UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2011 > Feb > Feb 7

Re: Budd Hopkins

From: Carol Rainey <csrainey2.nul>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 12:17:02 -0500
Archived: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 19:35:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins

>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul>
>To: <post.nul>
>Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 09:52:16 -0600
>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins


>I will simply state (as a divorced man myself) that ex-spouses'
>claims about the character of their ex-spouses need to be read
>with due caution.

>Ufology's abduction era ended when it became apparent that
>theory had exceeded evidence by a considerable margin.


I've tried to avoid getting pulled into the debate about the
quality of abduction research since my Jan 15th article High
Priests Of Strangeness appeared in Paratopia Magazine
(http://www.paratopia.net). But I'd like to respond to comments
regarding my reliability as a witness to abduction cases that I
worked on with my former husband Budd Hopkins for ten years and
videotaped for a feature documentary and for Budd's use in his
lectures. It was especially disappointing to find Jerome Clark,
a guy with mental contrails that have always been a pleasure to
observe =96 how even he yanks out the old pre-feminist cliche that
a former spouse's statements about an ex-spouse "need to be read
with due caution."

Anybody recall the last time such a comment was made about a
male UFO investigator? I don't. This is a male-dominated field
and such facile dismissal of serious concerns raised by someone
outside the old boy's club is not terribly promising for a field
that has not even learned to tie its investigative shoes.

So it's with some amusement that I'd like to add an equally
cautionary note - that any testimony from a man's good male buddy
in a beleaguered, marginal field should also be read with due

But that's me he's talking about and if I'd only been the UFO
'wife', I wouldn't be saying a word now. I wouldn't have been
compelled to go on a yearlong internal odyssey to sort out what
I actually believed about my decade inside abduction research.
The High Priests article was written to help me to come to
terms with my own role in that work (even in a minor way). I
felt personally responsible for some part in the deceptive
practices and in the unethical treatment of individuals. This
was about _my_ coming clean, so that I can move on. When you
clean house, dirt turns up on the cloth. On mine, as well as on
other people's.

I regret, too, that the timing isn't good, but this is _my_
truth. It was gained at great cost, and it was full term when
it was ready, not when it was expedient or seemly.

Actually, the question for Jerry is: How close-up and personal
are his own observations about Hopkins' work, his ethics, his
research protocols, and his protection of de facto patients?
Jerry clearly feels quite an affinity for Budd Hopkins as a
person. But Clark was, by his own admission, a distant observer
of the alien abduction phenomenon as it developed over the past
four decades. He knows what experiencers might have told him or
did not tell him, but he was not there. He was not inside the
room on a day-to-day basis, watching abduction research evolve
before his own eyes.

But I was there. And I've raised some very serious and quite
justified questions about this research. Let's not dismiss the
hard questions just because they're asked by someone who was
directly involved with both the work and the worker.

I was an active participant in the research of some of Budd's
cases and I've written only about the cases I was directly
involved in. I'm also exceptionally well qualified to address
the research issues involved. For over 20 years in Boston, I
worked closely with research scientists funded by National
Institutes of Health, making films about their work. You don't
do research for the NIH without plenty of research protocols,
testable hypotheses, peer review and subject protection measures
in place.

Abduction research - and by extension, what can be known about the
unknown - follows none of those tried and true methods of science
for the development of knowledge. Over the decade, I gradually
saw that two abduction researchers, Hopkins and Jacobs, were
building on sand. No, they had not invented the phenomenon. But
they did build or create a distinct new narrative that was not
present in Bullard's 1987 study of classic elements of
abduction, referred to by Clark.

Hopkins and Jacobs have introduced in Intruders, Witnessed,
Secret Life and The Threat the following as the most common
narrative elements - the sexual/reproductive emphasis of the
abduction, the hierarchy of greys, sickly hybrid babies, stolen
fetuses, Mindscan and extrapolation of human thoughts, the
aliens' artificially-induced bonding with human captives, sado-
masochistic adult male hybrids walking among us and given to
violent rape, the subversive alien take-over of the planet and
the human species.

Shouldn't we be concerned about the methods used to discover"
such alarming, species-altering information? Only if we want to
know what is true.

Most of all, we need to understand that these researchers engage
their subjects within a highly suggestive, contextual
environment - nothing done with evil intent, but out of ignorance
and, eventually, out of conviction in their own perceptions of
the phenomenon.

"Leading" happens way _before_ hypnotic regression. It happens
in preliminary phone calls, in first interviews, in all the
books, articles, movies, commercials, and cultural tropes
absorbed by people before they even enter that special place
where they meet the media-anointed expert on alien abduction".
There's a substantial body of research about the suggestive
environment" and the influence of context" on the creation of
recalled memories. It's not possible to deal with this subject
in such short form, so I'd encourage people to seek out this

Here's what arises out of all the feedback I've gotten,
including from many of the old time researchers: They praised me
for having the courage to speak up about the shaky research
practices of abductionists, something many of them privately
questioned for years. If so many people realized that
Hopkins/Jacobs were using really bad research tactics, why
didn't anyone speak up? People who were considered their
friends, not ones on the rather lengthy enemies list? They might
have had an influence. People like Jerome Clark, even?

The point is, the way abduction research is currently being
done, outsiders can only judge the methods by what the
researchers tell them they do. And as an insider for a time -
and someone with an understanding of scientific method - I felt
the responsibility to speak up and say: Those methods are
faulty, dangerous, and the perceptions are hopelessly skewed
toward the disastrous, the horrifically invasive, sexualized,
and lurid abduction scenario. So it's time for a course
correction. Because at present, we can't really say we know
much, if anything, about this real and mysterious human

In that last matter, at least, Jerry Clark and I are definitely
in accord.

Carol Rainey

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



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 | Previous 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