From: Alfred Lehmberg <alienview.nul> Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 08:45:00 -0600 Archived: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 10:10:46 -0500 Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins >From: Gildas Bourdais <bourdais.gildas.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:01:45 +0100 >Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins >>From: Alfred Lehmberg <alienview.nul> >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 08:39:45 -0600 >>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins >>>From: Gildas Bourdais <bourdais.gildas.nul> >>>To: <post.nul> >>>Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 11:18:44 +0100 >>>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins >>>>From: Carol Rainey <csrainey2.nul> >>>>To: post.nul >>>>Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 13:56:23 -0500 >>>>Subject: Re: Alien Abduction Research [Was Budd Hopkins] ><snip> >>>>I'd like to raise the question of what alien abduction >>>>researchers can and should do to substantiate their claims. >>><snip> >>>>Simply stated, these abduction researchers claim they have >>>>evidence that aliens from elsewhere are physically invading >>>>Earth with an ongoing, vigorously implemented plan to alter the >>>>genome of the entire human species. This will bring about an all >>>>but invisible take-over of the human race and the planet. We are >>>>powerless to stop them. >>>Carol, >>>You imply here that Budd Hopkins shares completely the views of >>>David Jacobs about a dramatic take-over of the human species. They >>>are good friends, but your statement is plainly false. Budd has >>>departed many times from that publicly. >><snip> >>Even true and presuming that it _is_ true, Sir, it just doesn't >>matter. >>Budd Hopkins stands foursquare behind David Jacobs' _entirely_ >>suspect, _baldly_ suspicious and _serially_ salacious ...where >>the forthcoming are not mean, misogynistic, and utterly >>mendacious, mind you... methods, practices, and activities. >>Foursquare! >Mr Lehmberg: >It matters a lot to me. It is plainly wrong to say that Budd >Hopkins entirely agrees with David Jacobs. I know that. Sir! All respect! That is _immaterial_! Budd Hopkins stands foursquare behind the conduct and activity of David Jacobs as regards the Emma Woods affair! Ulterior, exterior, or peripheral disagreements between the two are not, and have never been, the issue! >And I just want to tell you that I am shocked by your tone and >vocabulary in this difficult discussion. > You want to know what shocks _me_ Mr. Bourdais? That there is not _more_ "tone and vocabulary" with regard to one person throwing another under a pathological bus, seemingly for self- interested pecuniary concerns, and then hiding behind another's _illness_ while prosecuting, facilitating and otherwise nurturing _foundationless_ slanders against the person run over! That's 220 over your 110. >Now, I don't have a real opinion about the problem of Dr Jacobs >with Emma Woods, but I do have a few things to say. If you have no opinion re: Dr Jacobs or Emma Woods, Sir, then we would have nothing to talk _about_! See, that's the issue at hand. >First, that >I met David Jacobs several times and remember a very courteous, >friendly, calm and decent man. Me too! I can bear out everything you say here! Moreover, I bought his books, attended his lectures and workshops, talked to him (and Hopkins too) for hours on the phone for podcasts last century. Hugely courteous! Certainly friendly! Warmly calm! Unquestionably decent! So? No really, so!? >The present accusations against >him don't fit with that. No! No they don't! Begs the question! Where the _hell_ can such accusation raise its ugly head ,at all... but that the _evidence_ for such must be wide and deep. >Secondly, regarding legal aspect of the >case, I ask again: is it legal to tape private conversations In as much as the _provenance_ of significantly damning taped conversations, extant, are not germane to the issue of _evidenced_ extreme psychological abuse, I don't _know_ or _care_ what the legal aspects are Mr. Bourdais. That's for the guild of white powdered wigs to fret and otherwise drool over... and a _dodge_ from the issue at hand: Mind Rape/assault, I submit, okeydoked, it would seem, by the more landed members of our community, a community turning a convenient blind eye to impropriety, unprofessionalism, and even sociopathy in the case of Emma Woods. >during one or two years and publish a montage selected to >discredit the man? Have you reviewed those montages, yourself, Sir? They are not montages you'd come to find; they are, I feel, an audit path for evidentiary maliciousness and unequivocal in that. I went in loaded for bear on Jacobs behalf, but came out with my flesh crawling, entirely askance and akimbo with Dr. Jacobs. Revolted. Outraged, Mr. Bourdais. He tried to provoke her mental illness, it would strongly seem, and continues to slander her with the altogether foundationless! Does the man discredit himself, apart from Emma Woods? I submit that he does, to the nines in spades, or I would _not_ be jumping up and down like this! >Could not she be sued for that? > Sued for _recording her abuse_? Maybe! Again, _so_? By way of illustration: The secret tape that Lisbeth Salander made of Nils Bjurman raping her was probably illegal, too. Only, she had nothing else with which to defend herself, one, and two, that conjectured illegal recording did not facilitate a lie, after all; to the contrary, it told too big a truth! I'm unrepentant, Sir, as it pertains to vocabulary and tone. alienview.nul www.AlienView.net AVG Blog -- http://alienviewgroup.blogspot.com/ U F O M a g a z i n e -- www.ufomag.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