Budd Hopkins Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Dreamland » Budd Hopkins « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Michael Smith
New member
Username: by_name_only

Post Number: 38
Registered: 7-2013
Posted on Saturday, August 24, 2013 - 2:02 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

I never met the man, but I saw his interviews and read all his books, and enjoyed each one with the exception of Sight Unseen. This certain woman who co authored the book with Budd, Carol Rainey, tried to scientifically explain aspects of the abduction phenomenon that are not scientifically explainable. I realized Budd passed sometime in August, so I started googling and coming up with youtube material.

First, I read the official statement from those who were at his deathbed. June 15, 1931 – August 21, 2011

I’m very sad to announce that Budd Hopkins died today, August 21, at 1:35 pm. Budd had been under hospice care for about three weeks, at his home in New York. The combination of liver cancer and pneumonia led to his death. His daughter Grace Hopkins-Lisle and I were with him almost continuously during these past weeks. He was not in any pain throughout any of the process, and he received the best possible care and loving support from those closest to him. Today he gradually slipped away, and simply quietly stopped breathing. He died peacefully and without any struggle, with Grace, Grace’s husband Andrew, and me by his side.

Thanks to all of you for being such strong supporters of this extraordinary man, who has contributed so much to our lives, in so many different ways.

- Leslie Kean

I was saddened to read about his demise again, as Budd seemed like everybody's friend, but I couldn't help but notice that this witch, Carol Rainey was not at his bedside when he succumbed to cancer.

Come to find out, Budd made the mistake of marrying this witch and obviously there was some bad blood there, as she know seems to be devoting her life to debunking all this man's hard work.

It's easy to stab a dead person in the back, but the lows that people will sink to. You can hear the venom in her voice and she makes these copy righted "documentaries" and tries to say the whole thing is a scam, that all these people are being misled using hypnosis, etc. She talks about having been raised in a fundamentalist family. Figures. Those people want to believe that humans are the center of the universe and the only intelligent life forms. Trying to profit or being vindictive because your marriage went bad. How low people will sink.

I am with Budd all the way.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark A. Foster
Senior Member
Username: markfoster

Post Number: 537
Registered: 2-2013
Posted on Sunday, August 25, 2013 - 5:01 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

I hope he is in a better place now.
Cheers, Mark
Portal to 29 domains: http://www.markfoster.net
Radio Show: http://www.markalanfoster.com
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Michael Smith
New member
Username: by_name_only

Post Number: 46
Registered: 7-2013
Posted on Wednesday, August 28, 2013 - 4:22 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Missing Time, Intruders, Witnessed. Then we lost the late Dr John Mack, whose book Abduction had a profound influence on my view of this whole thing. Thank goodness we still have Whitley, Ray Fowler, and Dr Jacobs around, although Fowler hasn't published anything new and the last I read, Jacobs was under attack. I hope these pioneering men do not allow motivated debunkers and the "it can't be, therefore it isn't" types hinder their work
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark A. Foster
Senior Member
Username: markfoster

Post Number: 544
Registered: 2-2013
Posted on Thursday, August 29, 2013 - 4:09 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

I might criticize Jacobs for his extremely negative view of contact experiences, but who would want to attack him?
Cheers, Mark
Portal to 29 domains: http://www.markfoster.net
Radio Show: http://www.markalanfoster.com
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

bean
Senior Member
Username: tina

Post Number: 2523
Registered: 12-2001
Posted on Sunday, September 01, 2013 - 5:15 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Michael, I think is more along the line of innocense....THEY would never do that, so the thought that someone else would..is un thinkable.

Mark, ? Think about it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark A. Foster
Senior Member
Username: markfoster

Post Number: 550
Registered: 2-2013
Posted on Monday, September 02, 2013 - 12:56 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

The Internet is filled with flamers and some extremely dangerous people, too. I used to deal with them regularly back when I worked for AOL in the early-middle 1990s. Some people attack others because they have nothing better to do with their lives.
Cheers, Mark
Portal to 29 domains: http://www.markfoster.net
Radio Show: http://www.markalanfoster.com
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jeremy Vaeni
New member
Username: jeremy_vaeni

Post Number: 37
Registered: 8-2008
Posted on Sunday, September 08, 2013 - 12:50 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Dear Michael Smith:

Google Search is your friend. Put aside the hero worship for a second and actually research what you're "upset" about vis-a-vis Hopkins and especially Jacobs. Look into the facts, not what you heard someone say or what you want to be the case because you think these men are infallible or good researchers.

It doesn't take a debunker to see through these men.

(Message edited by jeremy vaeni on September 08, 2013)

(Message edited by jeremy vaeni on September 08, 2013)
Urgency. The world's first book where you are the ending. Available in paperback, on the Kindle & Nook.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Heinrich Moltke
Advanced Member
Username: heinrich

Post Number: 201
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Monday, September 16, 2013 - 2:41 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Vaeni is a zealot. Just as he spent years engaged in pissing contests with the hosts of "The Paracast" (about as worthless an endeavor as you can imagine), he's turned his sights on Hopkins and Jacobs in a similar spirit of self-righteous antagonism. While there are flaws in portions of their work (Linda Cortile's hoaxing in the case of Hopkins; sniffing panties in the case of Jacobs), Vaeni takes this on with the grandeur of the Inquisitor to claim that *all* of their work is to be discarded, that none of it is true or has any value. And yet, he himself is a kind of follower, advancing the work of Krishnamurti at different times as some sort of unique avenue to truth. Also, he's tried to erect a kind of counter-orthodoxy in which Jacques Vallee figures prominently, though Vallee's work, while ahead of its time, is far less provocative than it might appear (to UFO partisans). For example, what might be called the ethnological approach in Vallee is easily predictable within the broader context of Mauss, Levi-Strauss, and other French thinkers in anthropology and sociology. Vallee's decision to examine cultural history in pursuit of the truth of 'UFOs' is less original than it appears, and is squarely within an established tradition of French intellectual thought, even a cultural tendency.

