I've noticed that many critics try to shoot Strieber down because they assume his "contact" descriptions are unique. Few within the ufological community attempt to place his narratives in perspective because doing so would tend to undermine the assumptions that govern acceptance of the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis.
Of course, this censoring effect is hardly limited to Strieber. Budd Hopkins, for instance, "screens" potential abductees based on whether their stories jibe with the conventional "nuts and bolts" view. The result is a stream of fascinating testimony -- but what about the stories that didn't make the cut?
We'll likely never know what the neglected data has to tell us about the contact experience until ufology is elevated from its present "ghetto" status . . . and, sadly, very few nonconformist researchers are holding their breath.
10 comments:
All good points.
With Strieber all bets are off and (as I mention in the comments on your previous post on this) there are a lot of explanations.
If you held a gun to my head and asked me to pick one I would say he is genuine in his reporting of his experiences and the whole Strieber-story is one of his struggle for an explanation.
It is easy for people to dismiss him out right because:
* As you say it does not fit comfortably within the ETH pigeonhole. However, when you take a broader look at it they do are consistent with other paranormal experiences.
* An awful lot of entity encounters have contain information that can leave the whole thing open to ridicule or it may self-falsify (in much the same way messages in Mission Impossible contain something that self-destructs them). Somehow the experience itself contains things that cancel itself out. This may be to the Tricksterish nature of such encounters (which people have been having since the Dawn of Modern Man and shaman have learned to deal with) or it could be the most elegant form of disinformation (which could be where this hooks back into things like your Cryptoterrestrial theory) - rather than run and hide or try and shut a witness up the encounter itself contains the elements needed to destroy credibility.
I was already noodling on something that touches on this last aspect when I saw your post on this and it fits in nicely. Although the phenomena has managed to generate anti-facts which collide with the facts of the encounter, giving the appearance that thy have cancelled each other out, the actual core experience remains - unanalysed and damned.
Lets just all remember that Whitley is a novelist FIRST, contactee second. I don't have too much trouble accepting that people have been visited on our little blue ball. The problem is that Whitley routinely allows his imaginative narrative to bleed a little too far into reality.
Do I doubt the man is special? No not at all but he himself even admits to not being able to separate certain experiences from his fertile imagination. I wouldn't be surprised one little bit if it was the trauma of contact that skewed his perception a little bit. That would surely knock anyone off kilter, at least to the point where they routinely question their own experiences. Defining what is "real" would be a challenge in those lucid, half dream states you've come to distrust due to your experiences.
And lets not be completely naive here either. Whitely does make a living doing this, so blending fiction with reality is something he almost certainly does to keep the fire hot. The mans motives are all over the place.
So yes, he may have had contact but lets not blindly believe everything that falls from his head to the page. Especially when some of it has that visceral "um ok Whitley" feeling to it.
Denny
I don't see anyone around here "blindly believe everything that falls from his head to the page" though. I think such an approach would be unwise.
My main point is we shouldn't automatically dismiss this because it doesn't fit within the ETH, as it is still consistent with other kinds of reports.
Although it might be all lies/fiction and/or CIA-sponsored disinfo, it seems more like someone who has had an odd experience or two and is trying to make some sense of it (he certainly wouldn't be the only one). The fact that he has tended to interpret things within the ETH is more of a symptom of the modern memesphere (which he has ironically contributed a lot to) but it is clear some things just don't fit. It'd be easy enough for him to not even mention them (as I suspect they harm him more than help him) so it is interesting he is prepared to discuss them.
Of course, I can't say if this is an internal or external process (although I find the idea of his being contacted and abducted by aliens one of the least convincing explanations) and his fantasy proneness is also of interest. Whether he took the old L. Ron Sidestep from science fiction to "fact" is an interesting issue too.
So Strieber's story is fascinating from many different angles, just as long as you take it with a few pinches of salt.
One essential point being overlooked: his story about a mobile ear implant. Why do I suspect he would not allow an examination of same by medical experts, employing current medical tech such as PET, CAT, and fMRI scanners? Because Strieber is lying or deluded, or both.
He has now, and for some time since his fiction days (which, imho, continue) been verging in L. Ron Hubbard territory, i.e., fiction as if it were fact merely because the author, Strieber in this case, says so.
He's trying to pull a Veidt, ala the "Watchmen" scenario. I ask, who will watch (and really vet) this particular watchman? The truth will set him free, but it may not result in continuing profit. Strieber, regardless of the skill and strangely wonderful content of his online journal posts and books, etc., is committing a fraud, whether you or he or anyone else cares or not.
This can be easily proven. Need I mention this mythical alien or whatever ear (and most eeriely silly) implant, again, folks?
Critical thinking, honest skepticism, and empirical, deductive logic requires it. Don't get fooled, again! There will be no Veidt confabulations or fakery allowed, at least on _my_ watch, damn it!
The watchmen are now here, and on the job. Veidt/Strieber will not win this battle for hearts and minds. Nor should be, based on just the facts, ma'am. Feh on him.
To be continued...
The only way Whitley could be dismissed as delusional or his accounts fictional by anyone would be because they had never had an encounter. I, too, used to be skeptical of these unseen realities. That ended abruptly when I had a full blown encounter with a dark entity. Sorry folks, but these things are REAL. Don't forget science has already shown that we can only see 10 percent of what actually exists. Add to that that we only use 10 percent of our brains and you understand there are endless possibilities out there. Be careful about being so self assured. As Whitley mentioned in a recent post, being ignorant simply means that you're unprepared for what's out there or even in there.
Fancy telling us about your encounter?
The only way Whitley could be dismissed as delusional or his accounts fictional by anyone would be because they had never had an encounter. I, too, used to be skeptical of these unseen realities.
I think that's a good point. Strieber, as strange as his accounts might seem, are hardly as unique as they might seem to "newcomer." Of course, this also raises the distinct possibility that some post-"Communion" encounters have been contaminated by Strieber's ideas.
One essential point being overlooked: his story about a mobile ear implant. Why do I suspect he would not allow an examination of same by medical experts, employing current medical tech such as PET, CAT, and fMRI scanners? Because Strieber is lying or deluded, or both.
To be fair, he *did* attempt to have it removed, and the surgery was videotaped. Secondly, he seems to think the implant is assisting him in some way. Personally, I don't blame him for not wanting to mess with it.
(I'm playing devil's advocate here in assuming the implant is something otherworldly. Perhaps he'll donate his ear to science in a living will!)
Hey, guys: not necessarily, nor is that any kind of proof Strieber's accounts are to be taken as truth or necessarily or seriously real.
And, I _do_ speak from personal encounter experience. Twice. I could say so much more.
My encounter was nothing like anything I have ever heard or read about. I wish it was because it was far more terrifying because I had absolutely no idea what was happening.
In addition, a few years ago, a strange "bump" appeared on my left shoulder. A friend of mine tried to cut it out, but was only able to get part of it out. I had a severe reaction a few days later, along with a number of strange occurrences.
Again until this kind of thing happens to you, you are just speculating. It is easy to judge someone until you become the one telling other people about your own encounter.
I now have a healthy respect for what we don't know.
Post a Comment