I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain around the idea that 6,000,000 Americans have been abducted and, if the phenomenon knows no national boundaries or preference, that extrapolates to 120 Million people worldwide (2% of 6 billion). And they stress this number is 'very conservative.' All this is based on a Roper Poll with half a dozen sneaky questions in the midst of other misleading questions that, if answered in the correct manner, indicate the liklihood of an abduction. We don't know what these are. Hopkins, in particular, tends to want to hold back some abduction secrets for fear of 'polluting' the field.
This sounds like pretty shaky grounds to me. It's shaky in terms of the statistics, which rely on simple extrapolation. It's shaky in terms of the actual questions, which we are not told what they are. It's shaky in terms of the validity of the conclusions. How do you know that answering half a dozen questions the same way people whom you BELIEVE to have been abducted mean they, too, have been abducted when they don't themselves think so. This seems to me to be the same trap Marzulli falls into when he attempts to prove UFOs are demons and such. The whole idea is self-referential. It's a package deal where one unsubstantiated unknown 'proves' another unsubstantiated unkown thing which 'proves' the first one. I think that's why my head is spinning because it's being asked to go around in a circle.
One huge problem here is that the entire thing is subjective by nature. All we have is interviews with individuals with the 'help' of regression hypnosis, which is suspect itself. I understand that both gentlemen defend their use of hypnosis as legitimate and suggest that those who object have never really seen a session, so they are incapable of judging the system. At least with Marzulli we can look at the texts and examine them, but here we have only the thoughts of someone in a somewhat disassociative state.
That part of the issue is disingenuous. I have listened to Hopkins lead a witness. She wasn't under hypnoisis at the time, but his questioning of a person who called into a local TV show was obvious. She 'thought' she 'might' have been abducted. Hopkins asked her, 'Do you have any unusual scoop marks or scars on your thighs?' She answered, 'Why, yes!' in a startled way that led you to believe she was having a revelation. He very quickly asked her to stay on the line so he could interview her after the show. It was all quite dramatic. (Seattle, KOMO-TV, some years ago) Thus this fat girl with emotional issues and cellulite got some moments of fame. Perhaps he dismissed her claims after the show; we were not told, but the initial interview and the way the questions were phrased, as well as her reaction, was painfully obvious. Only the most credulous would give this episode another thought.
I also have a problem with this idea of 'screen memories.' How does a six car non pile-up turn into a UFO encounter? Well, we're told there really wasn't a pile up, and since all parties reported a pile up, this must be a screen memory. That conclusion is unacceptable. The whole idea of screen memories is a large hole we're being asked to accept as real because it provides a bridge to escape from a situation where we otherwise could not. Unless you provide enough references and footnotes to nail this thing into reality, you're left with more anecdotal evidence. We can't verify even one element of a story like this.
The point is that I don't think these guys get such an easy pass on their investigative methods. The whole Roper thing is highly suspect, and it is demonstrably not true that they are completely legit in their hypnosis and interviewing techniques. We've got some of the screw-ups on tape. This screen memory thing is an extremely convenient idea that explains-away an otherwise pretty difficult impasse.
That being said and let aside for the moment, the second half of the show really demonstrates how these guys have gone native. They are no longer in a position of investigating the phenomenon to find out what it is; they have come to a sweeping conclusion that the human race is being subjected to hybridization with something else on a massive scale. They are completely convinced.
You can see this especially with Jacobs as he tells the story of how hybrids are socilaized much differently than we are and lead different lives. He says they are raised on a UFO and have much knowledge they need to gain by 'asking' abductees simple questions. Jacobs knows this because he regressed an abductee who reported that the hybrid asked strange questions. He is now acting as an anthropologist in abstentia through the third party of the abductee under hypnosis. That brings an entirely new aspect to the term 'armchair anthropologist.'
Now the good news is that these guys are completely sincrere and, unlike Marzulli, do not insist they are correct. They didn't threaten to hang up if they got a hard question and they didn't try to conrol the interview. Jacobs, in particular, is always quick to say 'I think' rather than 'This is the way it is, period.' But they have both obviously become convinced they have stumbled upon a great truth and have interpreted it more or less correctly.
I have to return to the initial objection of this thing being on such a massive scale as to make it unbelievable. There would have to be a huge infrastructure to support such massive ongoing 'abductions.' I believe that every conclusion they have come to should be subject to intense scrutiny.
I remember when Rhine was doing his experiments at UNC on ESP he had amassed statistical evidence. He had it vetted by, I believe, a national association of mathematics which concluded that Rhine might very well be wrong in his conclusions, but that his statistical evaluation was completely correct in its methods and could not be questioned as inaccurate. If Hopkins & Jacobs would subject their statistical evaluation of the Roper Poll to a similar disinterested, but statistically competent third party, I would be much more prone to accept their conclusions on this part of their investigations. Unless they are willing to subject their science to scrutiny, I can't see their conclusions as valid and see them as unlikely. I think they have wrapped themselves up into this phenomenon to the point that they are no longer objective.
Nice guys, though. Thanks for the show.
