The Linda case.

Gene Steinberg · Mar 7, 2011

Ron Collins said:
Paul, from my standpoint this is not as cut and dried.
1) Gene banned Emma. His show, his forum, his rules. I was never consulted and nor would I expect to be. To be honest I never read through all the Emma Woods stuff to see how bad that finally got so I cant honestly compare the two. But, my understudying is that Emma was banned also because she told outright lies. I will let gene comment about that if he wishes but I doubt he will want to reopen that particular can of worms.
2) Emma was about 1 topic. Archie has contributed to many discussions and has been well behaved in most of them.
3) I do not personally find the abduction phenomenon in general all that compelling. Aside from the very few cases like Walton, Allagash, The Hills, and Kelly Kayhill. (my spelling of these is probably atrocious, apologies) so I can assure everyone that I have not chosen a side. I suspect that you would get a similar answer from Angelo.

I do agree that Archies habit of bringing up the Carol Rainey stuff is getting old. Though I am not sure it is egregious enough to warrant a banning. Thus it has never been formally addressed. As you are bringing it up I will ask him to tone it down. I think that is fair.

"EW" had her posting privileges disabled (she can still enter the forum and is not officially banned as bans go) because she has been deceptive and is using her anonymity as a tool to attack someone else virtually on a 24/7 basis. She has also posted in these forums under another name to support herself. None of this should necessarily reflect one way or the other on whether she has a case against David Jacobs. It's strictly a response to her behavior, and her obsession with one topic and one topic only. I do understand, courtesy of a third-party, that others who have brought her issues to light have indeed been told her real name, so there it goes. Certainly if she told me privately, I said already I would hold it in confidence if she wished.

As to the Carol Rainey stuff, I've asked AB to provide full details rather than rehash what he's already said. Once he's done that, we move on, unless some new issue arises.

And I should say this in public, and I haven't done so near enough: The moderators for our forums are doing a thankless job. They work hard as volunteers, and get lots of abuse from members. They deserve your respect, and they've certainly earned mine. I can't thank them enough.

ArchieBedford · Mar 7, 2011

Gene Steinberg said:
You have made a lot of inferences here, AB. For those who don't know Carol Rainey, maybe you could provide some more details so people would have a better opportunity to come to their own conclusions.

Yeah Gene, I know.

Bye for now.

Keiko · Mar 7, 2011

Simone_m said:
I was over at ATS much earlier today, viewing a vid in a thread, by The Dreaded Carol Rainey, about Bud Hopkins and the Linda Cortile Napalitano case. Carol was with a handwriting expert who gave his opinion that Linda's writing was on what were supposed to be, missives from --other-- witnesses.
I always was dismissive of the Linda case as a hoax. But I never read the book 'Witnessed' nor really followed the case all that closely. I have seen recently, that as Carol 'unravels' that case, my Gawd, a LOT of work and apparent cooperation and complex thinking went into it from an Italian housewife. Now I am aware that the then UN Secretary General Perez de Cuellar, never----denies his involvement as a witness to the alledged abduction when pressed.
My question to you Paracasters is, why would a Linda DO something like this? There are other more respectable, I'm afraid, ways to become known and fawned after, than, as Phil Klass used to say, "The queen bee of abductees." If I were to say (WHILE maintaining a marriage family household) "I am going to work night and day with a lot of effort, to make this Abduction Researcher think I am an ufo abductee" well, that does not make any sense to me. Could someone be that CRAZY while competently running a family and household? And WHO would even WANT to help you along, in that regard, with your hyjinks? I have a lot of new questions about an old matter.

I'm not convinced that this case is a hoax despite some of its more fantastical aspects. IF it turns out to be a hoax then I don't think Linda will be the culprit. Rather some intelligence agency decided to get involved in the life of an established abductee already working with Budd for various nefarious possibilities. Either as an kind of psy-ops or to discredit the most famous researcher in the field. I am not convinced that an ordinary housewife could create and sustain the kind of complicated planning and execution of this plot. How would you find and coerce over 20 other individuals to go along with it and remain quiet for 20 years? Why would you risk involving your child? Kids are hard to control! A rebelious teenager miffed by the BS his mom made him say when he was 9? How long would it take him to use that one? If she has these talents then she was seriously wasted as a housewife and should consider working for the CIA or Mossad or some such group LOL.

I know someone who knows this lady pretty well. I have never met her myself. She has never changed her story...she remains disturbed by it, her kids (and grand-kids I think) have had experiences. Jeez, where is the gain in all this? It just makes no sense. The planning and strategy involved in such an elaborate fabrication is more suited to a professional group. Add the possibility of some MILABs into that mix and maybe you could make a case for it. She seems to me to be a genuine abductee so if a hoax is discovered I would bet she was the victim of it too.

Now down to this latest installment from Carol Rainey...there are two main possibilities IMO: either the envelope she says is from the independent witness actually is or she is lying. If it is then the hand writing does look the same. What does that mean? A hoax, and if so by whom? The genius levels of planning needed by Linda if she was orchestrating this seems at odds with such an obvious mistake. Rainey claims most correspondence was typed. Why change that pattern? If a hoax was being perpetrated by a professional group then it's a nice set-up. Saying that, I find it odd that no-one involved in scrutinising the case (other members of the IF foundation such as Peter Robbins, Jed Turnbull etc) spotted this. Maybe so? I can't say on the information presented so far.

The other option...Rainey is lying/doctoring evidence: I think this is a legitimate possibility to raise. It's by no means an accusation. However, her timing is questionable. When did she discover this? Has she been sitting on this for years? Did she discover it when she was still married to Budd or co-writing 'Sight Unseen'? If so, was it brought to his attention? If not, why not? Did she attempt to discuss this revelation with him before going public? This is what any objective researcher would and should do. But that's the thing. She is not objective, she is his ex-wife. That does not mean she can't bring legitimate quesions into the field but it seems she has no interest in the field. A successful published author in ufology and yet she has to my knowledge never done any other reseach or published any other papers about this topic. Her interest centers only on Budd Hopkins, her time with him, his work, his faults, his mistakes, his status in the field, his legacy.

Personally I find that kind of creepy. Like I am being manipulated into partaking in some kind of marital revenge.

Another thing that struck me about her video. It's supposed to be a documentary in the making. Now I've been around some documentaries being made in the past. I'm no expert, but why would you publish so much of your core material online for free. Usually people make documentaries in order to sell them, no? Well no distributor will touch one that has so much material already released. So I have to wonder, why is she making this documentary, if she is at all? It's all a bit strange...don't you think?

tyder001 · Mar 7, 2011

ArchieBedford said:
Yeah Gene, I know. It may take a short while to gather into presentable coherent narrative, as I don't live in NYC (where all the files and surviving witnesses are). Meanwhile, I'll shut up on the issue.

Bye for now.

Archie you bring much good stuff to the forum. I can't pretend to know how you feel as an abductie. I don't think it's people from space and it may not even be related to u.f.o's although it is lumped in with them. I don't know what may be happening. I'm not one of those folks who think we "are the brain" Nor do I see demons behind every bush. Anyway, the thing is I hope you will keep posting. I do agree (and it seems you also agree) with Gene about being open and letting facts speak for themselves. So, I hope your "bye for now" is not a goodbye to the forum. I'm neither a true believer or a debunker. I kind of set there on the fence and make up my mind on a case by case basis depending on what part of the "paranormal" or high strangeness we are discussing.

Peace,
Steve.

I keep my visions to myself...Stevie Nicks.

Simone_m · Mar 8, 2011

Wouldn't it be neat if MUFON, Davenport, CUFOS' files, etc, got together and said, "Lets pull up all of our reports from citizens who described -their- ufo CE(2-&-3 preferably) **in conjuction with** missing time ------ BEFORE books by Whitley, Jacobs, and Bud, came out.
All I know, for sure, is that, I had a missing time incident in 1966 which was a huuuugely significant flapwave year http://www.nicap.org/waves/1966fullrep.htm
And after that, ufo phenomenon around my family and upbringing thereafter. I do NOT know if I am a "abductee", but it sure seems like some kind of abduction phenomenon (among people in general) has been occurring?

