If even some of the distortions and wrong-headed cliches cited by Friedman are actually present in Clancy's much-publicized book, then her take on UFOs and abductions promises to be one of the absolute worst treatments of its kind. So bad, in fact, that it's going to require some mettle on my part to actually sit down and read the thing -- and I make a point to read UFO debunking literature, some of which is quite valuable. Karl Pflock's "Roswell," for instance, is a studious, reflective effort, while Curtis Peebles' "Watch the Skies!" amounts to little more than shrill, by-the-numbers bickering.
(Click here to reach my UFO book review page.)
3 comments:
Mac:
Yeah, Stan rips Clancy a new one, not that she cares. Still, I don't think her book can be dismissed quite so easily - she wasn't writing about UFOS, after all. Still, given that it was written and published under the imprimatur of Harvard University Press, one would have expected some basic fact checking.
Then again, some of Stan's stuff has been a bit dodgy as well (i.e. the Gerald Anderson fiasco in Crash at Corona), and lord knows that ufology is replete with "authors" who just seem to make stuff up.
In which case, perhaps Clancy's book is perfect!
Paul
P.S. I say again - The Abduction Enigma by Randle et al is the must-read for the skeptical take on abductions.
Clancy may claim she's writing about abductions and not UFOs -- which is itself debatable -- but she has a bothersome tendency to wax ufological when she has no clue what she's talking about, as if sleep psychology and crashed saucers are contents of the same bag.
Whatever one thinks of the issue, her epistemology is in shambles. And it does certainly seem like this is a "personal" shot at Mack.
BTW, I second Paul's recommendation for "The Abduction Enigma." It's no-holds barred but, remarkably enough for a "debunking" tome, well-informed.
Post a Comment