The Linda case.

[trainedobserver]

But, of course, this is the low standard expected in the paranormal field.

There you go. The lack of much importance being put on standards of evidence, methodology, and most importantly accountability probably do more to keep serious scientific involvement in the subject at arms length than any fear of ridicule, peer pressure, and so forth.

 

[Keiko]

While my opinion of graphology is certainly not high anyway, Kieko's quote (of Hopkins) above from the graphologist seems to be used entirely in a rhetorical way as opposed to an evidentiary one.
Indeed, the graphologist seems to be presenting in a rather scientific way, the limitations of his field (which is admirable). That he doesn't remember the exact details of an old case is not the same as disavowing the results he obtained at the time and to use such a quote shows ONLY rhetorical purpose NOT any desire to present truth.

But, of course, this is the low standard expected in the paranormal field.

Lance

Hi Lance, I must be a little dim today but I don't really get your point. What do you mean by 'only rhetorical purpose'?

As I interpreted the article, Hopkins was using the excerpt from the graphologist's email, not to validate the Cortile case as such, but to invalidate the assertion that his testimony on film was a conclusive analysis, a slam dunk, incontroverible proof that Linda and Kimball were one and the same.

I agree that it is quite admirable of the guy to be honest about the limitations of his field. I guess the point is, from the video Rainey chose to publish, it was really her job to present to the audience the limitations of the field (and therefore limitations of her claims) as it is the responsibility of any researcher to do when presenting their thesis/evidence in the most honest and transparent way.

I consider this a fair point in the circumstances.

 

[dyingsun]

I think that leaves us with two people that loved each other once, one of the two seems very Ill.

 

[Keiko]

Hi Kieko,

The point is that the graphologist's email didn't back away from his analysis. He just said he didn't remember the specific case. It says nothing of evidentiary value. It is only useful for spin.

Note how Hopkins lists several people who disagree about the analysis (without mentioning their credentials), apparently also putting great weight on his own layperson "analysis"! Only in this field (and in church) does that kind of shoddy thinking just float over the heads of the faithful.

At least the Rainey film does have the graphologist list some of his credentials.

I hope you can see the difference (although I am sure that there is at least one other forum member who will be unable to understand even such a simple point ).

It may also be worth noting that the segment we are discussing has been clearly presented as a rough cut of what is proposed to be longer finished film--not a final piece.

Lance

Thanks for the clarification. I see your point. However, he neither backs away nor stands by his analysis in any explicit way. He claims "Not remembering the case prevents me from asserting what standards or tests I used." and goes on to say that "All findings are open to interpretation and challenge. My findings are not considered as factual or evidentiary, they are opinions and can be contested by opposing opinions."

I find the first part of the quote most interesting. It implies he has various tests/methods he uses when exploring a case and because he can't remember the case, he doesn't know which one(s) he used. Now if all his testing procedures had equal value or merit and as a professional he has confidence in them all, then why would this be important? Is he suggesting some of his tests are partial, or substandard? Or perhaps it's simply a case of you get what you pay for, $100 gives you a 30 minute analysis, $200 gives you a more thorough1 hour etc. Since he admits he only offers opinions, not evidence or fact, then it probably is not really that important in his field. There is no professional standard to which he must comply. Fair enough, I'm not having a go at the guy. He's honest about what he does.

I wonder what kind of clients he usually gets, since his work is not admissable in legal matters ...I bet they are not usually involved in trying to prove or disprove claims of alien abduction LOL - more likely he hears...are you SURE, OMG my best friend is sleeping with my husband (or some such thing)

 

[dyingsun]

I sincerely hope that those persons went to a psychiatrist or psychotherapeutic specialist before. I guess most of them have, but I really don't believe that most psychologists think/believe Mr. Hopkins, Jacobs or even the deceased Mr. Mack could help. Give me one name that referred someone there.

