• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Say WHAT??? - What Whitley & Anne Strieber have to say about Budd Hopkins


ward

Paranormal Adept
according to this source

Budd Hopkins ‘was a snake’: Anne Strieber « eye of the cyclone

Whitley Strieber on BUDD HOPKINS.(August 22, 2011)
"He gave his life to us, and he deserves no less from us than the greatest respect we can offer."


Anne Strieber on BUD HOPKINS. (April19,2013)
"what really appalled me about Bud, he would find women, who…being big city women, professional women, well educated, but they were having trouble finding a partner, it was the classic single woman, lonely single woman syndrome, and so he would hyptonize these women and lead them on with leading questions…the real problem with bad hypnotism is leading questions, and convince them that they had been impregnated by aliens, had an alien baby that had been taken from them. Now you had these women with a ticking biological clock, who are being convinced of something like that, it’s heartbreaking, it’s heartbreaking, and then, i hate to tell you this, should i tell you? then he would have sex with them…He was a snake."

all i can say is ....wow.... these are some outrageous claims. It was nice of Anne to wait until Budd was dead to make this public statement, if she did indeed make this statement.
 
Holy SH*T...it's completely real. It came from last weeks free Dreamland episode (April19,2013) , it is a direct quote.

For those interested I've uploaded the file she starts her rant at 11:50 into the interview

041913.mp3

Anne Strieber, what a class act.

annestrieber.png



I'm stunned this is real, but it is.
 
I just read this post by accident while searching contactee info and researched her comments. I know that some have issues regarding speaking ill of the dead; however, it would not surprise me to know her comments had some validity as running through the abduction research field is a problematic theme of male researcher and vulnerable female abductee under hypnosis. It's an intimate situation that has produced some bizarre comments such as these from Annie Strieber, followed by Whitley's claim that Hopkins had been undermining him for 25 years , and then there's the whole Emma Woods and Jacobs affair. The field itself has many casualties, little by way of proof and a lot of nasty aftermath pieces. The entire hypnosis thing needs to be dropped as with all the smoke surrounding the field leads me to believe there's probably fire.
 
Hopkins' ex-wife posted a bunch of youtube videos exposing his slapdash and collusive methods--though none went so far as to accuse him of seducing his "patients."
 
Waiting so see how long it takes the UFO/abduction community to realize hypnosis is essentially a tool used for manipulation of subjects.
 
I heard it myself, and was horrified.
The guy is not in a position to defend himself, so i thought it a bit of a low act.


Exactly. Strieber kept her mouth shut until the subject of her attack wasn't around to refute her claims. She knew that would start a war she couldn't win and would bring bad press to her husband and his crappy writings. Her comments are pathetic enough as they stand, however, and show what kind of person she genuinely is. Whether or not Hopkins was REALLY like that, I suppose we'll never really know for sure but to sling crap after the truck has driven down the road is really sad.

My two cents.
 
Hello Forum,

Sean here.

The derogatory accusations levelled against the late Budd Hopkins by Anne and Whitley Strieber, as well as others, are
unsubstantiated. The only thing that the sources of these accusations have provided in their attempts to buttress their
arguments is their own personal attestations that what they are claiming is indeed the case. Were these claimants truly
impartial and without a vested interest in the perpetuation of their allegations, then, and only then, could their claims be
considered with credibility.

In the case of the Whitley and Anne Strieber, and in the case of the other individuals who attempted to make Budd Hopkins'
final days a misery with their slanderous and libellous accusations against him, the very least fact that can be deduced from
the unfounded nature of their negative claims against him is that these individuals had to some degree a personal problem
with Hopkins and his work. Such a thing weighs heavily against the potential credibility of their claims against him.

As someone who knew Budd Hopkins, and researched the basis of the negative claims made against him, I can say without
reservation that the claims turned out to be unfounded and originated from a biased source.

As someone who knows David Jacobs, and has been privy to the data contained in the uncut transcripts from his sessions
with EW, I can confidently say that things are not what they appear to be in regards to that matter. When an individual
makes, and repeats, scandalous and negative accusations against someone else, those accusations do not become fact
without verification.

