Budd Hopkins Responds to His Critics

[Sean Elifritz]

I can only speak for the handfull of local UFO events ive attended, but the common factor is a small percentage of people that appear to be of the lunatic fringe variety. But then the same could be said of a busy night at the local supermarket.
It doesnt in of itself preclude this segment of society from having had an experience.
One could even make a case it could cause the unbalance, that the experience might cause the psychological problems in some cases

I'm reading a book by an Aussie named Martin Plowman. The book is The UFO Diaries. Not far into it he describes what took place at a UFO event he attended put together by one of the larger UFO groups there (Victoria something-or-other). All I can say is if what he described is typical of those sorts of meetings I'm glad I've never attended one.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

I think some people are too eager to throw out a persons lifetime of work based on a minority of incidents where the researcher may have been fooled by his subject(s). While it may be somewhat harmful for the reputation of the said researcher, you should not, necessarily, condemn all of the preceding and subsequent work done by the same. All of it should be taken on its merit.

---------- Post added at 11:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:30 AM ----------

UFO, Alien Abduction and Paranormal conferences are no doubt attractors for the lunatic fringe. But then again, so are football games and Justin Bieber concerts.

 

[mike]

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Yeah, sucks that's pretty much the only clip there is. There's another one where she does an interview:

UFO Connection - Australia Encounter

But that's pretty much it.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Another interview here: War of the Worlds: When God and Aliens Do Battle

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Another interview here: War of the Worlds: When God and Aliens Do Battle

Really irritates me that I can't find her book anywhere except from used booksellers wanting $100 or more for it.

 

[Lauren Jones]

Archie,

How do you respond to the Stefula, Butler, Hansen critique Kandinsky posted earlier in the thread?

The Linda Napolitano (Cortile) UFO Abduction -- A Critique of the Case

 

[ArchieBedford]

How do you respond to the Stefula, Butler, Hansen critique Kandinsky posted earlier in the thread?

I don't have time this morning to go into the whole thing. But suffice to say I've been through the screed in detail, line by line, with Budd Hopkins who of course knew these three deceivers very well. I've been to the sites (including Linda's building), read Garfield Reece-Stevens' appallingly written book (the content of which which in fact bears absolutely no resemblance to the events related in 'Witnessed') and came away convinced that the 'Three Stooges' as they are known invented the whole thing as an attack-piece on abduction research, as the case was so strong. The piece contains a lot of lies and misrepresentation.

I'll give you one small example, then I need to go off to a meeting. They claim the case is debunked because they asked the doorman on Linda's building if he remembered two NSA agents coming into the building the previous year, to visit Linda. They reported the doorman saying no, he didn't remember. What they did not say is:

1. The doorman had worked there only four weeks

2. He barely understood English and didn't understand what they were asking him

3. The two agents in any case always used the back door - the fire escape entrance, not the front door, so even if the doorman had been on duty that shift he would not have seen them

and so on and on it goes. The stooges knew, and still know, the case to be 100% watertight and genuine. One of them has admitted as much to Budd, face to face. One was definitely involved with the security agencies, but I stop short of suggesting their debunking piece was in any way an official operation and Budd certainly doesn't think so.

One day if I have time, I'll completely debunk the stooges' hit-piece and publish it online. Right now other things preoccupy me, and so few people care anyway it's hardly worth the effort. But with a minimum of onsite investigation, actually reading Reece-Stevens' book, interviewing Linda and her family and so on, anyone can see through their hit-piece as a disingenuous pile of crap, with no substance. Unfortunately, a lot of people don't even bother to do that.

 

[Elendil]

One day if I have time, I'll completely debunk the stooges' hit-piece and publish it online. Right now other things preoccupy me, and so few people care anyway it's hardly worth the effort. But with a minimum of onsite investigation, actually reading Reece-Stevens' book, interviewing Linda and her family and so on, anyone can see through their hit-piece as a disingenuous pile of crap, with no substance. Unfortunately, a lot of people don't even bother to do that.

Well, I'd really like to see that done. I read their article some time ago and also read Hopkins' response and their response too - but I'm gonna have to revisit all of that. I think some things were still open, even after reading Hopkins' account.

Regarding his article about Rainey - I wish he spent more space on the Mortellaro case and everything Rainey wrote about - since Hopkins turned out to be too gullible, but then again - Peter Robbins wrote that Morellaro's parents confirmed some of his stuff. Still, it was very interesting to read that the worked with six psychiatrists about their abduction accounts - that was new info for me. I'm also glad that Don Donderi decided to chime in with all the others on Wilsons' site, supporting Hopkins' work. I'd like to see a reaction from Stuart Apelle too.

