From: Carol Rainey <csrainey2.nul> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 14:27:33 -0500 Archived: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 23:14:56 -0500 Subject: The Nature of Abduction Researcher Relationships >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 09:29:33 -0600 >Subject: 'Emma Woods' [was: Special Note From Budd Hopkins] >>From: Emma Woods <e.woods33.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 05:30:31 -0800 (PST) >>Subject: Special Note From Budd Hopkins <snip> >>I think that this minimizes the damaging effects of traumatic >>false hypnotic memories on people who experience those memories >>as real. <snip> >Since your case is so extraordinarily unusual - as, one infers, >is your personality - I seriously doubt that anybody else can >draw broad conclusions from it. >Instead of employing this as an excuse to garner world-wide >attention and pity, while (one infers) depicting yourself as the >most suffering person on earth, I strongly urge you to seek the >psychiatric help that, from your own words, it is manifestly >apparent you need. Hello, Jerry and Other Listers, Let me suggest that we might learn something about the very nature of relationships between some abduction researchers and their subjects by looking at two such pairs - Hopkins/Cortile and Jacobs/Woods. Although I agree with you that a strictly public appeal for understanding is no longer serving Ms. Woods well at all, perhaps we might consider as a possibility that she's enacting a very old, tried and true biological strategy. It's engaging in a relationship that I believe, after years of observation of people having genuine anomalous experiences, sometimes occurs between the abduction researcher and the subject. In the natural world, we call it 'parasitism', where a symbiotic relationship grows up between two different species. So we might hypothesize that the host, the abduction hypnotist, has naively induced in his research subject a type of parasitic dependency on his kindly, caring, ever-present, father-knows- best persona. He, the host, gets a great deal from this relationship and continues it as long as it's clear that he's the main beneficiary of the mutually supportive relationship that parasitism tends to be. So far, so good. Now, let's talk about one other such relationship you know much more about directly and may not find so tedious: that of Linda Cortile and Budd Hopkins and their joint output of the book Witnessed: the True Story of the Brooklyn Bridge UFO Abductions. (Yes, it was a joint output. I have xeroxes of the reams of purple prose generated by Cortile, her experience, scene by scene, with pages and pages of dialogue, and presented to Hopkins for his usage.) That abduction researcher and his subject also developed an extremely close bond, with Hopkins, the host in our ongoing biological analogy, as the main beneficiary. In this case, the attached subject, Linda Cortile, also gained enormously from the relationship - socially, egoistically, artistically, emotionally, and financially. She was literally enfolded into Hopkins' world of NYC Ufology. I am not downplaying or denying the anguish Cortile went through in the first couple of years, but ultimately, I suggest, she benefited and her life changed for the better. The differences between the postures exhibited by abductees Linda Cortile and Emma Woods are quite striking - possibly the reason for the displays of animus. Cortile has been the dutiful, good parasite, grooming her host, Hopkins, now for over _twenty_ years. She has supported his every word, his every claim. They've appeared together in media interviews, at UFO conferences and on social occasions for the past two decades. And Hopkins continues to support her even when he knows she has lied to him about the case. If Witnessed ever does make it to Hollywood, Cortile still stands to profit financially. This is working well for everybody, including the devoted followers of their leader. She confirms him: he confirms her: the followers get to keep on believing. Ms. Woods, though, has _not_ played the 'good parasite' who continually affirms the host. But then, Jacobs has not played the 'good host', either. Everything got topsy-turvy when the abductee stood up for herself and pointed out that, actually, it was Jacobs who had turned into the parasite. The upshot of comparing these two cases seems to suggest that even when these relationships appear to be working, as with Cortile and Hopkins, they may not be working to help us know anything that is verifiable or accurate about a very real phenomenon. It appears to many people interested in this field now that the mutually supportive 'parasitism' model that is UFO abduction research has imploded. People having these very real phenomenological experiences - which I've consistently respected - will need to find another model of inquiry into their experiences. A model that puts their own safety first, one that puts a premium on how and by what valid methods knowledge is gained. Hopefully, Carol Rainey www.carolrainey.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.
[ Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp