It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Ahhh so it is Budd Hopkins Ex Wife's yt channel. She had started this documentary a few years ago and came to a screaming halt? I wondered why she never finished it?

Something Hidden
www.carolrainey.com...

Her yt
www.youtube.com...


BOMBSHELL: Ex-wife of Bud Hopkins Blows Lid Off Alien Abduction Research!

PDF
www.paratopia.net...


Pt 1/7 Carol Rainey - The Co-Creation Of The Abduction Phenomenon - Spectrum



Seems we have a "war of the roses" brewing. There is some bad blood between the two so I wouldn't take anything she says very serious.




posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Good read and a bit long but Budd dismantles his Ex Carol Rainey quite efficiently.

Deconstructing the Debunkers: A Response By Budd Hopkins

www.intrudersfoundation.org...


Probably no one seriously involved in investigating UFO reports has escaped the hydra-headed debunking machine and its many busy attendants. It’s long been understood that debunking and skepticism are two very different things, the former, an artifact of rigid ideology and the latter an objective, scientifically-inclined position. At the outset of any investigation of a UFO incident, the skeptic can accept the case as possibly legitimate or reject it as possibly a hoax or a misunderstanding or whatever, but the debunker has only one fixed option; he/she knows that the incident, whatever it was, could not have involved a genuine UFO. This rigid stance is akin to a kind of quasi-religious fundamentalism, and in my paper I intend to examine the various tenets of such true-believer negativity. The reason I’m writing this article at this point in my life has to do with both health and age. I am about to celebrate (?) my 80th birthday and currently suffer from two almost certainly fatal diseases, so I’ve decided, while I still have the time and energy, to do a bit of deconstruction of the nature and habits of the debunking mindset. Also, along the way I hope that my piece will provide a little helpful information for those who, like me, are involved in the serious investigation of the UFO abduction phenomenon. As an armature on which to hang my comments, I have selected a debunking article which appeared recently, written, surprisingly, by my ex-wife, Carol Rainey. Though readers may find her authorship either irrelevant or curiously suggestive, the debunking piece she produced admirably illustrates many of my points.
READ MORE


A few excerpts


Ms. Rainey has chosen UFO abduction reports to use in challenging decades of work by many serious researchers, myself included, and it is here that she finds herself with a few different, but quite legitimate, problems. If scientific analysis can detect flaws in purported UFO photographs or government documents, thus settling the issue, how do debunkers such as she dismiss various detailed reports of accounts that may describe years-old incidents? She finds herself with one basic avenue of attack: if it is either a single witness account or one with supporting witnesses, a committed debunker will disparage the event as a hoax, which, we will see, is her chosen method. Thus she says that the “marshy ground [of abduction accounts]is afloat in hoaxes and partial hoaxes,” thereby suggesting that thousands of those who, over the years have reported such experiences were liars.



If, as I’ve suggested, Ms. Rainey chooses to believe that a multitude of those reporting abductions are liars, what happens when a single abduction report has many independent witnesses, such as the Travis Walton case (1975) and the Linda Cortile case (1989)? Well, for these cases to be debunked, as she attempts clumsily to do in her piece, she says that Linda Cortile, as in the multitude of single witness cases, has to be a hoaxer too, and though she takes a pass on Travis Walton, her logic demands that both absolutely have to be labeled as hoaxes, involving, say, five, ten, twenty or more participants or witnesses who must be conniving together and whose stories have remained consistent over decades. .

edit on 9-3-2011 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)




Now to bring up another aspect of the debunking mindset, there is the “tail wagging the dog” device in which any trivial piece of ‘disconfirming evidence’ is adduced to supposedly refute the mass of supporting evidence. This device is used frequently, not because it is persuasive but in the hope that it may plant a doubt in the reader’s mind about the case.



Reading her piece I realize that Ms. Rainey is a master at introducing such scrawny, tail-wags-the-dog details in her attack on Linda Cortile. An example is this beauty: “I‘ve never met anybody, for example, who could get an unexpected phone call from an admirer and so effortlessly spin a spontaneously fabricated, intricate, family-related reason for not meeting him for coffee, all the while winking broadly at me.” Really? Has our author never done the same, in the same situation? I certainly have, because an invented family excuse often seems easier on the caller’s ego than telling him the truth: I don’t want to see you, or I’m too busy to bother, or something similarly dismissive. Does an anecdote like this - the scrawniest of dog tails, deserve even to be recorded? There are more such tail-wagging-the dog attempts in her piece, but in the face of the masses of evidence supporting Linda’s veracity, they do not warrant my spending any more time on them. (One involves my original misunderstanding of an incident with Linda and her cousin Connie; if anyone is interested, ask me about it.)



I must apologize for trying the reader’s patience by their having to read all of this, but Ms. Rainey’s rather vicious tactics require it. Because it comes down to this: to be taken in by someone like Jim Mortellaro and to solve the case ’in-house’ is unfortunate but it harms very few people, while, in effect, to claim or imply that innocent people like Beanie and the elderly widow and her son, and Linda and her little boy and the score of witnesses in the Cortile case are all hoaxers is to call all of them liars, lowlife…virtual criminals. Just think, if they are simply telling the truth and that some of them were genuinely traumatized by actual events, they are being labeled as crooks and so on by my angry ex-wife. What a travesty of justice that would be. I can excuse readers who were temporarily taken in by her honest-seeming literary style, but I cannot excuse her, herself. She knows better, and if she has even the slightest doubt about her accusations, then she owes the individuals an apology and a retraction.


Get her Budd

edit on 9-3-2011 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)
extra DIV



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:56 AM
link   
Yeah, get her, Budd. Now we can all go back to believing a woman was beamed through her wall up a shaft of light and into a lit spacecraft by aliens in The City That Never Sleeps and practically no one saw it.

Because that's the issue, right? Or is the issue the tried and true sexist cliche of the hysterical woman who, six years later, is still so angry at her ex that she'll do anything to destroy him.

When do we grow up?



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jeremy_Vaeni
Yeah, get her, Budd. Now we can all go back to believing a woman was beamed through her wall up a shaft of light and into a lit spacecraft by aliens in The City That Never Sleeps and practically no one saw it.


I thought they took her out the window? There is suppose to be several witnesses, but have yet to go public allegedly. It could be a hoax and Budd is being stubborn about re examining it. Then again it could be real.


Because that's the issue, right? Or is the issue the tried and true sexist cliche of the hysterical woman who, six years later, is still so angry at her ex that she'll do anything to destroy him.

When do we grow up?


I see nothing sexist about it, one can say she is being sexist of Budd if you put the shoe on the other foot. And a EX can hold a grudge for years this happens often. Not very civil. So this has a personal element to it, she does seem like a B****! Why did he marry the woman


edit on 10-3-2011 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier
Good read and a bit long but Budd dismantles his Ex Carol Rainey quite efficiently.

Deconstructing the Debunkers: A Response By Budd Hopkins


Thanks for bringing this under my attention Unknown Soldier.

I am interested in Budd’s view/reaction about this all.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


Yes there are 2 sides to every story and I have a lot of respect for the old timer. I have read much of his body of work and Budd had a good idea and broad understanding of the Abduction phenomena. There really aren't a lot of people out there working with abductees besides Budd Hopkins and David Jacobs. The problem with the UFO and Abduction subject is we can all be fooled and we can all be wrong at times. And when we are wrong we are WRONG! You are no longer considered credible. The debunkers prey on it.I like his "doggy tail wags" comment, I agree .

I will also add
www.intrudersfoundation.org...

A few added remarks: I am not addressing the so-called Dora case because I remember very little about it except my view that her bizarre “Colin Powell and Ralph Nader” claims made me reject the case at the time. No colleague I’ve talked to recalls my ever mentioning the case to them, either. The problem may be that I often receive calls from people whose psychological problems are obvious, and I may speak to them if only to offer some kind of friendship and support to obviously needy people. I might have done so in her case. Readers will note that David Jacobs and I, being two different people with different case portfolios, are not both dealt with in my paper. We are not identical twins, as Ms. Rainey would like to imply. David, I believe, is writing his own response to “Emma’s” endless attacks, while I have produced this overlong reply. I had not intended to be so detailed and long-winded, but once I got started I realized how many of Ms. Rainey’s false and misleading statements had to be answered. And the Beanie case, not being widely known, needed an extended discussion.

edit on 10-3-2011 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by IsaacKoi
 


It sound's to me like a case of "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned". That and of course the money she is looking to make from the documentary.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier
So this has a personal element to it, she does seem like a B****! Why did he marry the woman


Wow, that seems to say enough about your level of discernment right there. Thanks for saving me a lot of typing.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by jritzmann
 


