The creation of the Abduction Phenomenon (new video) : Manhattan Abduction

reply to post by zimishey

OK say I came to one of you and said I had had an experience of seeing a UFO, and then had missing time, and I was very disturbed about something but I don't know what. Just what would you recommend me do?

This is the heart of the problem. If you wanted to explore the possibilities of 'missing time,' you'd find it difficult to get an unbiased person. The 'abduction researchers' would inevitably provide you with a standard scenario. Health care professionals (psychologists etc) would likely be on their guard as soon as you mentioned UFOs and 'missing time.'

Possibly, doing nothing would be the best course of action? By this I mean avoiding medical or abduction researchers. Write down as many details as possible. More credible researchers/investigators would recommend this strategy and it helps to keep the core events uncontaminated by memory alterations in later years. Certainly, people like Kevin Randle and Jacques Vallee favour this approach.

Years ago, a UK researcher Jenny Randles used a hypnotic regression approach to explore a UFO event from her younger days. Unsurprisingly, her recall under hypnosis showed similar features to the 'abduction phenomena.' What made it all the more interesting was she'd actually kept a diary and had detailed the incident at the time it happened. The 'hypnotised' account and the one in the diary were very different. Amongst many others, she concluded that hypnosis was not a valid tool of investigation.

reply to post by zimishey


Yes, it's the key question. I guess I'd ask first why you were asking me, and what you wanted to find out. I'd try to find out what you knew about the subject before your experience, and whether you think that knowledge might have influenced your recall. I'd explain that, whatever you might have heard, hypnosis is pretty much useless at investigating the simplest past event, and that you should avoid it at every turn. What you can't remember consciously, probably didn't happen - if you've had a bad experience, the problem is likely to be more in putting it behind you than remembering it.

I'd also, depending on what you know and where you live, advise you who not to talk to unless you wanted confirmation that you had been abducted. There are, of course, people who want to hear just that.

Beyond that, I'd explain what I think about the likelihood of abduction as a possibly objective experience (eg, someone in the room with you could observe what was happening), and then talk with you, preferably not too seriously, and never telling you what had happened to you. In the end, that's for you to work out, not me or any other researcher.

If I thought you were ill - anything from a broken leg to a psychological issue - I'd advise you to go and see your own doctor (not one with a degree in History). I'd do that because I have no relevant knowledge, and there will be plenty of others who can be of more help.

I really can't guess what, if anything, I might say or do next. So long as you hadn't been harmed by talking to me, hadn't been encouraged in any beliefs that might cause you to harm yourself, and had the knowledge to set your own experience in a real-world context, I'd probably be content.

reply to post by IsaacKoi

Nice post, OP! Don't even try, though. The people who believe do not want to change.

It's too much for them to admit that all of it's pseudoscience and mistaken.

My hope is that some people come out of this enlightened and less gullible. Society needs people like that. Ther're too many 60 second sound bites. Too many stories taken as fact. We need change.

Two words that pop in my head are science and math. We need more of that and less junk science.

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
As some of you may know, ufo/abduction researcher Budd Hopkins' former wife (Carol Rainey) has recently been rather critical of Budd's research.

She has now released a video (which she has stated is the first in a series) about the research methods used by some of the leading UFO abduction investigators--research that is:

"flawed in methodology, can be unsafe for subjects, lacks oversight, and is even unethical, at times".

Hi IsaacKoi, here are some of my thoughts about it.

I think that because the UFO abduction phenomenon is an extreme complex phenomenon it is very well possible that such things do happen at times, but no one ever claimed or can even expecting that the research method used by some of those leading UFO abduction investigators is the best method.
But what other option has she to offer then to all those people ?
They cannot fall back on our scientific community, because they let them stay completely in the cold so to say and ignore that phenomenon as much as possible.
So until there is no serious investigation expected being done by our scientific community regarding the UFO abduction phenomenon, it is in my opinion better to do at least something for all those people then nothing at all.
And I have the impression that it works pretty well for many.

The phenomenon and Budd Hopkins work was taken very seriously by John E Mack, now deceased.

John E. Mack, M.D. (1929-2004), Pulitzer Prize-winning author and Professor of Psychiatry at the Harvard Medical School.