 

[Carol Rainey]

Hi Carol

Welcome to the forums and thanks for the opportunity for us to ask you some questions directly.
How do you respond to Budd Hopkins article here disputing your latest video? http://www.alienjigsaw.com/Articles/HopkinsHandwritingAnalysis.htm

How do you feel about your graphologist distancing himself from your public conclusions and assertions based on his work?

"And Rubin does not stand by his "opinions" (as he describes his findings) with any real conviction today. Contacted by a member of my team, he replied in an email on March 12, 2011 that, "this case is very old and unfortunately I don't have a file under her [Kimball's] name or Carol Rainey's. I only retain a vague recollection of my encounter with the writing and shooting the video…Not remembering the case prevents me from asserting what standards or tests I used." He goes on to say that "All findings are open to interpretation and challenge. My findings are not considered as factual or evidentiary, they are opinions and can be contested by opposing opinions."

<style>@font-face { font-family: "Times New Roman"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }p.MsoFooter, li.MsoFooter, div.MsoFooter { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }table.MsoNormalTable { font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }</style> Hi, Keiko,
Sorry for the delay in responding--just completed two freelance jobs. I'm happy to address the questions regarding the forensic document examiner I consulted. I didn't read most of Budd's article but evidently he's the one who stated that "a member of his team" contacted my expert Roger Rubin. Budd's conclusion that Rubin "does not stand by his 'opinions' (as he described his findings) with any real conviction today" is as skewed and totally inconsistent with the data as are his conclusions drawn from alien abduction research, unfortunately.

The individual who is Budd's "team member" is a lovely person who, after my heartfelt article about my own perceptions of the field appeared, contacted me in a disingenuous manner, clearly probing me for salacious details of Budd's personal life. When I replied that I was not going to do that, Mr. Meers responded with a blatantly hateful, vituperative email. So much for the ethics and honesty of that person. More such tactics are evident in his reporting this event.

The reason that Rubin does not recall "the case" is three-fold: 1) it was many years ago that I did the shoot; 2) it was a brief, 1 hour consult for him; and 3), I did not present "a case" to the forensic document examiner. To me, that would have been prejudicial in the extreme. (It's interesting that Meers assumes that was my approach....Apparently, that would have been his approach )At that point, I was beginning to have some very serious doubts about the Linda Case because of first-hand observations I had made, close-up and personal, just as I later had the same serious qualms about the Jim Mortellaro case, which predominantly evidenced as a massive hoax. (And here I am not drawing any conclusions about his actual abduction experiences, nor Linda's for that matter--I simply can't say whether either of them did have the typical abduction experience, which I respect as a real phenomenon, but there are serious questions about the veracity of parts of their accounts).

What I took to Roger Rubin were several sets of handwriting and asked for his trained, experienced, certified opinion about whether two sets of writing were done by the same or by different individuals. He introduced his track record for the camera, the number of times that he was accepted by the court as a qualified expert in the field, and stated clearly for me (which is in the long version of the film and in the upcoming next short) that questioned document examination is not considered evidence in the same way that DNA is. He said: "It is a highly skilled opinion by a person who studied the field extensively enough or thoroughly enough to be able to give an informed opinion...It is up to the jury or judge...to decide if the opinion carries weight."

I don't believe that describes Budd Hopkins' experience in this very specialized field. Does he mention well-known (in the field) elements like a high i dot floating above the letter, an unusual H bar, connecting strokes, etc. etc.--these are some of the specific details that experts are trained to look for. I do agree with another comment by someone who suggested getting two more forensic examiners to look at the same material. I also made no pretense that this was the smoking gun. That presenting this one piece of the puzzle was conclusive evidence of anything. It's what's assembled at the end that gives the viewer the best opportunity of doing that.

I hope that helps explain this a bit more, Keiko. Thanks for the question.
Carol Rainey

---------- Post added at 11:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:01 PM ----------

Hello Carol,

Welcome to the forum. We all look forward to your contributions to our forum. I have a few questions that I think many here would like to ask.

1 - Timing. Why have you chosen now to bring these things to light. In light of Mr. Hopkins recent illness and the elapsed time from the events you have raised the timing seems odd. Could you please address this.

2 - If you believed that Hopkins was not working in the best interest of the individuals he worked with why did you participate. Also, what steps did you take to be an advocate for that individuals well being?

3 - Your current feelings on the abduction phenomenon are said to differ greatly from the book you helped write just a few years ago. What has occurred that has altered your views?

Thank you again for your participation in the forums.

Hello, Ron Collins,

Thanks for the welcome. I believe, though, that every one of the questions above is answered in my original "Priests of High Strangeness" article in Paratopia Magazine (free), as well as in multiple postings I've made in another prominent forum and a recent one on Paracast. I stand by those earlier comments and would rather not go into them all over again.

I have a question for you--and one I'm seriously interested in understanding. That is why do you think so many individuals in the UFO community have been so vehemently polarized by recent challenges to the way things are being done--and questioning what has truly been learned about a real phenomenon? When I step back and from the point of view of a sociologist take a look at the extreme outrage and the extreme (but more privately expressed) gratitude, it's quite a strange picture one gets. Any thoughts on that? It seems the ideas would be best expressed in a non-personal way, since I don't know any of you.
Thanks
Carol Rainey

 

[Hotkafka]

Hi Kieko,

The point is that the graphologist's email didn't back away from his analysis. He just said he didn't remember the specific case. It says nothing of evidentiary value. It is only useful for spin.

Note how Hopkins lists several people who disagree about the analysis (without mentioning their credentials), apparently also putting great weight on his own layperson "analysis"! Only in this field (and in church) does that kind of shoddy thinking just float over the heads of the faithful.

At least the Rainey film does have the graphologist list some of his credentials.

I hope you can see the difference (although I am sure that there is at least one other forum member who will be unable to understand even such a simple point ).

It may also be worth noting that the segment we are discussing has been clearly presented as a rough cut of what is proposed to be longer finished film--not a final piece.

Lance

These responses really provide a window to view how fluid our opinions are, and how perceptions change not solely in response to the evidence, but often according to whom has presented the evidence. Doesn't anyone find it odd that an argument is being levied by an entrenched skeptic that involves the defense of a graphologist? Not sure I've been privy to witness such an about face on the credibility of such psuedo-science.

 

[grannysmith]

Archie Bedford was exaggerating his closeness to Rainey??!! I'm shocked. Does this mean that all the statements he made about Emma Woods spat with Jacobs, which he claimed credibility over due to his nearness to the events (though he was, of course never claiming to be a direct witness to them) are, after this duplicity, thereby tainted? I don't know *what* to think.

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

Archie Bedford was exaggerating his closeness to Rainey??!! I'm shocked. Does this mean that all the statements he made about Emma Woods spat with Jacobs, which he claimed credibility over due to his nearness to the events (though he was, of course never claiming to be a direct witness to them) are, after this duplicity, thereby tainted? I don't know *what* to think.

My money is on Archie Bedford. Enough said.

 

[Hotkafka]

Kieko,

You certainly (but hopefully not willfully) misrepresent my position even though I carefully disclaimed my opinion of graphology.
Like when I said above:



The point I laid out has NOTHING to do with the value of graphology. It had everything to do with ignoring the evidence to spin an idea to suit the rhetoric.
And here you do the same thing again.

Lance

Yes, I get it, you provided a disclaimer as to you stance on your graphology -but what is the purpose of stepping in and providing a reframe of the tactics in this whole silly affair? To offer a public service on the dangers of ignoring evidence, spin and rhetoric? Perhaps. Considering what side of the debate you ultimately ended up on seemed more than a coincidence.

Or perhaps I'm mislead here and should consider my own motivations for my reaction to a professional reactionary: a self-styled Fixer.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

So what have we learned about the introduction of a "Graphologist" into this discussion?

