Jack Brewer on his UFO Trail writes on ethics, trust, Hopkins, Jacobs, abductees, witnesses, and so much more. All in one post. Important and sadly, on-going. It seems to me -- has seemed so since Emma Woods exposed David Jacobs for the sloppy and unhinged individual he's become -- that all this, this, unethical bullshit, isn't brought out enough.
The UFO Trail: Security of Budd Hopkins Archive Called into Question, David Jacobs Shares Responsibility: This blog has previously explored issues central to the ethics of UFO research. They include how abduction researchers have dealt with in the past and continue to deal with witness confidentiality. The story of the leaking of Larry Warren's audio-taped session(s) to Charles Halt continues this exploration. Let's begin with a summary of some of the players and what was stated on recent podcasts. (Jack Brewer, The UFO Trail)Besides all that, is this interesting bit about Bigelow, a nefarious player in UFO Land, one that I've never trusted. How he is lauded by some, including George Knapp, who I do respect, is beyond me.
… a series of events during the 1990's in which John Carpenter, a Missouri social worker, hypnotist and MUFON director of abduction research at the time, provided data from case files of some 140 possible abductees to controversial ufology philanthropist Robert Bigelow. The 140 subjects were neither asked nor informed about the transactions that included a reported $14,000 in cash payments made to Carpenter. (Brewer, UFO Trail.)I don't know the whole story and all the ins and outs -- who does? Who really knows? I'm not taking sides, (not much, David Jacobs doesn't count) for example, Peter Robbins part in what Brewer writes about. Always so damn difficult when you respect someone in this realm, and hear other things that conflict with your own values …
And we're not talking about theories here, ideas and philosophies on what UFOs are, if Reptilians really exist, if abductions are literal events or if there is a UFO-Bigfoot connection. Those things matter of course, very much so, but those don't carry the same onus of responsibility. Theories are speculation, ideas pulled from personal experience and or study. Treating witnesses as only grist for researchers is reprehensible.
Witnesses come first. They (we) are to be respected. Everyone cries out for "credibility" but what about the credibility of the researcher?