Source: Encyclopedia of American Loons #796
Quote:
He generally rebuts critics by calling them "positivists", since they do not take Jacobs's heavily and positively interpreted anecdotes as conclusive evidence (Michael Shermer, for instance). To explain away more substantial parts where his results differ from others' (i.e., where it is not only a matter of interpreting the data, but the actual data), Jacobs has explained that elements not matching his own perspective are what he terms "confabulations" that he is uniquely poised to recognize and reveal as false by repeatedly questioning the abductee until their recollection changes to be in line with what he, pre-investigation, suspected to find. Duh. Carl Sagan, for instance, has pointed out that Jacobs's methodology is flawed.
Diagnosis: Crazy old dude. Some people take him seriously, though it is hard to imagine him doing overly much damage except to his interviewees.
I could not have stated it more eloquently.
Jacobs' claims also have no convincing physical evidence, which he persistently attempts to explain away . . .
• If you argue that there is no actual evidence of abductions, no smartphone movies, for example, Jacobs says the aliens are invisible.
• If you suggest spreading flour on the ground to reveal their footprints, he says they float in the air.
• If you then suggest covering them with paint, Jacobs says they are incorporeal, and thus massless.
• If you then suggest using infrared cameras to detect their presence, he says they emit no heat.
• If you ask why scientists have not noticed any human-alien hybrids by now, Jacobs simply says you cannot tell them apart from real humans.
. . . and so on. He counters every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it will not work.
So how does Jacobs prove the existence of an invisible, floating, massless, cold-blooded being that cannot be otherwise distinguished from a normal human being?
He does not. You are expected to simply believe his claims as he states them and disregard any fact-based reasons to the contrary.
He wants to do your thinking for you.
Do not let hm.
_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.