-The graphologist, Rubin, presents on Carol Rainey's film, evidence that the handwriting from Cortile and Kimball are from the same hand.
-The evidence was not presented by Carol as a "case", as such, and the graphologist in question cannot remember details of the material presented to him.
-A member of Budd Hopkin's team emailed Rubin re: his appearance in the film by Carol Rainey to which Rubin repilied (via email) that he had scant recollection of his opinion offered to the evidence supplied by Carol.
-Evidence provided in a court of law is not necessarily valid on it's own but rather, according to Rubin, "...It is up to the jury or judge...to decide if the opinion carries weight.".
-It seems that Carol Rainey's opinion is that the analysis provided by Rubin is accurate and was relevant enough to include in her rough cut of her film.
-It seems that Budd Hopkin's opinion is that there are flaws in Rubin's analysis.
-Graphology is described by some as a pseudoscience.

I have put together a side by side comparison of the letters indicated by Rubin.
View attachment Rubin handwriting comparison.pdf

Having looked at the comparisons of the letters and numerals offered by Rubin i am not entirely convinced of his opinions of the similarities. Apparently neither is Hopkins.Hopkins Handwriting Analysis
Carol Rainey seems to accept Rubin's opinions.

So where does that leave us? Who should we believe? Once again it seems to depend on what side of the fence you are on in regards to the opinions given as proof.
At best the introduction of the graphologist is yet another side show in this case as it neither proves or disproves the assertion that Cotile and Kimball are the same person..

 

[Hotkafka]

Just to be more clear about my take: the Linda case is stupidity on a stick and Hopkins is either a buffoon or charlatan for supporting it. I knew long ago about the idiocy of this case and most of what I knew had little to do with Ms. Rainey's revelations.

Hilariously graphology may be the least pseudoscientific thing about the case.

Lance

There it is.
As for me; I am not comfortable asserting an opinion of someone (i.e. "buffoon" or "charlatan") without being privy to his/her process. And by "process" I certainly am not alluding to the perceived value of the evidence gathered during an investigation.

However, the world might make more sense if I did.

 

[Ron Collins]

Hello, Ron Collins,

Thanks for the welcome. I believe, though, that every one of the questions above is answered in my original "Priests of High Strangeness" article in Paratopia Magazine (free), as well as in multiple postings I've made in another prominent forum and a recent one on Paracast. I stand by those earlier comments and would rather not go into them all over again.

If I did not need to moderate these threads I would have avoided this stuff like the plague. But, I did read your article and I must disagree. Particularly in regard to 1 and 2. But, if you don't want to address it here so be it. But I have to wonder why you chose to signup knowing people would expect a certain amount of defensive insight. I think it is a missed opportunity to present your point of view on a highly controversial portions of you message.

I have a question for you--and one I'm seriously interested in understanding. That is why do you think so many individuals in the UFO community have been so vehemently polarized by recent challenges to the way things are being done--and questioning what has truly been learned about a real phenomenon?

I am on record as being opposed to taking anything "discovered" via regressive hypnosis with a dump truck of salt. I do not pretend to have expertise in understanding the mind. So admittedly my hangups about it are limited to a little more than an hours worth of Internet articles and general feelings of inherent distrust in the methodology. In fact, I am not at all certain it is a real phenomenon. I only accept a handful of cases as possibly genuine. All of those cases were seemingly ones of convenience. Again, I am not well versed in long term and repeated abduction cases. I think Strieber is a fiction writer that found a good way to sell a book and then carved out an ever expanding life long career out of spewing BS to all that will listen. So, in truth he has spoiled it for me. So, I am probably not the person to ask this of.

When I step back and from the point of view of a sociologist take a look at the extreme outrage and the extreme (but more privately expressed) gratitude, it's quite a strange picture one gets. Any thoughts on that? It seems the ideas would be best expressed in a non-personal way, since I don't know any of you.

As a sociologist you must recognize that this happens whenever there is polarizing subject matter. Brett Favre, Le Bron James, O.J. Simpson, Tiger Woods, Global Warming, Roe v Wade, etc. Controversy breeds impassioned response. I can't imagine that it is any different a picture than you would get from these other topics.