And that was that, as far as Mack was concerned, until some 20 years later, when a friend invited him to meet Budd Hopkins. Hopkins, a New York artist and sculptor, is one of the leading investigators of reports by individuals who claim to have been abducted by UFOs "I said, 'Who's he?' - which shows you how familiar I was with the phenomenon," says Mack. When the friend explained Hopkins' work, Mack responded, "What, There must be something wrong with him and the people he meets with." But on January 10, 1990 -Mack remembers the date as if it were a birthday or an anniversary - the two men met and spent a few hours discussing the cases Hopkins had researched. The studies were compelling and unlike anything Mack had come across in nearly 40 years of clinical psychiatric work; he knew immediately that the final word on UFOs no longer rested with Sagan and the Condon Committee. "I came away somewhat shaken and fascinated," he says of the meeting with Hopkins. "It was a mystery. I'd never taken abductions seriously at all. I realized at this point that this was something I had no way to explain."

www.johnemackinstitute.org...

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
Carol Rainey states that the video "tells the story of how one key witness was discovered to be a clever (but not totally resolved) hoax".

When I look very closely to how Budd Hopkins name is written in this picture which I took out of that video, I see no undisputable clear resemblance between both handwritings which would prove that both are written by Janet Kimball.
I see in fact pretty great differences.
Could it be that perhaps disinformation is at work here?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/df851af6138b.jpg[/atsimg]

So, because of the things I saw in that video, I am not convinced yet that this case is a clever (but not totally resolved) hoax".
But I would not be surprised that all is done to make it a hoax.
Although I really find what Kandinsky said here a very good point.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Based on the footage from the point where ‘Kimball’ claimed to have seen the incident, it seems unlikely that she could have seen what she claimed to have seen. Imagine that distance at 3am, night-time, and being able to identify not only human figures, but what they were wearing too?

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
The series of videos promised by Carol Rainey is certain to increase the (already rather considerable) amount of controversy - even amongst ufologist - regarding alien abduction research. In particular, it is likely to cause renewed questioning about the use of hypnosis in such research.

Here in England, the use of hypnosis was suspended by the main national UFO research group (BUFORA) many years ago. Several other UFO groups and researchers in England have a similar policy of avoiding the use of hypnosis due to the dangers involved.

Few American groups and researchers have, so far as I am aware, adopted a similar policy (although I'd be in hearing about any groups that have done so
The series of videos promised by Carol Rainey is certain to increase the (already rather considerable) amount of controversy - even amongst ufologist - regarding alien abduction research.
In particular, it is likely to cause renewed questioning about the use of hypnosis in such research.

Well, it is interesting to see what John Mack said about the use of hypnosis.

More commonly, abductees report what Mack calls a "margin of consciousness," where memory recalls an experience to a certain point and then blanks out, leaving individuals with chunks of unaccounted-for time.

Under hypnosis, a practice criticized by disbelievers but defended by Mack as an important tool for uncovering repressed information, experiencers are taken back to the last moment they consciously remember, such as the appearance of a small being in their bedroom or the presence of a blue light.

www.johnemackinstitute.org...

So, as far as I can see it, are doing those leading UFO abduction investigators despite they have also to deal with disinformation, and their research methods could be flawed in methodology, can be unsafe for subjects, lacks oversight, and is even unethical, at times, at least the best they can so far to help those people with their horrific experiences.

So, when will our scientific community step on the plate on which they already must have stepped in my opinion?

reply to post by IsaacKoi


I think you started this thread in an unfortunate way by headlining it "The creation of the Abduction Phenomenon" (it might come from Carol Rainey though), thereby implying that the Abduction Phenomenon is an artificial creation, by who? Budd Hopkins? Or by the tens of thousands of people believing and stating (under hypnosis) that they have been abducted and manipulated by non-terrestial beings?

Perhaps I don't need to tell you this, since you seem to have some knowledge of the Abduction Phenomenon, but the phenomenon itself does not stand or fall with Budd Hopkins and his research. There are plenty of other researchers with better credentials than Hopkins that have studied the phenomenon in depth and arrived at similar conclusions, all over the world. Hopkins is simply a front figure of the phenomenon because he exposed it to the media at a time when it was susceptible to it.

The phenomenon historically goes back to the biblical age and before that. Hopkins didn't invent it anymore than Kenneth Arnold invented UFOs.

I'm trying to get a grip on Carol Rainey, who has - after all - worked closely with Hopkins for more than ten years, and co-authored "Sight Unseen" with him.
While listening to her speak in recent interviews (about Hopkins), she comes off as an intelligent, talented person who's trying to buy her credibility back (as an independent filmmaker) by going after the whacky sect-leader who's spell she was once under. In other words, she's trying to re-profile herself as a sceptic inquirer.

She's got more to say about Hopkins and his work than is revealed in the clips, but let's stick to the story revealed in Hopkins book "Witnessed", which is the issue of the excerpts you posted.

It basically boils down to that one hand-writing expert, solicited by Rainey, claims that the hand-writing on an envelope containing a corroborating witness statement ("The Woman On The Bridge", Janet Kimball) sent to Hopkins actually belongs to Linda Napolitano, which is the person who was supposedly abducted. Therefore it raises the question whether the witness was invented by Napolitano, which then would rock the whole case Hopkins has been trying to build. As any good debunker would say, "When in doubt throw it out". Right? Well...

If I was a lawyer or an attorney, I would probably ask the opinion of other hand-writing experts, because they do not always reach the same conclusions. That's what a real investigator would do, just to do the job thoroughly.

Then there's the problem of the other witnesses. It's been a while since I read "Witnessed" and the research around it, but I do believe that the two "Security Agents" were positively identified as CIA agents by independent sources, and the identity of the United Nations representative, or the "Third Man," was established to be Javier Perez de Cuellar, the former Secretary General of the United Nations.

De Cuellar has been given many opportunities to deny the incident, when confronted by Hopkins and other investigators. As far as I know he has never done so, which is what I would do if it was just an invented story.

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about it, it sums it up nicely :

Numerous independent investigations have confirmed the high ranking diplomat was in fact, then UN Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar. Mr. Perez de Cuellar's identity is protected in the book, although he does not go to great length to disavow being there (it is easy to figure out who it is in reading the book). Mr. Perez de Cuellar will not "officially" comment on the matter (for obvious reasons), however privately it is clear that he has not denied being there and in fact confirmed the event, even stating the "profound effect" it had on him. ... given there has never been a denial by Mr. Perez de Cuellar, it seems clear that he may wish people to know the event happened but without risking damage to his public profile

en.wikipedia.org...érez_de_Cuéllar

So far, it seems that Rainey raises some questions concerning Napolitano and Hopkins, that's all. She's going down the same sceptic path other investigators have already done years ago, checking on the story and its players. It'll be interesting what she'll come up with next, because you need a bit more that this to sell a documentary.

Originally posted by Heliocentric
reply to post by IsaacKoi

 

I think you started this thread in an unfortunate way by headlining it "The creation of the Abduction Phenomenon" (it might come from Carol Rainey though),

Just to be clear : at the start the relevant video by Carol Rainey, the first words that appear are "Excerpt #1 @ from the documentary 'The Priests of High Strangeness : Co-creation of the UFO Alien Abduction Phenomenon".

My thread title slightly shortened that title of the documentary and added an indication that this particlar excerpt relates to the Linda Cortile case.

I'll be interested in seeing how Carol Rainey develops her series of videos, given her close involvement in Budd's research (including co-authoring a book with him, potentially making her one of the "Priests of High Strangeness" that are mentioned in her documentary's title...).

All the best,

Isaac

I remember seeing this documentary about this family who believed they had been abducted. They were very ordinary people. it was a elderly mum, with her daughter and her son/grandson.
They had been travelling along the road and had all noticed this object moving in the sky which was very bright. Eventually this UFO comes right over their car, and they then have missing time. So straightaway this is not the abduction category which happens at night.

Now, all of them were really upset about the missing time--as I would be. Jeeez I am often upset if I dont remember some actor's name I see in a drama. We all seek to KNOW. So they were upset and the older mum was reluctant to try and hynotherapist but did, and so did they all--and they all had experiences of abudction which correlated!

Now, I am wondering if those here who claim that there is no vlaue in hypnotic regression think there is no value to hypnosis at all? And that people can and do suppress things from consciousness, and forget things that happened to them in the past---very significant events. Are you saying we can remember EVERYTHING? Surely even normally things from the past , and even events of the day, become unconscious?

Originally posted by Heliocentric

The phenomenon historically goes back to the biblical age and before that.

Who decides what historical events should be interpreted as alien abductions?

Originally posted by Heliocentric

It basically boils down to that one hand-writing expert, solicited by Rainey, claims that the hand-writing on an envelope containing a corroborating witness statement ("The Woman On The Bridge", Janet Kimball) sent to Hopkins actually belongs to Linda Napolitano, which is the person who was supposedly abducted. Therefore it raises the question whether the witness was invented by Napolitano, which then would rock the whole case Hopkins has been trying to build. As any good debunker would say, "When in doubt throw it out". Right? Well...

If I was a lawyer or an attorney, I would probably ask the opinion of other hand-writing experts, because they do not always reach the same conclusions. That's what a real investigator would do, just to do the job thoroughly.

One could argue that compared to Hopkins, she's done a thorough job already.

Originally posted by Heliocentric

De Cuellar has been given many opportunities to deny the incident, when confronted by Hopkins and other investigators. As far as I know he has never done so, which is what I would do if it was just an invented story.

This doesn't mean anything. Why should he even care what some fringe writer says?

reply to post by Snippy23

I found your posts here well thought out and pretty much right on--starred them all. A lot of informative posters here for that matter.

As for evidence of alphabet agency manipulation of an age-old "mystical" issue, however, I do think some--albeit meager thus far--evidence exists.

What that ultimately means IS the question, though elusive, that keeps me fascinated.

In "Unidentified Fascist Observatories", John Judge asserts that Adamski was an asset of the CIA, who in his lecture tours throughout the 50's and 60's dispersed disinfo on behalf of the Company.www.conspiracyarchive.com...

I do believe that psy-ops adepts have practiced and perfected many techniques and have become expert in achieving multi-faceted objectives from one mission. Meme manipulation of one sort or another is in constant use. The propaganda aspects of the MSM being a ready example.

CIA psy-ops missions/involvement in the ufo community at large and especially the contactee movement seems to be sufficiently documented. I fully believe that the evidence shows that they can even whip up various kinds of cults out of our (purposely?) dysfunctional society quite easily:

The Robertson Panel thus concluded what Walter B. Smith, then Director of the CIA, had stated in a Memo to the Director of the Psychological Warfare Board regarding UFOs: “I suggest that we discuss at an early board meeting the possible offensive or defensive utilisation of these phenomenon for psychological warfare purposes.” Source

It might be of note that in the next excerpt, the assertion that the manipulation of "contactees" might have somewhat shifted to "abductees."

...The idea that contactees such as Adamski should have been spreading their message with the blessing – and backing – of the CIA seems, at first, bizarre. However, when we consider the very real benefits for psychological warfare purposes of setting up and monitoring such experiments into the way that cult beliefs spread, and the influence that they have over certain segments of the population, the motive becomes apparent. 


Still, the claims of the contactees adhered to a very specific format: individuals who make extremely unlikely claims and whom we have to believe, or not, as telling the truth. Since the 1950s, the contactee stories have largely been substituted with the “abductee” stories, which are far more subtle.

In short, rather than a person making a personal claim, it is now an “expert” who claims to have made a detailed study of someone, and finds that this person is genuine and has indeed been abducted – often against his own will and normally even without his knowledge – by alien beings, for unknown purposes.

Whereas Dulles had to personally intervene when people began to question the likes of Adamski, trying to get him to admit or prove his hoax in court, the introduction of the abductee scenario has annihilated this type of dissection and possible discreditation of the abductees, their stories and the movement...Source

And other researchers have closed that gap even further as evidenced by the curious case of chemist Leon Davidson:

...Davidson felt that Adamski himself reported tell-tale examples of government “steering” – and was aware of their involvement: “Late in 1949 four men came into the café at Palomar Gardens. Two of them had been in before and we had talked a little about the flying saucers. We began talking about flying saucers again.

One of these men was Mr. J.P. Maxfield, and another was his partner, Mr. G.I. Bloom, both of the Point Loma Navy Electronics Laboratory near San Diego. The other two men were from a similar setup in Pasadena. One was in officer’s uniform. They asked me if I would co-operate with them in trying to get photographs of strange craft moving through space…

And finally the moon was decided upon as a good spot for careful observation… And it was not too long after this meeting that I succeeded in getting what I deemed at the time to be two good pictures of an object moving through space. I first saw it as I was observing the moon.” What an amazing coincidence, that a UFO appeared where these military officers stated Adamski should look towards…Source

Flying Saucer Review 1960 (Credit to Kandinsky for Finding This)


And then we have the Betty & Barney Hill "Abduction." More alphabet agency manipulation?

...(At that stage, the Hills remembered only the UFO sighting, not the abduction.) Within 24 hours, Keyhoe had arranged for the Hills to be visited by top-level scientists, including C.D. Jackson, who had previously (definitely not coincidentally) worked on psychological warfare techniques for President Eisenhower. Stretching coincidence far beyond breaking point, Jackson already knew Major MacDonald, with whom he next interviewed the Hills.


Most importantly, it was Jackson who drew the Hills' attention to their missing time period; until he did so, the couple had not realized that their memories of that fateful night were incomplete.

It was Jackson who suggested hypnotic regression as a means of unlocking it. It was Jackson who then arranged for one of the Army's top psychiatric experts to undertake the regression (as if a civilian expert was not available?), under which the full story of the joint abduction “emerged”.
However, as many researchers have since demonstrated, a careful review of the timings actually shows that there was no missing time at all...www.philipcoppens.com...

So, I ponder. I'm rather new to ufology research, but not to academic research. And I'm sorry to rely so heavily on Mr. Coppens research here, but he does seem to be one of the few that have pursued the CIA angle somewhat more doggedly.

I rely on some of the more serious minded researchers--many of them here--to help guide me in my own research, and hope some of y'all will help me dig through any sub-par materials and point me towards material you think would help me in my search for answers.

I found all of the articles on the following page interesting and seemingly well-researched, but please correct me if wrong:

Memes:UFO Gate

I would especially like to hear thoughts and opinions on Dr. Jacques Vallee's assertions recounted in A Missing Pentacle.

reply to post by The GUT


Thanks for your comments - and coming up with the Adamski reference, which I hadn't met before. I'm put off by the 'Adam Gorightly' context, because anyone who doesn't realise that both 'The Sirius Mystery' and the Montauk Project myth have been comprehensively unravelled really shouldn't write about them.

Yet there is a real problem. We know that various US agencies have delighted in spreading all sorts of disinformation around ufology and contact, some parts of which have recently been brilliantly summarised by Mark Pilkington. If it were me, I wouldn't choose Adamski to carry any message I wanted people to believe, but then I wouldn't have supported the House un-American Committee (I hope that's right) either. Believers will find ingenious ways to spread their message. The UK didn't take UFOs seriously at all - if they had, someone at a higher grade than Nick Pope, with more than half a person providing clerical support, would have been appointed to answer the phone and reply to letters.

If it weren't for the imminent threat of an abduction and hypnosis revival - just see the speakers for the 'UFO Matrix' conference and the content of the magazine - I'd be engrossed entirely by the current hoaxing situation. When I used to speak at conferences there were always who came up to you afterwards and supplied amazing revelations which some of us took seriously and passed on to the wider public. Others would write, or phone, and really want to engage you.

Now, the pressure is really on. Nick Redfern - undoubtedly one of our best writers and communicators - has chosen to both listen to and publish the claims of people he can't identify, and consequently they pretty much fill a number of his recent books. I don't disagree with his choice, because it opens the debate and shares the evidence with the rest of us. But there are a great many people and sources involved, and less straightforward figures in the field - I'm thinking of the Disclosure and Exopolitics people (also supported by UFO Matrix!) - will cling to the poorest hoax in the hope of validation for their strange and confusing prophecies. So, of course, people come up with material which in the end will make them look foolish.

Perhaps the purest form of hoaxing in our (ho ho) field has been circle-making, maybe running for three decades now. I don't think the SAS is out there with planks and rope - I think it's just slightly sophisticated fun. I suggest that now, and looking at accounts of UFOs, encounters, interference with the normal pattern of life given in, say, the last ten years, we should probably assume misapprehension first, and hoax second. Only if they really stand up to scrutiny should we invest ourselves in trusting and believing.

Originally posted by cripmeister

Originally posted by Heliocentric

De Cuellar has been given many opportunities to deny the incident, when confronted by Hopkins and other investigators. As far as I know he has never done so, which is what I would do if it was just an invented story.

This doesn't mean anything. Why should he even care what some fringe writer says?

The point I'm making here is, if you're a public person and someone walks up to you and asks if you were a witness to an extraterrestial kidnapping - assuming the whole thing was a pure invention - wouldn't you deny it?

What could the motives be not to deny it, if it wasn't true? By refusing to give a straight answer (de Cuellar has received the question on numerous occasions) you expose yourself to speculation, it would not be in his interest.

On the other hand, if de Cuellar was witness to an extraterrestial kidnapping, he could simply be a sufficiently honest man not wanting to luy about it, but nevertheless not wanting to go public about it, which would mean exposing himself to ridicule and thereby weakening his political position.

I remember a certain Fife Symington ridiculing the Phoenix Lights incident while being Governor of Arizona, then admitting he had seen the UFO when he was retired from politics...

reply to post by Snippy23

Yeah, I didn't need Adam Gorightly to establish the evidence of CIA involvement as regards George Adamski, and I shuddered at the same references you mentioned.

However: In a world of meme warfare, guerilla fighters are needed and I'm just doing my part to "slip" in a few thoughts here and there that I feel have impacted the mythical aspects of the UFO enigma. And Gorightly does document a lot of the subject matter correctly.

Basically: Many of the "renowned figures of all things ufological" past & present have ties to occultic practices and beliefs. Many of them are obvious and fairly well-documented in that respect, but others have operated & influenced the field in a rather more "undercover" capacity.

I find that not only intriguing, but an important aspect worthy of further research. Is there any reality to spaceships from outer space, or only myth and the kind of sociological preternatural coincidence--or created semi-reality--of the kinds postulated by Jung?

Oddly enough, the crop circle makers are an excellent example of affecting public perception and myth-making. And if you look into the backgrounds of the more modern "chief conspirators" there's that occult or mystery school background as well.

Contactees, Channelers, Abductees, Hypnosis….all subjects that fall under the wings, and machinations, of those involved in what we commonly refer to as the occult. And that community is no stranger to "high-strangeness."

Thanks for your reply, Snippy23. I do believe I've been to your website before and have even linked and referenced some of the articles therein on these boards if I'm not mistaken? Hopefully we'll see more of you around here.

Curiouser and Curiouser: ‘High Strangeness’ UFO Encounters.
Gareth J. Medway

Originally posted by Heliocentric

Originally posted by cripmeister

Originally posted by Heliocentric

De Cuellar has been given many opportunities to deny the incident, when confronted by Hopkins and other investigators. As far as I know he has never done so, which is what I would do if it was just an invented story.

This doesn't mean anything. Why should he even care what some fringe writer says?

The point I'm making here is, if you're a public person and someone walks up to you and asks if you were a witness to an extraterrestial kidnapping - assuming the whole thing was a pure invention - wouldn't you deny it?

What could the motives be not to deny it, if it wasn't true? By refusing to give a straight answer (de Cuellar has received the question on numerous occasions) you expose yourself to speculation, it would not be in his interest.

On the other hand, if de Cuellar was witness to an extraterrestial kidnapping, he could simply be a sufficiently honest man not wanting to luy about it, but nevertheless not wanting to go public about it, which would mean exposing himself to ridicule and thereby weakening his political position.

I remember a certain Fife Symington ridiculing the Phoenix Lights incident while being Governor of Arizona, then admitting he had seen the UFO when he was retired from politics...

This is a good example of the conspiracy theorist trap. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't. Like David Icke accusing world leaders of being reptilians.

reply to post by spacevisitor


Since our program was the one to break Rainey's story, I can tell you she's an impeccable, honest individual and is not involved in any "disinformation" plot. Her article "Priests of High Strangeness" is on our website within the free preview of our magazine (which you can download for free) - it contains more information about other cases as well.

This ultimate inquiry into the validity of hypnosis as a tool for studying this facet of the phenomenon started with our interview with Dr. Scott Lilienfeld.

Originally posted by jritzmann
reply to post by spacevisitor

 

Since our program was the one to break Rainey's story, I can tell you she's an impeccable, honest individual and is not involved in any "disinformation" plot. Her article "Priests of High Strangeness" is on our website within the free preview of our magazine (which you can download for free) - it contains more information about other cases as well.

I believe you when you say that Carol Rainey is an impeccable, honest individual.
But it is clear to me now that what I said in the quote below could be read as that I accuse Carol Rainey of being involved in any "disinformation" plot.
But that was absolutely not my intention.

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Could it be that perhaps disinformation is at work here?

What I meant on that moment, was, that in a case like this, which Budd Hopkins did believe as the most important Human abduction case of the century because there was as it seems [not proven yet] a senior United Nations statesman involved and other witnesses, the so called TPTB who do anything to keeping it all under wrap would most likely interfere in such a case by using disinformation to make it look a hoax.

But before I go any further, I must admit that your reply made me take another look to that video again.
And then I noticed something that I obvious overlooked the first time.
I go see it all again and let you know my opinion.

I also will take a look to that interview with Dr. Scott Lilienfeld.

As I said in my last reply to you, I would go see it all again and let you know my findings.

First I saw that I made a mistake by writing the wrong name regarding the resemblance of the two handwritings, because I said.

Originally posted by spacevisitor
When I look very closely to how Budd Hopkins name is written in this picture which I took out of that video, I see no undisputable clear resemblance between both handwritings which would prove that both are written by Janet Kimball.

It must have been Linda Cortile of course instead of Janet Kimball.

Now, I did take a very good look at that video again, and here are my findings.

IsaacKoi said in his OP.

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
Carol Rainey states that the video "tells the story of how one key witness was discovered to be a clever (but not totally resolved) hoax".

Looking to the following I wonder if that is really the case.
However I am not saying that there is nothing strange to it all.
Look to my findings here and tell me what you think about it.

Budd Hopkins received a manila envelope supposed to be sent to him by Janet Kimball which did contain some drawings of her UFO sighting.

Carol Rainey becomes at a certain moment suspicious; she found the resemblance between two drawings of the seen UFO, one made by a witness named Richard and the other by a witness Janet Kimball too striking, then she got the impression that the handwriting on that envelope did look pretty much on the handwriting of Linda Cortile’s letters.

Roger Rubin, the forensic document examiner compared the handwriting on that manila envelope with the handwriting of Linda Cortile’s letters and did come to the conclusion that he was shore that the handwriting on the manila envelope was identical to handwriting of Linda Cortile’s letters.

But I am not so shore of that all, because look for instance very close to the next pictures.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4e22ad426a34.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6d4e6ab0882d.jpg[/atsimg]

Of course there is a resemblance, but to call them too striking, is in my opinion too exaggerated.

Then the claim of Roger Rubin, the forensic document examiner, that the handwriting on the manila envelope was identical with the handwriting on Linda Cortile’s letters.

Look again very close to the next pictures.

First the claimed as identical letters o.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0d43a3c605e2.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/191a3fc3f934.jpg[/atsimg]

I see no identical letter o in the name Hopkins on the envelope, in fact, I see a great amount of difference in all the letters of the name Budd Hopkins, especially the letter B, H n and s.

Then the next picture.

Read how this letter is written, would Linda Cortile write such things to Budd Hopkins?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9542308ab4a8.jpg[/atsimg]

I find that quite remarkable.

Then, look again very close to the next pictures.
It’s now about the claimed as identical number 2 from the ZIP code.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/34fcf1d6e210.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5f096dd0bfae.jpg[/atsimg]

There is a resemblance, but to claim they are identical goes too far by me.

So what is really going on here?

I am absolutely not convinced yet that the handwriting on the manila envelope is identical with the handwriting on Linda Cortile’s letters.

Am I right here, or wrong?

My reply about the other things will follow later.

reply to post by spacevisitor


There's a lot more to handwriting forensics than "looking" like the same handwriting. There are subtleties that only come with experience, and plenty of it. This man definitely has that experience. One has to know what to look for, and the devil is always in the details.

I'm a commercial artist by profession, and we're trained to note subtle issues quite a bit. I do see some very, very telling issues with both handwriting examples that say to me it's written by the same person. The drawings? There's no doubt in my mind they're the same person - and probably the same box of crayons. I'd have been suspicious even getting 2 drawings in the same medium like that.

reply to post by Heliocentric


For anyone who wants to read a well-researched, intelligent, and generally devastating analysis of the 'Linda Cortile' case, I don't think you'll do better than 'A Critique of Budd Hopkins' Case of the UFO Abduction of Linda Napolitano' by Joseph J. Stefula, Richard D. Butler, and George P. Hansen (1993). You can find it at

www.tricksterbook.com...

