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 <snip> >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. <snip> 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 caution. 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 information. 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 phenomenon." In that last matter, at least, Jerry Clark and I are definitely in accord. Carol Rainey http://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 | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp