From: J. Maynard Gelinas <j.maynard.gelinas.nul> Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:26:20 -0500 Archived: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 06:29:15 -0500 Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins >From: Carol Rainey <csrainey2.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 12:09:01 -0500 >Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins >>From: Gildas Bourdais <bourdais.gildas.nul> >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 15:47:39 +0100 >>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins <snip> >>Your answer amazes me again. Of course you talked about Budd >>Hopkins and you did all you could to destroy his crediblity. You >>even made a pejorative remark about his artistic career! >Mr. Bourdais, <snip> >In my Paratopia article, I stated one specific fact you took >exception to and have raised _twice_ now - that the pinnacle of >Budd Hopkins' art career occurred many years earlier. >Statement of fact. Check out when his one-man shows were held. >Check out if any major museums who bought an early work have >ever actually displayed his work. Check out Christies. Check out >art auction indexes. Check out MoMA's current comprehensive, >retrospective of American Abstract Expressionists. If you know >anything about any of this I'd be quite startled. <snip> So you think Mr. Hopkins' art sucks. Fine. However, what does any of this have to do with claims that Hopkins and/or Jacobs may have committed ethical violations in their use of hypnosis on subjects, or claims that their conclusions were faulty on the facts discovered? Point me to a Belmont Commission violation and I'll listen. But through these many threads all I read is more personal invective than factual claims of official wrongdoing. An official report of wrongdoing by a human subject review board committee would be of interest here. Please post a link, or quotes from an official report available to the public. As for your assertions that: - Hypnosis is a poor means for determining a subject's truthful vs. confabulated statements (poor evidence gathering methods) - Hopkins and Jacobs drew poor conclusions based on the evidence they did uncover (poor evidence analysis methods) I think you'll find many who agree with these claims. I'm highly skeptical of the so-called 'abduction phenomena' as depicted by the Hopkins-Jacobs-Mack trio. But that doesn't make their work worthless. Many others disagree. That's the norm in all fields, even - apparently - for those on the fringe. It just means that _I'm_ skeptical of their conclusions too. Which is as it ought to be. But I have to say, like Mr. Clark, who seems to have had his full with this thread (I don't blame him), your messages come across as highly biased and as personal attacks against Hopkins and Jacobs. By your own admission, you had a personal relationship with one of them. Why should list readers not be skeptical of your motives given that this relationship once existed? Put it a better way, even assuming that everything you write is true: that Hopkins' and Jacobs' abduction evidence gathering and analysis methods were faulty; that Bud Hopkins' art work truly sucks; and that thus Mr. Hopkins is a no-good very bad man... so what? How do your claims benefit resolving the question of what so-called abduction phenomena is all about? -M 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