Monday, February 7, 2011

Gary Haden on Eschewing Emma Woods

Another excellent article by Gary Haden at Speculative Realms:The Nausea of an Emma Woods Idiot: Paranormal Celebrity Munchausen by Proxy, the Revolt of the Damned Alive and Making People Sick for Kicks concerning Emma Woods, this time on the responses, or rather, non-responses of the "shrug-so-tiring/boring" variety from researchers. (some who I respect very, very much; but on this one issue, I cannot understand why they think they way they do on this topic.)

Now, this is a hard one because Haden's words are harsh, and as I say, I respect some of the individuals he names. I'm the messenger, not the message. However, again, when it comes to the intentional "mind fucking" as Haden calls it, of witnesses by UFO researchers and disinfo agents, there doesn't seem to be any question as to the acceptance of such devious, manipulative behavior that, well, fucks with people's lives and minds! Yet, somehow, there has been a continued silence and/or acceptance of these doings.

Paul Benneiwitz. John Ford. Emma Woods, for starters. How many more?

It was hard for me to read some of Haden's words concerning Redfern, for example. But Haden is entitled to his opinions. Again, I am the messenger, not the message. Among the many very important paradigm shifting (UFO-wise) elements within Emma's story is the relationship between researcher and witness. What people are still not getting is that Jacobs, no matter what one thinks of his research overall and his theories on aliens, ET, abductions, hybrids, got away with absolutely egregious behavior. Behavior that is no doubt illegal, or would be in other circumstances.

I don't agree with everything Haden writes in this article, though they are minor, nit picky points. Anyway. Read the article. As usual with Haden, it's a great piece, and he is one of the few voices out there continuing to bring the Woods/Jacobs story to our attention.

1 comment:

Red Pill Junkie said...

Wow... that was a loooooooong spiel.

And I still don't understand what's the point of lowering the level of discourse in such a way. Where's the gain here, apart from the writer to vent off some personal grudge against Bishop, Redfern and Kimball?