UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2011 > Apr > Apr 8

Re: Priests Of High Strangeness - II

From: Carol Rainey <csrainey2.nul>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 12:54:44 -0400
Archived: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 11:31:07 -0400
Subject: Re:  Priests Of High Strangeness - II


>From: Gildas Bourdais <bourdais.gildas.nul>
>To: <post.nul>
>Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 10:53:22 +0200
>Subject: Re: Priests Of High Strangeness - II

>This is not what I wrote. The case is not wrapped up and proven,
>either way, it seems to me.

>You say it is proven to be false and my opinion is you are
>wrong.

>>From: Carol Rainey <csrainey2.nul>
>>To: post.nul
>>Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 11:23:51 -0400
>>Subject: Re: Priests Of High Strangeness - II

<snip>

>>This is your implied summary of what it takes to do UFO
>>abduction research: it's gotta _feel_ good.

>>Let me paraphrase how you assess the validity of the Brooklyn
>>Bridge Case (1989):

>>"I like Mr.X and I have warm fuzzies for Ms. Y.  Therefore my
>>gut feelings about these perfectly nice people makes me 100%
>>convinced that their reports of an extravagant abduction story
>>that goes on for 12 years, involves casts of hundreds, both in
>>the skies and on the ground, secret service agents, bugged
>>telephones, chases through Lower Manhattan, top international
>>diplomats, extraterrestrials with intentions of making their
>>presence known to the world, the oversight of George Bush I, the
>>Pope, and the CIA and FBI, the principal character's ongoing
>>romance with a shadowy, never-seen government agent named
>>Richard-which romance began in childhood and continued through
>>production of a child (possibly)-all this and more I am willing
>>to accept as a given.

Gildas,

Perhaps the mis-communication is due to your use of a non-native
language. I was _paraphrasing_ (interpreting) your argument to
Kathy: you felt the Cortile case seemed valid because you liked
the people involved in it.

And, please, point out exactly where I said that the case is
_proven_ to be false? I have never said that. My investigation
of and film about the case are not completed yet. When they are,
I'll let you know.

After my own _independent_ investigation of the Linda Cortile
case, I drew different conclusions than Hopkins and his faithful
did about the trust- worthiness of the major subject. For which
temerity, elements of the UFO community see fit to tar and
feather me - you among them.

<snip>

>Carol, when you get tired of demolishing your ex-husband, I
>suggest that you study your own cases and apply your high
>scientific standards to them.

I will continue posting rough cut video clips about the Cortile
case - one for which I contracted with both Budd and Linda for
the rights to investigate and document on video. They signed off
on that.

My investigation was done _independently_ of my former husband.
Got it? It's my work, my findings, my conclusions about a highly
controversial case.

A number of us have been laughing this morning at your response.
I'd fully predicted that you (and others) would respond only
with "the scorned ex- wife" argument. I'd called for bets that
you would, but unfortunately, nobody would lay money on the fact
that you wouldn't. This has become such the standard cliche
response - totally ignoring any comment of substance that I make
- that it's nothing but ludicrous at this point.

Over the years, I estimate that there have been at least two
dozen critical articles or book chapters devoted specifically to
the faulty research of this particular case, online and in
print.

Yet not one of them was attacked for knowing too much, for being
too close to the subjects, as I have been. No, Hopkins and the
faithful tried to demolish all of those other commentators by
saying they just didn't know _enough_. They were ignorant by
virtue of being armchair analysts.

Clearly, I was close enough to see both the full picture and the
details. I could see what was included in the official story and
what was intentionally _not_ included - one form of investigator
dishonesty. That makes "the angry ex-wife" blustering attempt to
discredit me the only argument you can muster.

It's getting a bit limp. Try out the substance. Who knows? You
all might find it challenging.


Cordially,

Carol Rainey
www.carolrainey.com



Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

At:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/

These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.

[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com