UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2000 > Aug > Aug 14

UpDate: Re: John Carpenter - Apathy/Damage Done - Hart

From: Gary Hart <geehart@frontiernet.net>
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 21:24:05 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 19:52:32 -0400
Subject: UpDate: Re: John Carpenter - Apathy/Damage Done - Hart


 >Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 02:41:15 +0100
 >From: clearlight@t-online.de (Josh Goldstein)
 >Subject: Re: John Carpenter - Apathy And The Damage Done
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >Quite a while back Walt Andrus stated that those files were from
 >Carpenter's personal research and had nothing to do with MUFON.
 >I don't see where MUFON has any responsibility at this point.
 >They don't have an ethical liability because the files were
 >redacted, according to Carpenter.

 >Thank you,

 >Josh Goldstein

Josh,

To my knowledge one and only one file has come back and it was
not redacted. There may be others but I am not aware of them. I
can't prove that all files were or weren't redacted so the case
can ride on two other issues:

1) Does MUFON allow officers, board members and members to
declare that all their case work is "personal" so that MUFON's
Code of Ethics does not cover their activities? This would seem
a hole large enough to drive a truck through so why have a Code
of Ethics in the first place but to deceive everyone if this is
the true? Shouldn't John accept the Code of Ethics controls as a
condition of his office as Director of Abduction Research or is
this too much to ask? Isn't trust between abductees and his
office essential?

I make this point because he violates several sections of the
Code of Ethics whether he acts as a hobbyist or not. He can take
his choice, though perhaps not legally, but he can't escape
clean in any case. He violates clear ethics procedure with both
choices.

I've read the Code. How many here have to see if this is the case?

2) Carpenter does have a legal responsibility connected with his
medical license which supercedes any other process. This issue
will be decided by someone other than MUFON.

As I read everything legal I've seen, Carpenter is exactly like
a medical doctor in that he cannot disclose files at least
without the person's consent. John never had them sign any form
of any kind. He in effect tried to take control of personal
mental health information, for that is what rooting around in
someone's subconscious with hypnosis becomes, without a
patient's consent.

Don't you start by giving abductees control over what might come
out of their session especially since it may cause an enormous
fear to know what happened during missing time? How about the
abductee's who said they did not want their material sent
anywhere for any reason as a condition for their participation
in having hypnosis done on them? Do we just run over them
without a second thought? It seems that is what some of you are
suggesting and this leave me mystified as to what we need to
violate anyone's rights to do research?

All statements by MUFON officials to-date were made without all
the evidence in hand. I had to provide a stack of it to them as
MUFON refused to get involved at any level before I came along
and forced the issue. So much for responsibility to abductees
and their needs. This is the lesson. Anyone's future contact
with MUFON and NIDS will be in full knowledge of these facts.

Gary Hart