UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2011 > Feb > Feb 19

Re: Budd Hopkins

From: Alfred Lehmberg <alienview.nul>
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 10:22:08 -0600
Archived: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 11:36:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins


>From: Gildas Bourdais <bourdais.gildas.nul>
>To: <post.nul>
>Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 12:16:14 +0100
>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins

>>From: Alfred Lehmberg <alienview.nul>
>>To: <post.nul>
>>Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 08:45:00 -0600
>>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

><snip>

>>>>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!

<snip>

>I have listened de to about 45 minutes of that montage, and I
>what struck most was loud, agressive sneers by two people whose
>names I did catch. Could you tell who they are?

Again Sir, and not meaning to be flippant, I was most struck by
the "caught masturbating" giggles, the child-like whining, the
smooth-voiced encouragements to manifest psychological illness
in another, the explicated anxiousness over pecuniary concerns,
and the exasperated expressions similarly provoked when a pet
won't do as it is commanded... of one person in particular,
could you tell me who _that_ was?

The two voices I suspect you refer to, Mr. Bourdais, were two
pretty sincere persons on a podcast of increasing popularity - a
result of that sincerity I suspect - but guys covering a story
they felt should be told and playing clips we can't _actually_
denigrate to 'montage,' in order to illustrate that story. I add
that you don't have to listen to the "loud and aggressive
sneers," at all... I put links to the provenance material up a
few days ago, right here.

>The question here is not just that Emma Woods recorded during
>two years her private conversations with Jacobs - a fact alone
>which raises questions, like possible premeditation for future
>action -

Ouch - I really have to stop here for hearty laughter! Why can't
Emma Woods just be an intelligent person who, deeply interested
in what was happening to her psychology and physicality, provide
for a rational and complete audit trail outlining same? My
review shows, not "premeditation," "BPD," or "narcissism"... on
the contrary. I see only the attention to task organization,
prioritization, time management, and focus on detail one would
expect, for example, in a competent military officer. A soldier
you'd want on you team, actually, given you fought fair, eh?

>but that she published a montage of the most damaging
>parts of them. Would you accept to be treated that way, Mr.
>Lehmberg?

Again, I'm having difficulty processing your use of the word
'montage', Mr. Bourdais, seemingly as a cherry-picked
contruction contrived to provide disinformation, so I really
can't accept the premise of your question enough to provide you
with the answer you would appear to want to have, eh? I offer
that if there are any "damaging parts," at all, to which you
would refer, this can only speak more loudly to Jacobs'
detriment, than Woods.

>A question: why did she ask for his help and send him hundreds
>of pages about her case, in the first place? That behavior looks
>rather peculiar to me.

Why is that! She felt she had a case on something and had a lot
of data in its regard. There were experts suggested to her by a
licenced theripist is my understanding. Maybe she was trying to
front load, prime the pump, I don't know... be efficient?
Moreover, when it's in service to the researcher, isn't that
data more appreciated than when things go south with a research
_subject_ and the otherwise appreciated mass and detail of
personal information can then be used as evidence of psychosis
and pathology of the person? Now there's _real_ peculiarity.

>Another question: do you know who sent Dr Jacobs a message to
>make him believe that he was threatened by a "hybrid"?

How can I know, Sir? Had you considered Dr Jacobs himself?

>What was going on, there? Looks like she was not alone in that
>story.

She started alone, I understand, just her and her torment much
like anyone else in the nexus of the phenomenon... she reached
out to 'professionals' and is seemingly betrayed when she won't
play the obligatory ball.

>Simply stated, that case is not at all clear to me.

Nor me, Sir. Though it seems to be getting clearer all the time.


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 Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com