Lauren Jones · Mar 8, 2011

ArchieBedford said:
The problem you have with the Brooklyn Bridge case is the more than 20 witnesses on the record to various aspects of it. I have seen the boxes of correspondence and the piles of letters with my own eyes, and read most of them. A hoax (an immensely complex and ultimately purposeless one at that) involving more han 20 people is simply impossible to sustain over 20 years. Hours of taped interviews exist. Children (Linda's kids), now adults and parents themselves, were witnesses to the abductions and their testimonies have never changed either.

Looking at the case from long distance, it's understandable to retreat into skepticism because the story looks so outlandish and so complex. But when you look at the evidence up close it gets (rather improbably) stronger rather than weaker.

It's true Linda would have no possible motive that makes any kind of sense to mastermind and perpetrate such an enormous, elaborate hoax involving so many people for so many years. It simply can't be done, in the real world. Some of the witnesses to the trigger-incident on 30 November 1989 didn't even know her, and still don't.

I think we can all work out why Rainey is trying to resurrect this old chestnut after 15 years. It has nothing to do with the case, or with the numerous people who were involved in its investigation. Those of us who know Carol well see the same old patterns yet again, of her trying to trash her ex-husband's reputation be it in the art world or in more personal areas. She will never let go the fact that he divorced her, and this is not the place to go into the reasons why.

20 witnesses on what "record"? A record provided by Budd Hopkins? What evidence gets stronger as you look closer?

ward · Mar 8, 2011

Simone_m said:
Wouldn't it be neat if MUFON, Davenport, CUFOS' files, etc, got together and said, "Lets pull up all of our reports from citizens who described -their- ufo CE(2-&-3 preferably) **in conjuction with** missing time ------ BEFORE books by Whitley, Jacobs, and Bud, came out.
All I know, for sure, is that, I had a missing time incident in 1966 which was a huuuugely significant flapwave year http://www.nicap.org/waves/1966fullrep.htm
And after that, ufo phenomenon around my family and upbringing thereafter. I do NOT know if I am a "abductee", but it sure seems like some kind of abduction phenomenon (among people in general) has been occurring?

Hey Simone you should come back on Dons Show Dark Matters again and catch up. I really enjoyed your last two appearances, it would be great to talk about this incident as well. Sounds like you've got some stuff in your past.

Simone_m · Mar 8, 2011

Yup I have a lot-----of other x-filesy-like experiences, the Nellis case is not the end-all-be-all in that regard.
But it is up to Don to be "the decider" about guest'n me again.

Tom From Hong Kong · Mar 8, 2011

Two quick points to address some statements made above:

1. I have met "Archie Bedford" in person, so I am one of the twenty fellow Paracast Forum members who know his true identity. He is a well balanced individual (sorry to have to put it that way, Archie!) who is extremely clear and rigorous in his thinking. He is also not one inclined to make spurious or groundless charges, in my opinion. He has done more genuine groundwork into the abduction phenomena than probably any of us on this Forum. Given some of his longstanding relationships, I believe he is well positioned to get the genuine "story behind the story" on some of this nonsense surrounding the Hopkins/Rainey controversy.

