From: Kyle King <kyleking.nul>
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 12:00:26 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 13:29:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Hopkins' Technique - King


>From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 13:38:28 +0100
>Subject: Re: Hopkins' Technique

<snip>

>1. Hopkins insistance that Ryan construct a story about the
>alien image, in spite of the fact that Ryan clearly did not
>recognise the image. This is an overt example of leading a
>witness, surely? Furthermore, it isn't dependent on how the
>producer edited the final programme, no matter how the show was
>cut, Hopkins still did this.

>2. Hopkins' encouragment of Ryan when the story starts to follow
>a line that he wants it to take and Ryan looks to him for some
>kind of cue, eg, the removal of a sleeping person from their
>bedroom and Hopkins' remark "That's a good story". Again, there
>is no evidence of editing in this sequence, this was Hopkins'
>actual response in the situation described.

>3. Hopkins again overtly encourages a particular story-line with
>his remark "That's right." in direct response to Ryan's comment
>"I bet somebody took me". There is again no signs of any
>editing of this segment.

<snip>

>The differences between adult and child Psychology can be
>compared to driving a school bus - would you let your child get
>onto a school bus if you knew that the driver is only qualified
>to drive a car? He can obviously drive things with four wheels,
>a steering wheel, a clutch, accelerator, and brake.


Hi Joe,

I think you've put your finger on an important aspect of this
thread.

Parents are (in the main) by necessity acutely aware of their
child's interactions with adults. The man offering candy, the
other daddies in Cub Scouts, the priest at the church etc., all
provide a source of suspicion or at least scrutiny. This makes
parents trained observers of such interactions, I believe.

I saw the scenes you cited exactly as you have described. I saw
how the conversation was subtly steered through expression, and
response. Even with audio alone, it was clear to me that a path
was being laid, and the child dutifully followed. No one is at
fault here, but the conclusions drawn are suspect at best.

I do not believe Budd Hopkins is a fraud, or has any ulterior
motive. Yet I believe that people, especially children, are
supremely susceptible to suggestion, even where there is no
obvious attempt to supply one. And I believe that we all allow
bias to enter into our interactions, even when working our
hardest not to.

This particular event may not be a good example of Mr. Hopkins'
techniques, but it is an example. Editing or no.

Parents are keenly observant of child/adult interactions. These
days, a parent has to be. That we pick up on subtleties is not
amazing...it is simply a response to past and current events.

Your post is refreshingly clear and unambiguous. Bravo!


Best Regards,

Kyle