And BTW, what do you guys think of Kay Wilson? I'm starting to browse through her stuff. It's pretty wild. She's also talking about Greys with hair. That's kinda weird, especially regarding the Carpenter/Jacobs trick question about aliens with hair...

 

[ArchieBedford]

Well, I'd really like to see that done. I read their article some time ago and also read Hopkins' response and their response too - but I'm gonna have to revisit all of that. I think some things were still open, even after reading Hopkins' account.

Read Hopkins' essay on the techniques utilised by "the hydra-headed debunking machine and its many busy attendants" (wish I could write that well) and you'll see the stooges employed most of these techniques in constructing their hit-piece: accusing obviously honest people of being hoaxers; using tail-wagging-the-dog bits of shaky hearsay 'evidence' to try to discredit a ton of far more substantial corroborative witness testimonies; and multiple outright lies. It's a classic example of the debunker-program in action.

The motive was not to discredit the case, as it was never going to be possible to convince anyone who bothered to do any real investigation. The motive was to contaminate the research field with shit, which sinks into the collective memory. In this it probably succeeded, to a degree. Even though the stooges' campaign was shown time and again to be a complete pack of lies and deceit, the shit still sticks. It's the internet age, after all.

---------- Post added at 06:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:46 PM ----------

Regarding his article about Rainey - I wish he spent more space on the Mortellaro case and everything Rainey wrote about

If you had ever met Carol or knew anything about her, then you would not believe a single word she ever said on any subject. Those of us who know her, know exactly what her motives are. They have nothing to do with abduction research which, to anyone who has ever done any work in the field, she (who knows little about the subject) could never hope to discredit.

All these scores of people have come out in support of Hopkins simply because they know the man. They know his character, his integrity, his honesty, generosity and great legacy of work over 35 years. No-one who has ever met the man, spent time with him or worked with him, is ever going to be influenced by a pile of vindictive crap from Carol, no matter how it's dressed up and presented. People are smarter than that.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Devil's Advocate question: Kevin Randle has met and knows Hopkins, but he seems to be on Rainey's side, based on his recent blog post. What can you tell us about that?

 

[ArchieBedford]

Devil's Advocate question: Kevin Randle has met and knows Hopkins, but he seems to be on Rainey's side, based on his recent blog post. What can you tell us about that?

Well Gene, whaddya know? Rigid ideology makes for strange bedfellows.

If Rainey is the best Randle can find to support his ideology, he's really scraping the barrel. Welcome to the 1-star Debunker Motel.

 

[paraschtick]

[Blimey ... nothing changes does it. Getting a strange case of deja-vu again.]

Well who to believe??? A woman who shows through audio tapes (which any reasonable, sensible and sane person believes to be genuine) that the good doctor is dodgy beyond belief (see MPD, chastity belt, underwear etc) ... or a man who claims to have been chatting to an alien on instant messenger, has not only pictures and audio of people from another planet, and knows someone who not only has been "working" with aliens, but knows where they live!!! But does not show any compassion of any kind towards his former "patients" but also will not publish said pictures of video (which is completely mad because not only would it be the most important day in Earth's history, if he did publish the videos and pictures, he would also be on every talk show in the world and make more money than you can shake a stick at ...)

I think I know who I will continue to believe. And it ain't the good Dr Jacobs, I'm afraid ...

paraschtick out

ps gee whiz ... you come back after a time away only to find this "field" just doesn't get any better. If anything, it gets worse ...

 

[The Pair of Cats]

If her proof is so ironclad, then why doesn't she give us all her real name instead of handing it out to selected interviewers and such and hiding behind a bullshit pseudonym. If you are going to drag someone elses name through the mud, such as in Jacobs case, at least have the guts to use your real name. If there is nothing wrong, psychologically, with this woman there should be no reason why she doesn't.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

If her proof is so ironclad, then why doesn't she give us all her real name instead of handing it out to selected interviewers and such and hiding behind a bullshit pseudonym. If you are going to drag someone elses name through the mud, such as in Jacobs case, at least have the guts to use your real name. If there is nothing wrong, psychologically, with this woman there should be no reason why she doesn't.

I don't pretend to know the final story (which is why I say they might both be at fault), but "Emma Woods" has basically devoted a heavy portion of her life to getting back at Jacobs. She has made herself into a sort of celebrity as the result. She doesn't appear to have a legitimate reason to keep her name secret, and, in fact, she has done everything possible to draw attention to herself — hardly a need for anonymity.

 

[Elendil]

...but also will not publish said pictures of video (which is completely mad because not only would it be the most important day in Earth's history, if he did publish the videos and pictures, he would also be on every talk show in the world and make more money than you can shake a stick at ...)