Thanks for reading, and be well.

Sincerely

Sean F. Meers
 
Hello Forum,

Sean here.
I'm afraid I'm not personally aware who that would be? Are you taking care of things now?

..
In the case of the Whitley and Anne Strieber, and in the case of the other individuals who attempted to make Budd Hopkins'
final days a misery with their slanderous and libellous accusations against him, the very least fact that can be deduced from
the unfounded nature of their negative claims against him is that these individuals had to some degree a personal problem
with Hopkins and his work. Such a thing weighs heavily against the potential credibility of their claims against him.
Not really. I'm no Strieber-fan but it's not about being critical of Hopkins' work or not.

How many people are we talking about who are bringing up the accusations, it sounds like more than a couple?

What happened? Have there been misunderstandings in relations between patient/doctor or are accusations completely unsubstantiated and pulled from thin air?

As someone who knew Budd Hopkins, and researched the basis of the negative claims made against him, I can say without
reservation that the claims turned out to be unfounded and originated from a biased source.
That sounds like a personal judgement call, what do you mean by 'researched'?

Why are you not pressing charges for slander?

As someone who knows David Jacobs, and has been privy to the data contained in the uncut transcripts from his sessions
with EW, I can confidently say that things are not what they appear to be in regards to that matter. When an individual
makes, and repeats, scandalous and negative accusations against someone else, those accusations do not become fact
without verification.
I'm afraid that 'as someone who knows' / 'as someone who knew' doesn't mean a whole lot.

Why not sue these people and put it to rest?
 
What's quite fascinating is how abduction research is such a highly charged field with many signficant lightening rod cases (Emma Woods, Linda Cortile) that are surrounded by a lot of law suits, accusations and counter accusations. You don't see those kind of fireworks of personalities when you're dealing with crop circles. Maybe it's the intimacy of the whole field, people lying on hypnotized couches, whispering details of their probing over the phone that causes such heat. It's pretty heady stuff and is understandably comparable to those sexualized poltergeist Entity tales. I think when you start exploring the paranormal Pandora's Box of sex you can't stop the mudslinging that follows. And in all these multifaceted stories there are always many sides to the people and many versions of truth that unfold.
 
I'm afraid I'm not personally aware who that would be? Are you taking care of things now?

Not really. I'm no Strieber-fan but it's not about being critical of Hopkins' work or not.

How many people are we talking about who are bringing up the accusations, it sounds like more than a couple?

What happened? Have there been misunderstandings in relations between patient/doctor or are accusations completely unsubstantiated and pulled from thin air?

That sounds like a personal judgement call, what do you mean by 'researched'?

Why are you not pressing charges for slander?

I'm afraid that 'as someone who knows' / 'as someone who knew' doesn't mean a whole lot.

Why not sue these people and put it to rest?

Hi Paracast User Jimi H,

Sean here.

Thank you for your response.

In regards to Anne Strieber's derogatory comments about the late Budd Hopkins I stand by my earlier
statement. Without independent corroboration, from a disinterested and unbiased source to verify the
substance of her comments, I personally find what Anne is attempting to purport about Hopkins very
difficult to believe.

Anne displays a degree of personal animosity towards Hopkins in her comments. She also, like many of
Hopkins' other detractors, baselessly accuses him of leading hypnotised subjects to specifically convey
an account of alien abduction, and that that is his goal. This claim is false for two reasons. The first reason
is that multiple transcripts from Budd Hopkins' hypnotic regression sessions with multiple hypnotised
subjects have been published in numerous books over the years, the contents of these transcripts reinforce
the fact that he doesn't lead his hypnotised subjects. The second reason is that, based on these transcripts,
his subjects do not respond to the deliberate false leads he uses to test their individual levels of suggestibility
as well as the overall credibility of their accounts. Repeatedly, they stand unshakably by their personal accounts.
They do not alter them based on what he tells them, nor do they incorporate the data contained within the false
leads he tests them with into their accounts. The notion that suggestibility in hypnotised subjects is a one-way
street (from hypnotist to subject) is false, it is two way. A suggestion has to be received as well as given for an
account to be potentially altered by it.

