These studies are about memorizing lists of real words as opposed to nonsense words, among other things. They have found that people more easily, and more accurately, remember the lists of real words. In one study, a chess master more easily remembered the position of the pieces on the board if it revealed a crafted strategy rather than random placement. Mack's attempt to use these studies to suggest that a traumatic experience, which is of more importance to a subject than what he or she had for lunch seven weeks ago Tuesday, are more accurate does not apply here. The studies he cited do not show what he suggested they did and therefore, his comment about them was, in fact, nonsense. And this was why I mentioned confabulation. Not because I was suggesting that you confabulated your memories of abduction, but because Mack had said that confabulation was only associated with alcoholism. This was nonsense as well. >>I would now like to clear a few things up for Mr. Velez about >>his personal attack on Kevin Randle and his "still warm in the >>frame" degree. >There was nothing any more 'personal' in my comments, than those >issued by Kevin in regard to abductees over the years. Somehow >we're not supposed to question anything he says. Here -you- are >'defending him!' (do you really think he needs to be defended >Russ?) No one suggested that, John. But, no one dares to question anything said by Mack, Hopkins or Jacobs without risking the wrath of the believers. >I never mentioned your name _anywhere_ in _any_ of my postings. >Yet here you are "setting me straight" and taking your partners >place in the discussion. What are you guys a WWF tag team? When >one guy is 'floundering' you slap hands and change places in >the ring? Someone should have told me! I would have gotten Greg >Sandow or someone to be my 'Red cross' partner! <lol> You don't need Greg because you already have half a dozen people who will join your crusade. >>I am sure that it is common knowledge that Kevin and I have >>co-authored three books, One of those books is "The Abduction >>Enigma" with William P. Cone Ph.D.. >Apparently you guys have been attached at the hip longer than >I was aware of. Explains why _you_ are responding and not >Kevin. (To whom I was speaking.) Gee, John, why are you responding to a comment that was not directed at you? And when were you appointed to the rules committee on this list? >>Over 6 years of hands on research went into that book. The >>opinions that Kevin posted about memory are not only his but >>also mine and Dr. Cone, whose Diploma is not a bit warm in its >>frame. Matter of fact, Dr. Cone has over 25 years of clinical >>Texperience with a vast majority of that time dealing with >>memory and the human mind. >Ha, ha, ha! <lmao!> >Kevin has expounded these -same- interpretations and 'beliefs' >about the nature of abduction -long before he got his degree- >Russ. There is nothing 'new' in -anything- Kevin has for sale. >So what came first, the chicken or the egg?" Was his opinion >-before- he knew anything about memory different from what it >is now? Or, has he just found a new 'vehicle' for his own >personal bias. >Chicken, egg, chicken, egg, . . . . such a conundrum! :) >John Velez Continues: >Russ I don't mean to be disrespectful but I -was- speaking to >Kevin. If Kevin wishes to respond to any of my comments then >fine, I'm here. >Personal note: I grew up on some tough streets in NYC Russ. >I've been 'ganged up on' before. I'm _not_ going to allow >myself to get sucked into your 'tag team' match. This commentary is crapola. There is no tag team. >Your partner is a 'big boy' and fully capable of speaking for/ >defending himself. You really should have a bit more confidence >in him and allow him to fight his own battles! :) That's right, John. Heaven forbid that someone out there might agree with me and not you. Heaven forbid that you actually look at the evidence rather than reject it out of hand because it doesn't agree with you. Heaven forbid that anyone have an opinion other than one directed by you. Have you ever noticed that Hopkins, Mack, and Jacobs have provided the answers? Mack has said, "It seems to me that Jacobs, Hopkins and Nyman may pull out of their experiencers what they want to see?" And, of course, Jacobs is the only competent hypnotist out there. You want to understand what is happening? Then open your eyes. KRandle
UFO UpDates - Toronto -
updates@globalserve.net
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-696-0304
A Hand-Operated E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related
Phenomena.
To subscribe please send your first and last name to
updates@globalserve.net
Message submissions should be sent to the same address.
|
Link it to the appropriate Ufologist or UFO Topic page. |
Archived as a public service by Area 51 Research Center which is not
responsible for content.
Financial support for this web server is provided by the
Research Center Catalog.
Software by Glenn Campbell.
Technical contact:
webmaster@ufomind.com