From: Carol Rainey <csrainey2.nul> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 12:46:37 -0500 Archived: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 08:33:05 -0500 Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins >From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 22:35:33 +0000 >Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins <snip> >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. <snip> Mr. McGonagle, Although I don't know you, I'd like to express my thanks for your reading of my article Priests Of High Strangeness (Paratopia Magazine, January 15th) without prejudice and with actual attention to the serious problems I raised that exist in some abduction researchers' work. Like you, I once fully supported the ETH hypothesis but after becoming aware of flaws in the work, I began my own search into the source of this mystery through previously 'forbidden' literature and other 'forbidden' researchers - forbidden through the scorn and distain of my then life partner Budd Hopkins. Also like you, I insist on my freedom and right to hold two ideas simultaneously - that some individuals are having genuinely anomalous experiences which I fully respect and that we do not know what the source of these experiences are nor what they mean. <snip> >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 also appreciate your perception that it is extremely unfair of people on this list to totally disenfranchise my trained observations of flawed research methods - based solely on a relationship that dissolved many years ago and where the heat has left the building, so to speak. I deliberately did not write about this subject until that was the case. And, yes, you are correct that there _is_ a great deal more that could have been disclosed about even more egregious violations between researcher/healer and his subjects/patients. I didn't choose to take that low road. I stuck to the observed and multiple ways in which Hopkins, as well as Jacobs, have manipulated both subjects and material to develop their shared and chosen slant on the narrative. Many in the community, however, _have_ chosen to take the cheap and easy road to discrediting my informed perceptions. >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, >Joe Thanks again for fair treatment and a willingness to consider the validity of a different perspective. Carol Rainey 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