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