The moment Anne Strieber brought the quality of Hopkins' hypnosis of hypnotised subjects into question with
her comments her argument became critical of Hopkins' work.

In regards to how many people are claiming that Hopkins manipulated his hypnotised subjects, implanted accounts
of alien abduction activity into them through suggestion, and then that he went on to use those manipulated people
for sex, only Anne Strieber has made that claim to my knowledge.

Hopkins was not a doctor and the subjects he worked with were not patients. In the first seven years of Hopkins'
investigation of abduction reports he did not personally conduct hypnosis on subjects. The hypnosis was conducted
by multiple psychologists and hypnotherapists who he brought the subjects to. During this seven year period he was
trained in the use of hypnosis by these psychologists and hypnotherapists, between eight and nine of them. When he
began to practice hypnosis on subjects himself in 1983 he still had many of these professionals sit in with him during
sessions to critique his methods as well as to safeguard the quality of the hypnosis being conducted. Some of these
Psychologists and Hypnotherapists included Dr. Girard Franklin, Dr. Robert Naiman and Dr. Aphrodite Clamar.

As far as misunderstandings or complaints between Hopkins and subjects he hypnotised there have been none on the
record claiming they were abused by him. Some of his critics have attempted to create the appearance of such things
but no one has ever produced a subject of Hopkins to corroborate such a thing occurring. In regards to the research I
did in dismantling some of the negative false claims made against Hopkins I refer to two pieces of documentation I
constructed which are available for download in PDF format at the two webpages below.

URL: Critique Rejected - The Linda Cortile UFO Abduction Case Website

URL: Free-for-all: The Assassination of Budd Hopkins and Linda Cortile - The Linda Cortile UFO Abduction Case Website

In regards to pressing charges of slander and libel against some of the more vicious detractors it is honestly not my
place to do so, it is Linda's and Budd's. Linda doesn't wish to dignify their nonsense by paying them any heed, I agree
with her position and in regards to the facts of her case she is well defended. Budd has passed away so it would be his
family who would have to decide if they wished to pursue legal action against some of his detractors.

I admire your optimistic view of the reaches and powers of the legal system regarding slander under Tort law. I
sincerely wish I could share such a positive appraisal of its efficacy in regards to it, and the situation that some of the
slandered and libelled individuals are in, unfortunately I can't. As someone who does potentially entertain the
possibility of legal action, such proceedings can be lengthy, expensive, uncertain and ultimately not worth the energy.
In my opinion the people who slander and libel innocent individuals are best dealt with by publicly demonstrating the
inaccurate and unfounded nature of their scandalous claims, that has always been, and always will be, my primary
approach.

Thank you for your post, I hope this answers your questions.

Before I go I just wanted to also say thank you to Paracast User Vesvehighfolk for their very kind words in defense of me.
It is greatly appreciated and I hope that they too find my posts of some interest.

Take care

Sincerely

Sean F. Meers

www.lindacortilecase.com
 
Scum of the earth- those accusing Hopkins of taking advantage of his subjects in a sexual manner. I use the term "scum" only because Hopkins is no longer around to defend these slanderous accusations. If I was an immediate relative of Hopkins, I would take the likes of Streiber and Hopkin's ex to court- for everything they're worth.

Does this mean I agree with Hopkins' approach and conclusions through the use of hypnosis? Not really. But his work should be looked at and taken for what it's worth. Gee, an ex-wife and former/soured associate of Hopkins (Anne Streiber, who praised his work right after his passing) These accusations hold as much water as a leaking bucket.
 
Its sad this happened. I found all of Budd Hopkins books to be among the best in the field of abductions. I find Whitley to be a fairly bitter person in interviews. He whines about the conspiracy to stop his writing, when really it's just that he does such a poor job at storytelling that few people want his books.

More disturbing is that if Anne is telling the truth, she is an accessory to sexual assault. She sat on her behind and did nothing to help the victims. So she is a kind of rapist herself.
 
Back
Top