 

[Keiko]

Kieko,

You certainly (but hopefully not willfully) misrepresent my position even though I carefully disclaimed my opinion of graphology.
Like when I said above:



The point I laid out has NOTHING to do with the value of graphology. It had everything to do with ignoring the evidence to spin an idea to suit the rhetoric.
And here you do the same thing again.

Lance

Hi Lance

I think maybe you have mistaken me in this case for another poster? Please check. I don't always agree with your opinions but I hope you don't feel I misrepresent what you say in my responses. While sometimes things can get a little heated on the forums, I'm sure if we all found ourselves sitting in a bar together we'd have more in common than not and maybe even enjoy it

---------- Post added at 09:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:35 AM ----------

Hi Lance.

That's okay and I understand, as do Budd and Linda, how incredulous and insane the case must appear to some of
the public.What I like and appreciate about the discussions of this case with members of this forum is that we get a full
balance of opinions, perceptions and facts about the matter. A devil's advocate position especially is extremely helpful
to those who are trying to figure things out about a case as well as keeping them honest with exactly what they can prove.
As nice as it is for people to agree with us and congratulate us on our work, it is pivotal to explore the crux of the
detractor's arguments so that one can determine whether they present any valid factual issues with the work.

If it's okay with you, when you have a spare moment, would you be able to list some of the "fundamentally fatal and silly
flaws" that you think the Linda Cortile case has. I'm very curious to know and always like to get fresh feedback on these
matters.

Thanks again

Sincerely

Sean F. Meers

Hi Sean,

I am looking forward to reading anything else you 'publish'. Judging from your last article you thoroughly research your work and clearly present your conclusions. More importantly, you seem like an extremely polite, fair-minded guy. Love your quote below.

"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people."

Eleanor Roosevelt

 

[softbeard]

For what it is worth, I've looked at Carol Rainey's documentary-in-progress. She appears to be using sound logic, skepticism, and fair investigative technique. From what I've seen, I find Linda Cortile's claims re her UFO-abduction-experience to be dubious and unsupported. The hypothesis that she used and deceived Budd Hopkins is quite plausible. The handwriting 'expert' also comes across as plausible, though, of course handwriting analysis is not conclusive.
I applaud Carol for voicing her suspicions.

 

[Hotkafka]

Hi Lance,

In my personal opinion, there are many problems that hinder the progress of mainstream
scientific interest in UFO research. If I had to list the main problems that come to mind I'd
say

1) The "UFOtainment" industry - The exaggeration, commercialisation and compression
of UFO data to make it more attention grabbing and able to fit into limited tv timeslots.
Lots of facts get lost in this process, not to mention the potential for bias by the individuals
financing the show.

2) The lack of unity between UFO proponents and UFO skeptics. These two sides of the
coin could learn a lot from one another and really help eachother to advance research.

3) UFO proponents being unable to distinguish a skeptic from a debunker. A legitimate
skeptic can be willing to adjust their point of view on a subject should they digest sufficient
legitimate evidence or facts to do so. One can't get mad at a skeptic for asking for these
facts or evidence, they have every right. A debunker will not change their mind whatever
facts or evidence one produces for them. Ultimately it's important not to lump the debunkers
and skeptics into one group, they are very different.

4) Mainstream news media. When they run with colourful and questionable UFO
based stories (Stan Romanek, Jeff Peckman and the purported alien head in the window)
as opposed to more serious cases.

5) The neverending arguing in the UFO field itself. Proponents vs Proponents, Skeptics vs
Proponents, Skeptics vs Skeptics, Proponents vs Debunkers, Debunkers vs Debunkers etc.
Polite and courteous discourse about a UFO topic where all parties acknowledge and
treat their fellow conversationalists with dignity and respect their right to differing views
about an issue would lead to much greater understanding about both the topic and eachother.
If someone makes an innocent or honest mistake, there is no need to crucify them, none of
us are infallible to error or deception.