2. Out of pure coincidence, I met a woman whom Budd Hopkins and Carol Rainey featured in Sight Unseen. I met her nearly twenty years before I read Hopkins' and Rainey's book and fifteen years before I started taking an interest in the UFO phenomena. Frankly, this woman's family (including non-biological step family) was observing very strange things around her in the 1980s/early 1990s -- independent of what she was telling them -- that would indicate something genuinely was happening to her. Third party observations include strange blue lights and flashes around the family home; day-long disappearances outdoors in a wooded area during the middle of winter, where her outdoor gear was left behind on the ground outside neatly folded (she was mid-teens then), with her showing up 9-10 hours later completely forgetful, but physically in fine shape; strange body markings (her stepfather is an extremely accomplished physician who was familiar with bodily wounds, and had her subjected to a complete battery of tests, multiple times); and a number of odd "here now/gone quickly & mysteriously/back an hour later" instances where her brand new Rolex watch lost time. My sense is that there was more to all this than the family told me. I could clearly tell also that the family was extremely serious and disturbed by what was happening (where I come from there is stigma associated with believing in UFOs, let alone abductions). The (very educated) family suspected abductions before this woman met Hopkins based upon their research on some of the early abduction cases (the woman herself ultimately sought out Budd Hopkins to find answers). I suspect Carol Rainey was familiar with this particular case given her co-authorship of Sight Unseen. This is a long winded way of saying that at least one case in Sight Unseen appears genuine to me, based upon my knowledge of the individual before the book was written.

Gene Steinberg · Mar 8, 2011

Thanks for the insights.

Keiko · Mar 9, 2011

Lauren Jones said:
20 witnesses on what "record"? A record provided by Budd Hopkins? What evidence gets stronger as you look closer?

Lauren,

Another thread was started by kruggutter that lists the various individuals that are involved, it's a really well-documented article:
https://www.theparacast.com/forum/t...ia-and-other-attackers-of-Hopkins-and-Cortile

BTW Was Paul Kimball satisfied with AB giving his real identity to Gene or not? Is he still accusing you guys of double standards? He has not replied to comments on the issue as far as I can tell... and I was kinda curious?

ArchieBedford · Mar 16, 2011

Gene Steinberg said:
You have made a lot of inferences here, AB. For those who don't know Carol Rainey, maybe you could provide some more details so people would have a better opportunity to come to their own conclusions.

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w

unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--> Gene, I caused a bit of controversy with a post I made last week. So I’d like to set the record straight as I think your question was fair, and Ron’s warning too (already told him so in PM).

I removed the offending post: please feel free to remove any reference to it in the thread.

While I have met Carol Rainey a few times, I really don’t know her that well. So I shouldn’t have claimed to know her motivations; in the end only God knows anyone’s motivations (yeah, I realise many of us are non-believers and all that; it’s just a figure of speech OK?).

As I mentioned before, I’ll be taking a break from the forums for a while but will probably come back at some point because I enjoy the intelligent conversations that go on here. You’ve got some high quality people on these forums, the best out there IMHO. I guess this subject was a bit too close to me personally to be really objective, and an internet chat forum is not the place for that discussion. I hope I didn’t offend anyone, and that includes Carol Rainey!

Peace.

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

tyder001 · Mar 16, 2011

Well don't stay away to long Archie cause I think you add to the forum and I enjoy your post and insights into something I don't understand very well which is the abduction question. Was gonna say Abduction Phenomenon but I'm a bad speller. :cool:

Anyway, all the best and I look forward to seeing you around the forums in the future.

Steve.

Double Nought Spy · Mar 16, 2011

Thanks, Archie. I too appreciate your contributions here.

Carol Rainey · Mar 17, 2011

ArchieBedford said:
 Gene, I caused a bit of controversy with a post I made last week. So I’d like to set the record straight as I think your question was fair, and Ron’s warning too (already told him so in PM).

I removed the offending post: please feel free to remove any reference to it in the thread.

While I have met Carol Rainey a few times, I really don’t know her that well. So I shouldn’t have claimed to know her motivations; in the end only God knows anyone’s motivations (yeah, I realise many of us are non-believers and all that; it’s just a figure of speech OK?).

As I mentioned before, I’ll be taking a break from the forums for a while but will probably come back at some point because I enjoy the intelligent conversations that go on here. You’ve got some high quality people on these forums, the best out there IMHO. I guess this subject was a bit too close to me personally to be really objective, and an internet chat forum is not the place for that discussion. I hope I didn’t offend anyone, and that includes Carol Rainey!

