UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2011 > Feb > Feb 11

Re: Budd Hopkins

From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 22:35:33 +0000
Archived: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 06:32:11 -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


I have been fighting my impulse to take part in this thread for
some time, but I think it is time I contributed a a couple of
broad observations.

I doubt that Carol or Emma have ever heard of me, my views have
been expressed on this List and elsewhere so to summarise them
for the benefit of anyone who doesn't already know them (and is
in the slightest bit interested):

- I have always doubted the value of hypnotic regression.

- I consider that the use of HR outside a clinical context to be
irresponsible, and potentially dangerous to the (person) subject
and damaging and misleading for the (UFO) subject.

- I regard people who apply HR without a clinical background to
be nothing more than 'dabblers', unable to recognise the dangers
involved and unprepared to deal with the problems caused by
their actions when they arise. I also have the (admittedly
subjective) impression that the dabblers are prone to shirk
responsibility for their actions when things to go wrong.

- I also feel that HR has become a form of entertainment. At one
time, I recall that someone was actually advertising along the
lines of 'let us create a full-blown abduction experience for
you for $100. Mastercard and Visa accepted', much in the same
vein as past-life regressions (just how many Henry VIIIs and
Joan of Arcs were there?).

That isn't to say that I consider all dabblers to be bad people,
just as people who conduct car repairs or home repairs badly
aren't intrinsically bad. However, I struggle to understand why
they persist in dabbling when others have pointed out to them
the dangers of their actions and to that degree, they are at
least negligent. I was especially disturbed by Budd's focus on
children who are in the main far more vulnerable and
impressionable than adults.

Without knowing the individuals concerned personally (Carol,
Emma, Budd, and David) it is difficult to reach a meaningful
conclusion based on the internet traffic in progress at the
moment as to who is at fault, but given my viewpoint as
expressed above, I am naturally inclined to sympathise with
Carol and especially Emma.

I have had some minor dialogue with David in the past, and he
was helpful and friendly. I suspect that all this stuff has led
to delusion on his part. I don't recall having any discourse
directly with Budd.

When I first read the paratopia article from:


which was also posted to the list at:


one of my first thoughts was and still is that Carol appears to
me to have deliberately avoided turning the situation into a
post marital breakdown bitching session against her ex partner.
I think the suggestion that she has done so is extremely unfair.
I am sure if she wanted to, there is probably a lot more dirty
laundry she could pull out of the basket, but it wouldn't be
relevant to the topic in hand.

I don't know where this current situation will lead, I actually
hope it does end up in court and that David Jacobs finds himself
having to pay out massive damages. That might cause people to
think twice before dabbling with people's minds.

That's my tuppence worth (ten cents for our colonial readers).

regards, and respect to Carol and Emma,


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