It highlights the very odd development of the case and its alleged witnesses, and of all the claims made by Budd Hopkins, it probably crushes most clearly the supposed involvement of Perez de Cuellar.

It's quite a long article, but it really is worth your time!

Originally posted by jritzmann
.
I'd have been suspicious even getting 2 drawings in the same medium like that.

A crayon drawing from a security agent seems odd to me.

Originally posted by Snippy23
reply to post by Heliocentric

 

For anyone who wants to read a well-researched, intelligent, and generally devastating analysis of the 'Linda Cortile' case, I don't think you'll do better than 'A Critique of Budd Hopkins' Case of the UFO Abduction of Linda Napolitano' by Joseph J. Stefula, Richard D. Butler, and George P. Hansen (1993). You can find it at

www.tricksterbook.com...

It highlights the very odd development of the case and its alleged witnesses, and of all the claims made by Budd Hopkins, it probably crushes most clearly the supposed involvement of Perez de Cuellar.

It's quite a long article, but it really is worth your time!

Good find, Snippy23. You got game. The authors made a few assertions that they couldn't document and there was evidence of some personality clashes, but overall they nailed it hard and called it earlier than anyone it seems.

Of course I like George Hansen because he has some high-strangeness theories himself. More so now, even, than when this was written. (Shout-Out to Paratopia for turning me on to him this past year)

For those of you that are put off by the statement that the report was a little lengthy, I'll give you a teaser that will make you clicky methinks.

I believe it was 3 months before Linda's story developed, a science fiction novel, Nighteyes, hit the market.

And while this is just a very small part of their investigation, it does seem to be rather telling even in and of itself. Just a few of the similarities between the novel and Linda Napolitano's account are excerpted here:

Similarities Between the Linda Napolitano Case and the Science Fiction Novel Nighteyes

* Linda was abducted into a UFO hovering over her high-rise apartment building in New York City.

Sarah was abducted into a UFO hovering over her high-rise apartment building in New York City.

* Dan and Richard initially claimed to have been on a stakeout and were involved in a UFO abduction in during early morning hours.

Early in Nighteyes two government agents were on a stakeout and became involved in a UFO abduction during early morning hours.

* Linda was kidnapped and thrown into a car by Richard and Dan.

Wendy was kidnapped and thrown into a van by Derek and Merril.

* Linda claimed to have been under surveillance by someone in a van.

Vans were used for surveillance in Nighteyes.

* Dan is a security and intelligence agent.

Derek was an FBI agent.

* Dan was hospitalized for emotional trauma.

One of the government agents in Nighteyes was hospitalized for emotional trauma.

* During the kidnapping Dan took Linda to a safe house.

During the kidnapping Derek took Wendy to a safe house.

* The safe house Linda visited was on the beach.

In Nighteyes, one safe house was on the beach.

* Before her kidnapping, Linda contacted Budd Hopkins about her
abduction.

Before her kidnapping, Wendy contacted Charles Edward Starr about her abduction.

* Budd Hopkins is a prominent UFO abduction researcher living in New York City and an author who has written books on the topic.

Charles Edward Starr was a prominent UFO abduction researcher living in New York City and an author who had written books on the topic.

www.tricksterbook.com...

There are more similarities listed, but you probably get the idea.

I found the investigators/authors (Joseph J. Stefula, Richard D. Butler, and George P. Hansen) psycho-social hypothesis of the dynamics of the main conspirators--or confused true-believers as it were--to be deliciously weird & fascinating. Don't miss that aspect. Nice to see Jerome Clark called out, too.

But I'll end with this so nobody mistakes the authors for "debunkers."

…In our judgment, conscious hoaxes are rare in the abduction field. The vast majority of those claiming to be abducted have had some kind of intense personal experience, whatever the ultimate cause. Nevertheless, the problems of fraud and hoaxing have long been a problem in ufology, especially for cases with high visibility.

This will continue. Researchers must become more open minded to the potential for hoaxing, yet not be blinded to the genuine phenomena...
www.tricksterbook.com...