Peace.

Hello, Paracasters,
I just joined the list today and am curious to watch this scene unfold from a bit closer up. I've been aware for some time that certain people were saying some quite slanderous things about me. And I'm also aware that none of you know me at all--not to my knowledge anyway, not when I look at the user names. (Who knows what's behind the masks at Mardi Gras??) That's why--once I began to get the hang of the thing-- I decided I'd only post using my actual name. It keeps me honest and I believe it would keep others honest if they did the same.

I would like the people who follow this list and want to engage in a decent conversation to be able to do it with me directly. (That said, when I get freelance gigs, I'm buried for weeks at a time and may not respond immediately, but eventually, I intend to)

I'm afraid I don't share the sentiments the rest of you do about "Archie," though. He has consistently claimed on the Paracast that he knew me well, knew my motives and what made me tick. He told you he had direct knowledge of skills that I employ to deceive people in my filmmaking, etc......I'll drop it at that. Let me be very clear, since "Archie" was more vaguely apologetic--[FONT=&quot]My path crossed "Archie's" only _once,_in passing, for 5-10 minutes in October 2010 when he was visiting my former husband Budd Hopkins. Water ran down into my apartment from Budd's studio; Budd and "Archie" came over to help. Everybody was courteous, but all attention was on the steam pipe and the leak. I was running around with pans under the leaking radiator. I don't recall saying a word to "Archie" other than hello.

[/FONT]It was only when I learned "Archie Bedford's" real identity and real profession and contacted him elsewhere that this less than full admission about his complete fabrication of knowing me and knowing all about my motives emerged.

That seems like a very unfortunate waste of time for all of you and a waste of time for me. It taught me a lot about life on the Internet and about the perils of anonymity.

I'm not here for the sparring and entertainment value. I'm seriously interested in this phenomenon, whatever it is. I am someone who has spent over 15 years in the company of experiencers, many of them still friends. I am now and always have been fully respectful of people having genuine anomalous personal experiences and have never indicated anything less than that. Over a period of years, from close range, I simply found I could no longer be part of the belief system that was all around me in my life--that profoundly committed belief of both Hopkins and Jacobs, as well as some others, that aliens are stalking our female kind (primarily) with devious and ultimately disastrous consequences for the human species. We now have the science to prove this gigantic claim.

What can I say? When your faith in something snaps, it just does, a little at a time, over years of small jolts and shocks of awareness. I could no longer respect the tools being used nor the research methodologies--or lack thereof.

So when I finally broke openly with "the gospel" of Budd and Dave, it has been startling, even shocking to me to feel the primitiveness of the rage (fear, even?) coming from people who disagreed with me. I would like to understand that better.....without the hoses, whips, and accusations from total strangers. I'd give you the courtesy to listen to honest discourse.

Take care,

Carol Rainey

Simone_m · Mar 17, 2011

Welcome, Ms. Rainey. I started this thread and wish to apologize for putting "The Dreaded"...etc., My Olde friend Jim Moseley used to put that before -formidable- people such as Phil Klass. I copied him because I was being silly. Him and his ways always amused me, and he was a mischevious influence on Mua. I know, thats not too cool for this confusing field of Ufology.

tyder001 · Mar 17, 2011

And they said this forum would never make it.

Gene Steinberg · Mar 17, 2011

tyder001 said:
And they said this forum would never make it.

But that was 107,000 messages ago!

Keiko · Mar 17, 2011

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."

Ron Collins · Mar 17, 2011

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.

The Linda case.

Forum Super Hero

Partly experienced

Skilled Investigator

Paranormal Adept

Skilled Investigator

Skilled Investigator

Paranormal Adept

Skilled Investigator

Sleeping with one eye open . . .

Forum Super Hero

Skilled Investigator

Partly experienced

Paranormal Adept

May I please go back to the zoo now?

Carol Rainey

Guest

Skilled Investigator

Paranormal Adept

Forum Super Hero

Skilled Investigator

Curiously Confused