I remember some years back when Vaeni took certain people on his forum to task for 'casting seeds of doubt' (in him) when they suggested that there might be some redeemable qualities to the Disclosure Project, despite the megalomania of Steven Greer. To me, that suggests the usual type of UFO-nuttiness, whatever Vaeni's attempts to portray himself as a kind of laughing Italian buddha with an ironic sense of humor, applying (and getting rejected) for a position as "The Daily Show" writer, etc. It is basically garbage to be a UFO partisan who takes arbitrary, questionable stands in the lunatic field that is the UFO world (contra-"Paracast", contra-Hopkins and Jacobs) and yet also present oneself as some sort of affable, self-effacing paragon of *real* reason on account of that. While mouth-breathers might take Hopkins and Jacobs as heroes and never scrutinize their work, the counter-movement against them in the form of various tirades by Vaeni in UFO Magazine and elsewhere are only more of the same: half-hysterical posturing by UFO partisans trying control members of their pathetic flock and point them one way or another.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

sahgwa
Senior Member
Username: sahgwa

Post Number: 715
Registered: 3-2010
Posted on Monday, September 16, 2013 - 4:58 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Was the Cortile case found to all be a hoax? I found it amazing that a woman was seen by others to float out her window, but it also doesn't seem impossible for that to happen once out of thousands/millions of abductions.
Observation convinces me that there are beings of intelligence higher than human and that the only chance for mankind to advance as a whole is for individuals to make contact with such Beings.Crowley
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Heinrich Moltke
Advanced Member
Username: heinrich

Post Number: 202
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Tuesday, September 17, 2013 - 12:36 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

If you watch clips of Carol Rainey's documentary online, the handwriting evidence seems pretty persuasive that Cortile hoaxed at least part of her story. The question then is how much of her story is true. Some would say the whole story is a hoax. But it's not out of the question that she was a person who was having some genuine experiences, but who also on account of some odd personality make-up needed to hoax details as well, perhaps to lay it on thick and get even more attention. The same might be said of Billy Meier: some think he had some genuine experiences, yet some of his photos are clearly fakes.

It sort of comes down to what a person decides to do with a complicated mess of details like the UFO phenomenon. Whether lurching back and forth between extremes like a staggering drunk is the right way to go. You hear some declaring now that nothing obtained through hypnosis is valid on account of the fact that *sometimes* amateur investigators ask leading questions which might cause the witness to confabulate. I think I've heard Vaeni say things in the past, in fact, to that effect, though he's not alone. Wouldn't a wiser course simply be to reject any memories obtained through hypnosis when the questioner is clearly leading the witness? Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is what you see all across this so-called field now as each successive aspect gets heavily politicized. One reason for my comment above is that it seems that on every forum I visit, whenever Hopkins or Jacobs comes up, Vaeni seems to appear, or worse, Emma Woods of panties fame shows up (probably invited by Vaeni) to threadjack. Their position seems to be that everything ever done by Hopkins and Jacobs needs to be thrown out entirely.

Now, I have no special affection for Hopkins and Jacobs, don't consider them "heroes", and am not in the slightest surprised that Hopkins would cut corners to gain credibility, or that Jacobs would know a good S&M shop. But anyone can see that it's now the logic of the pogrom urging they be purged from historical memory. How much of Hopkins' work is bunk? How much is legit? The only way to answer that is to patiently examine all of his published cases, see how faithfully he represented the "reality" of each person's case, see whether he relied on answers elicited through leading questions during hypnosis. In other words -- actual work. The whole of Hopkins' work might be total B.S. It might not. We don't know until somebody does the work. Same goes with Jacobs. The public campaign against him seems to base itself on the idea he's a dirty pervert who was just using his quasi-therapeutic relationship with quasi-patients to get sexual thrills, asking for their panties, and so on. It is also said that he then became abusive. But Jacob's pathological streak might be just as bad but in a different way: he might be so "all in" on his alien invasion/evil alien thesis that he actually *wanted* those panties for forensic testing without any concept of how that might sound. In its own way, that would also be sign of a man both obsessed and unhinged. But the public presentation of the "facts" regarding Jacobs has been merged with more than a little of the righteous crusade. It's as if all we poor third-party observers get is dogma and pogrom with very little thought in between.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

sahgwa
Senior Member
Username: sahgwa

Post Number: 716
Registered: 3-2010
Posted on Tuesday, September 17, 2013 - 3:08 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

"It's as if all we poor third-party observers get is dogma and pogrom with very little thought in between."
Sounds about right most of the time, sadly.
Observation convinces me that there are beings of intelligence higher than human and that the only chance for mankind to advance as a whole is for individuals to make contact with such Beings.Crowley

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: