They have their place. The first was a spectacle, but if people continue to enjoy the spectacle then let them.

Sorry, I mis-spoke. I found Paul via your conference programme and followed on to his ASSAP webinar. He has evidently done a lot of work, but I'd love to see him go to the next layer and engage his psychology expertise. I have emailed him...

having to sit on my hands.

This isn't a complaint that I'm not in that FaceBook group, more that the FaceBook group has become the *only* space. For a tale as bizarre, and potentially paradigm shifting as this to be interrogated from only one standpoint in a closed network is doing a disservice.

historical research it would be useful not to have to do it again!

I may be being that bossy kid again, but there is a lot of energy and passion there and I can't help but see it as misdirected. I also support the design of research projects in my profession and I suppose I'm just not used to

This is sort of a subskeet after having watched that very video!

And thus you've somewhat proved my point...

I'm quite happy going along on my own, but I am seeing an internal reinforcement of ideas creating a feedback loop, which isn't very helpful. And, tbf, if someone else has done the

Personally, I am examining the story in the book as one version of events, but from a number of analytical perspectives: is the book made up? Is Ken lying? Is Deb lying? Is Peter lying? Are they all lying? Is no one lying?

If we just believe we'll miss the details that may blow the case wide open!

so extraordinary. But then, if discourse has a single gatekeeper who will behave emotionally, its really not going to help.

This case requires a multiplicity of approaches - as many disciplines as we can find as well as a lot of viewpoints with regard to the veracity of claims.

all rely solely on the book and do not question the honesty of some of the major players. As such, they're reinforcing the narrative in the book and have slid into proving the book is true, as opposed to interrogating the whole event.

It is easy to do in an echo chamber, especially with something

real issue with me. As I was told the first version of the book was pulled by MI5, I don't believe the book is telling us everything, but by looking at it with a healthy suspicion it may tell us more than we think.

I have been catching up on various online outputs relating to the case and they

As such we can't assume that every word is true. It is also a book about something spectacularly odd. We know the book is not a complete record as Ken & Deb have hundreds more messages; the 2nd edition added more info; and I have an eyewitness account that differs.

I suspect that this is the...

second issue, which is a dogged adherence to the book as the only source of factual information. The falling out I had was around academic approaches vs pseudo academic approaches, and this is my bigger issue.

It is one book. One source. Written by a man who is not an author or historian.

Deb Oakes is a member of the group. I like Deb and she's been really helpful and is a good sport. But this has led to the research group being 'friends' with one of the subjects that they are researching, which has removed a lot of natural or scholarly suspicion and inquiry. Which feeds into a...

exclusive. I can't find anyone without the TVPRG.

But this takes me to the less personal and more ideological issues. At risk of sounding like I'm on X, the group seems to have created an echo chamber of sorts. And from what I'm seeing coming out of the group it's not a helpful thing.

bother me is that it is a circumstance where there is an established clique, led by your average mediocre white man, excluding people/women/scholars based on personal feelings.

I was a teenage girl. I've been on the inside and outside of a fair few cliques, but never one that is so comprehensively

banned, this is a problem for anyone who doesn't want to use Facebook (which is a political cesspit as we know).

Dodleston is a low stakes interest - no one is going to become rich and famous or win a Nobel. Its just some people with a bit too much time on their hands. So I suppose what does...

without sounding somehow bitter, which I'm not. I did have a falling out with the chap. I think I'm more bothered by the fact that this group has become the *only* place to discuss the messages. Every interaction I've had recently has involved a suggestion that I join the group. Apart from being

what was now a private group for people who knew the book intimately (you had to answer a little quiz). So I answered the questions but my entry was denied along with some frankly harsh assertions about my previous conduct (like, 6 years previous). Same bloke.

I'm not sure how to express this...

essentially then misrepresenting the facts (or lack thereof). I left the little group and got on with my life.

At the beginning of the year I was contacted about Dodleston and it was suggested I join the FB group to keep up with what they're up to and share my findings. All good. I tried to join...

bit of a handbags at dawn with another member. I know I can be a bit of a dog with a bone, and was probably in the depths of some MH event, but the crux of the row was this member was writing and referring to his previous writing as if it was established fact. I didn't like this as it was...