6) Character assassination and denigration.

I consider the UFO field still in early days, perhaps a century from now, and some future
UFO and Abduction incidents yet to occur, may help to discipline the field a little further
and bring in some outside scientific interest.

Thank you for reading my musings about this. I offer the above strictly as a personal opinion.

Sincerely

Sean F. Meers

Sounds like humans being utterly human to me. Oh, if we could just suppress our urge to be human...

---------- Post added at 02:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:47 PM ----------

To Keiko, who said,


Yes, sorry...I corrected above. Man, I am getting old. Many apologies.

Lance

To kruggutter:



I would counter that this idea is exactly why UFO "research" has no scientific standing anywhere except among buffs and forum denizens.

Lance

I'm calling bullshit on this one. There's plenty of examples of Ufology-related research being undertaken by exceptionally well qualified individuals. I can't imagine as intelligent as you come across, that you are unaware of similar criticisms being levied in any field of research. Interpretations and perceptions of credibility, and skill in application of "scientific process/method," or plain old logic, is ubiquitous. Dubiously regarded, cast-off research (and researchers) are everywhere -perhaps not lampooned as easily or readily as Ufology, but everywhere. This seems more of a cultural issue than merely an indication of the quality of research. Perhaps this is an indication of where you stand in terms of the cultural divide.

 

[Hotkafka]

Hi Hotkafka,

I'm not sure if you were addressing me or lancemoody, apologies if you meant the above message for lancemoody and not me.
I'd just really like to see as many honest and qualified individuals start to get their hands dirty working in the field of UFO and
Abduction research. As well as scientists, I'd like individuals with homicide detective training to get involved. Those skills are
invaluable to dealing with the subject.

Thanks and again my apologies if I'm responding to a message you were directing at Lancemoody.

Sean F. Meers

Yes, I agree whole-heartedly on that point, especially on pursuing and utilizing new, scientifically tested and accepted methods of deception detection as well as investigative measures familiar to psychology and criminology and law research. If interested, I can PM you regarding my interest and knowledge of these areas.

ANYWAY
Lance Moody

I was responding to the idea that we need not look at the evidence but should look BETWEEN the lines suggested by someone else above. If you think that is science then, good on ya.

Yeah, reading between the lines is a skill that's needed in the hard as well as soft sciences, and well, everywhere. -apologies if I went a bit sideways failing to address that point. ...But why am getting the impression that you are inferring a higher level of exposure to the scientific method than the rest of us?

 

[Hotkafka]

@HOTKAFKA
Hey! You make my "Thanks" look ill-concieved if you so radically later change your post!

Lance

I knew there must have been some brand of communication error in receiving your thanks.

 

[softbeard]

One of the incidents to really get my goat involves a faked UFO video taken in 1997 in Mexico City: Despite its obvious silliness (When viewing a higher resolution version you can actually see with the naked eye a ghost image of the object passing through the building. And if memory serves me right Maccabee claimed to find no evidence for a hoax in it and that just blows me away) multiple witnesses inexplicably emerged.

Sorry to interject, somewhat off-topic; but Wickerman 1972, I just looked at that Mexico UFO clip. I do not see any evidence of tampering or hoaxing in it. The 'ghost image' effect you refer to is an optical illusion. Look closely, there is no real ghost image on any of the frames of the Mexico City video. As usual, I find you jumping too quickly to conclusions.

 

[tyder001]

While I agree that "science" is self correcting. Meaning that the human disciplines that folks "group" under one heading tend to self correct as knowledge expands. I disagree with the notion that "science" and "scientist" are always one and the same thing. One is a series of "ways" of exploring our world and those things we can put our hands on to measure and modify. It's great or they are great tools. The other is a human being with prejudices and worldviews and grants to get money for and labs to work for and agendas. they can be great and noble and honest.Then can be close minded and willfully as well as honestly ignorant of certain truths. Both are neat but they are not the same thing.