Well Im glad to save you the effort, but really the woman's agenda is clear. Im not one to gossip but If you go to her yt and look at her comments she tries to down play it "im not bashing Budd" and "I like Budd but" then you look at her report released in January she pulls no punches. She critiques all of Budd's work, attacks just about every Abductee Budd has worked with, lumps him in with Jacobs ect. Then she says she Divorced Budd "because she was sick of his work" lol. Well Budd has been doing this for over 30 years but it's an issue. The irony is she also is or WAS in to the same work and colleague? Now she is a debunker, after the divorce the irony.




edit on 10-3-2011 by Unknown Soldier because:



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier
reply to post by jritzmann
 


Well Im glad to save you the effort, but really the woman's agenda is clear. Im not one to gossip but If you go to her yt and look at her comments she tries to down play it "im not bashing Budd" and "I like Budd but" then you look at her report released in January she pulls no punches. She critiques all of Budd's work, attacks just about every Abductee Budd has worked with, lumps him in with Jacobs ect. Then she says she Divorced Budd "because she was sick of his work" lol. Well Budd has been doing this for over 30 years but it's an issue. The irony is she also is or WAS in to the same work and colleague? Now she is a debunker, after the divorce the irony.




edit on 10-3-2011 by Unknown Soldier because:



Do you not see the difference between attacking someone and shedding appropriate light on their bad practices?



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jeremy_Vaeni

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier
reply to post by jritzmann
 





edit on 10-3-2011 by Unknown Soldier because:



Do you not see the difference between attacking someone and shedding appropriate light on their bad practices?


Why I certainly do if you read .paratopia magazine's January edition as provided in the PDF format it goes far beyond "shedding light" if you actually READ IT.

All out attack on Budd Hopkins
The Priests of High Strangeness
www.paratopia.net...

When they arent attacking deceased Dr John Mack R.I.P

And any Abduction Researcher

The jackals are ripping in to an ailing 80'yo Budd Hopkins

edit on 10-3-2011 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier
Why I certainly do if you read .paratopia magazine's January edition as provided in the PDF format it goes far beyond "shedding light" if you actually READ IT.


Read it. Wow, thanks for that advice.

Now, lemme tell you why I can save myself countless replies to you - because you are in fact, completely clueless about everything you've been speaking about.

How do I know this?

Because Jeremy, and myself ARE PARATOPIA.

See how far you actually look into things? See why I can dismiss your arguments and sexist attitude with regards to Rainey? See how I don't have to reply at length that we're not attacking Budd, but rather the practices and research methods?

Because you don't have the slightest clue who you are even speaking to. So clearly, you've proven to me and everyone here, that you are incapable of actually looking deeply into the issue - but are far more content to throw stones from the sidelines for attention and...

...tell us to read our own magazine.

Thanks again for saving me untold replies.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by jritzmann
 


You are putting a spin on what im saying, sexist? LOL because what it involves a woman?


And because you ARE paratopia that is suppose to mean what?

Please anybody can go read that tabloid style mag and see where the agenda lies. So before you pull that cop out excuse "everyone knows" i say PLEASE ANYBODY read that edition of paratopia, even a look around the web site. It has a pseudo debunking agenda, one i find to be a turn off. It's more interested in attacking and discrediting UFO researchers than the UFO/abduction topic. Before you speak for the masses i say let them see for themselves it speaks for itself. There are uses for debunking, this is not it.



edit on 10-3-2011 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier
reply to post by jritzmann
 


You are putting a spin on what im saying, sexist? LOL because what it involves a woman?


And because you ARE paratopia that is suppose to mean what?

Please anybody can go read that tabloid style mag and see where the agenda lies. So before you pull that cop out excuse "everyone knows" i say PLEASE ANYBODY read that edition of paratopia, even a look around the web site. It has a pseudo debunking agenda, one i find to be a turn off. It's more interested in attacking and discrediting UFO researchers than the UFO/abduction topic. Before you speak for the masses i say let them see for themselves it speaks for itself. There are uses for debunking, this is not it.



edit on 10-3-2011 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)


Jeff, you know this is so true. Well, except for the fact that you and I are both experiencers. And that you are a researcher. And every now and again actually do photo and video analysis for the likes of, for instance, ATS. And NARCAP. And I write for... what's that magazine? Yes. UFO Magazine. And the fact that this guy is clearly reading off a script--because I've heard this exact verbiage before from Team Cover-up, as I now refer to the Hopkins/Jacobs faction.

And the fact that he STILL DOESN'T GET THAT HE DIDN'T KNOW WHO YOU AND I WERE YET HE'S PRETENDING TO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT PARATOPIA. I mean that is, as David Jacobs would say of a chastity belt, "a dead stopper."

The thing I find so very interesting about the internet is the ability it gives people to think that they have to keep writing "comebacks" to save face instead of just going, "Oh. Oops." It can never be oh, oops. It's always got to be some next sling & arrow as if they have a side in a battle, when really what just happened was? You got caught playing the fool.

That's not meant as an insult, that is really what just happened here and there's no point in trying to overcome that--except, again: It's the internet. And you'll just keep trying oblivious to the fact that there is no argument here. You actually just plain are wrong and were properly called out.

In a sane world, an apology would be forthcoming. Instead, we can countdown to another in a series of unending nonsensical comebacks until we decide to disengage.

Which, for me, is right now.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   
This is a must read in regards to the case and exposes Carol Rainey's bias and Ritzmann's agenda..

Free-For-All: The Assassination of Budd Hopkins and Linda Cortile By Sean F. Meers



PDF
www.alienjigsaw.com...
edit on 11-3-2011 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jeremy_Vaeni
In a sane world, an apology would be forthcoming. Instead, we can countdown to another in a series of unending nonsensical comebacks until we decide to disengage.


I dunno. This is really just too transparent and easy a discussion...I mean how often does this sort of thing just drop into your lap? Most times, even with the ill informed you have to work a bit to make the point. How often does someone make it for you within 3 posts?

A guy pretending to know all about the show, the mag, my "agenda" (huh?), Carol Rainey...and doesn't even know who he's talking to? Informs us to "actually READ" our own magazine? I mean seriously.

And one who calls the magazine "tabloid"?

Yeah, the "tabloid" that has a journalist who makes documentaries for PBS, and a Professor of Microbiology writing in it. That tabloid that also has Phil Imbrogno, and Nick Redfern writing in it too? Oh yeah, that one.

Yeah, he knows all about us. It tickles me to no end that so many just parrot this or that without actually knowing anything - or even who their talking to. It's like bringing a football to a baseball game.

You just don't get any better example of what's wrong with the thought process than this brief conversation. Now he's referring readership here to the poorly written redundant stuff on the website of someone who claims to be an "alien emissary". Really? We got a story here from a woman who's lived her observations and puts forth all the documentation you could want (Rainey) and we're supposed to compare it in any meaningful way to some disassociated guy with bad writing skills - who is completely absent from the situation? That's research? This field is in serious peril if that's what qualifies.


Just for anyone else reading because I'm really done replying to this rather clueless gentleman, here is what I wrote for the Epilogue section of the magazine:

"Much adieu has been made about the health of Budd Hopkins and the publication of Rainey's article. And, it needs to be said for my part that I don't see Hopkins as some evil monster. By all rights I believe him to be a compassionate and kind man. This is not about him as a person. It's about the quality of the work. His ill
health (and I'm sorry he is ill, and wish him the best in his struggle) is being used by some in this field to deflect criticism, and seems part of an overarching notion that everyone ought to keep quiet about criticizing his methods."

So, this notion of "attack" and personal agenda? Please. That excuse has been used on everyone in UFOlogy who's ever directly questioned the methods and research of UFOlogical "heroes". It's not about the man. It's about the work and the methods. Period.

How about this, I'll leave you with a write up from a noted and respected researcher: Kevin Randle's take on Rainey's article and his response to Hopkins



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier
Why I certainly do if you read .paratopia magazine's January edition as provided in the PDF format it goes far beyond "shedding light" if you actually READ IT.


So clearly, you've proven to me and everyone here, that you are incapable of actually looking deeply into the issue - but are far more content to throw stones from the sidelines for attention and..


No offence jritzmann, but please speak the next time only for yourself, and not as you did also for everyone here.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier
This is a must read in regards to the case and exposes Carol Rainey's bias and Ritzmann's agenda..

Free-For-All: The Assassination of Budd Hopkins and Linda Cortile By Sean F. Meers



PDF
www.alienjigsaw.com...
edit on 11-3-2011 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)


Thanks for bringing this under my attention Unknown Soldier.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 04:31 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   


Carol does not want you to know the truth and will probably false flag this Comments on yt video.


edit on 11-3-2011 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-3-2011 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join