Whoa, what the heck is that - Jacobs saying he has pix and audio of aliens/hybrids? And won't release it? Where did you get that stuff from?

 

[The Pair of Cats]

I don't pretend to know the final story (which is why I say they might both be at fault), but "Emma Woods" has basically devoted a heavy portion of her life to getting back at Jacobs. She has made herself into a sort of celebrity as the result. She doesn't appear to have a legitimate reason to keep her name secret, and, in fact, she has done everything possible to draw attention to herself — hardly a need for anonymity.

Exactly. You only have to go to her website to see an intricate, blow by blow description of what looks like every single facet of her life. No problems with that i suppose but why should the website still be under the alias she uses.
Think what you will about Jacobs, justified or not, but at least his website bears his real name.
At any rate for both Jacobs and Hopkins, "Woods" and Rainey, this has become a he said/she said situation with claim and counter claim with members of the UFO community eagerly jumping to take their preferred sides in this what could only be described as another minor skirmish in the on-going war of "my research is more valid than yours" or "look at us, we exposed another UFO weirdo" as the wannabe pundits slap each other on the back in some sort of self congratulatory manner.
You know that nothing of any importance is really happening in the UFO world when these cases take the front seat.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

[Blimey ... nothing changes does it. Getting a strange case of deja-vu again.]

Well who to believe??? A woman who shows through audio tapes (which any reasonable, sensible and sane person believes to be genuine) that the good doctor is dodgy beyond belief (see MPD, chastity belt, underwear etc) ... or a man who claims to have been chatting to an alien on instant messenger, has not only pictures and audio of people from another planet, and knows someone who not only has been "working" with aliens, but knows where they live!!! But does not show any compassion of any kind towards his former "patients" but also will not publish said pictures of video (which is completely mad because not only would it be the most important day in Earth's history, if he did publish the videos and pictures, he would also be on every talk show in the world and make more money than you can shake a stick at ...)

I think I know who I will continue to believe. And it ain't the good Dr Jacobs, I'm afraid ...

paraschtick out

ps gee whiz ... you come back after a time away only to find this "field" just doesn't get any better. If anything, it gets worse ...

It's posts like these that leave me shaking my head. It seems that there are quite a few people out there taking an us vs them position on this. A position that is totally black and white, no room for gray or a hint of nuance. It's not that I necessarily disagree with the things you're saying but with the tone and your seeming disgust with anyone who doesn't simply conclude, "Jacobs is the devil, Woods is a saint" and leave it at that. When people say they don't believe it is prudent for someone to dedicate all their time to trashing someone from the cushy position of anonymity (And btw, someone complained when I said something similar not long ago. They intimated that I am posting anonymously and therefor have no right to say such a thing. That's absurd because the difference in circumstances couldn't be more vast. If and when I choose to dedicate the entirety of my existence to the destruction of one person in particular, whether they have it coming or not, I will gladly plaster my name all over the place) that doesn't necessarily mean they are against Woods and for Jacobs. When someone says that judging by her actions online and her never-ending letter writing they believe it is possible that Woods has BPD just as Jacobs has speculated or that they might be skeptical or on the fence about any other detail in particular that doesn't necassarily mean they are a Jacobs cheerleader and a Woods basher. It is possible to be in the middle, or lean in one direction, or most importantly, to see problems on both sides. Not everything is north or south with nothing in between. I for one have been convinced that Jacobs did a lot of wrong things here but I find it a little ridiculous when Woods supporters accuse me of being completely in Jacobs' camp or acting like I just proposed we burn Woods at the stake if I dare level a single criticism, no matter how inconsequential it might be, at her side of the argument.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I feel your pain. But I also pity the people who can't understand the vast expanse between black and white. There's nothing wrong with saying,"Stop, you're both wrong!"

 

[paraschtick]

I never said that Emma was a saint. I think however that on the balance of evidence I feel that she has the infinitely stronger case. I can't see how anyone can see otherwise. What I object to is that people have been attacking her for presenting some pretty damning evidence in my eyes, and Jacobs having admitted to some horrendous so called "tactics" she is the one still being attacked. Beggars belief in my way of looking at the world.

Can you blame her for trying to bring some light on her case if she feels aggrieved and believes has had no justice?? I would probably do the same thing if I was in her situation and an unlicenced hypnotherapist with no medical training was playing around my mind.

Of course there are grey elements to this case. I have never said otherwise. Emma has made mistakes. She is only human. But for people to go along with Dr Jacobs and his hybrid IMs, and not change their view of him after what he as admitted to ... well I just don't understand it. Please. If there is something I am missing let me know what it is. I really am quite baffled by it all.