Budd Hopkins abducted by the great spirit in the sky! Dead at 80.

I scanned the thread titles and was surprised not to see mention of Hopkins' passing on Aug. 21. The obituary in THE NEW YORK TIMES on August 28 does not mention UFOs in the headline only calling him an Abstract Expressionist Artist. In the body of the obit it explains how he got fame as an alien abductions specialist using hypnosis.

In 1989 I wrote a book review of his first book and I've been sorry ever since that I didn't submit it for publication 'cause if I had Budd may not have gained the prominence he did. I was brutal in my review 'cause as an ex-hypnotist I could see that Budd did not have the mental set to carry out hypnotic sessions and what he elicited from his subjects was mostly put into their heads by his amateur attempts.

A lot of people were fooled into thinking they had been abducted by aliens and there was no evidence beyond hearsay, and there still isn't.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Common sense, reason, and logic rule out beliefs.

reply to post by The Shrike


It's been posted a couple times already.

I've read his book "Missing Time," and it's phenomenal considering its 1981 copyright. That guy was just naturally sharp. He taught himself to be a UFO investigator and was a damn fine one. RIP Budd. He's in a better place now. Probably has a great view of all of us and UFOs too.

Here ya go

reply to post by The Shrike


Are you mad that Budd was a great man who's research and understanding helped a lot of people? Have you ever read any of his research in his later years? It's people like you who make me sick, the man is dead, you should have ran your mouth when he was still alive.

Originally posted by The Shrike
there was no evidence beyond hearsay

Whatever the value of the evidence and whatever conclusion(s) should be drawn, the evidence from abductees is not "hearsay" within the proper meaning of that term.

All the best,

Isaac

Originally posted by IsaacKoi

Originally posted by The Shrike
there was no evidence beyond hearsay

Whatever the value of the evidence and whatever conclusion(s) should be drawn, the evidence from abductees is not "hearsay" within the proper meaning of that term.

All the best,

Isaac

hear·sayNoun/ˈhi(ə)rˌsā/1. Information received from other people that cannot be adequately substantiated; rumor.
2. The report of another person's words by a witness, usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.

Originally posted by Scramjet76
reply to post by The Shrike

 

It's been posted a couple times already.

I've read his book "Missing Time," and it's phenomenal considering its 1981 copyright. That guy was just naturally sharp. He taught himself to be a UFO investigator and was a damn fine one. RIP Budd. He's in a better place now. Probably has a great view of all of us and UFOs too.

Here ya go

edit on 2-9-2011 by Scramjet76 because: spelling doh!

Originally posted by discharged77
reply to post by The Shrike

 

Are you mad that Budd was a great man who's research and understanding helped a lot of people? Have you ever read any of his research in his later years? It's people like you who make me sick, the man is dead, you should have ran your mouth when he was still alive.

reply to post by The Shrike


I agree with Issac. And btw, Budd didnt get famous for UFOs/aliens. He was already well known for his art. Furthermore, from what I can tell from reading his book "Missing Time," he was not the primary hypnotist. He was more like an investigator who worked with hypnotists and eventually learned to hypnotize people on his own. The primary hypnotist was actually a woman named Dr. Clamar. Another hypnotist in the book was a Dr. Franklin who was a UFO skeptic himself and was totally caught offguard with what unfolded during the session.

Also, he states right in his book that he actually prefers subjects to not have a prior interest in UFOs, because he'd be naturally skeptical of their motives (for wanting to be hypnotized). He'd purposely try and steer people away from the typical abduction account, to avoid contaminating the (hypnosis) experiment. How exactly is that bad methodology? It sounds like good methodology to me... or am I missing something?

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
Whatever the value of the evidence and whatever conclusion(s) should be drawn, the evidence from abductees is not "hearsay" within the proper meaning of that term.

hear·sayNoun/ˈhi(ə)rˌsā/1. Information received from other people that cannot be adequately substantiated; rumor.
2. The report of another person's words by a witness, usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.

The second of those definitions is the one I'm rather familiar with...

Evidence directly from abductees (purporting to be from first hand experience) is not merely reporting someone else's words and hence is not "hearsay" within the meaning recognised by English law.

Originally posted by The Shrike
I was brutal in my review 'cause as an ex-hypnotist I could see that Budd did not have the mental set to carry out hypnotic sessions and what he elicited from his subjects was mostly put into their heads by his amateur attempts.

He didn't have to have the "mental set" for sessions he didn't lead!

Originally posted by The Shrike
Common sense, reason, and logic rule out beliefs.

Does that rule out your belief that, "what he elicited from his subjects was mostly put into their heads by his amateur attempts," too?

Here we go again....

You looked around and didn't see any other thread concerning Budd's death? That proves you didn't bother to do one simple search.

Hearsay. That's your favorite word and is always what you use when you try to debunk something. Every kind of evidence people have for any claim here on ATS, you find a way to call it hearsay. You just proved you don't even understand exactly what it is and you even posted it's definition lol

You always claim to know or have known all the well known ufologists and everything and now you're claiming you could have basically ended his career because of a review you did of a book of his because you were a hyponotist. Why didn't you publish it? Apparently you've been around a a while now and act as if people should know who you are, so why wasn't it published. With the attitude you've always had on here, that's something you would have jumped on. A chance to take down a well known person in the field and you did nothing, but wait until after his death to say anything about it.

Oh and nobody should really be surprised that he talks trash about someone who has passed away. He once said that ufology would be better off with certain people dead.

So, are you just clueless on a lot of stuff or simply trolling? I would have to go with trolling.

Originally posted by The Shrike
I scanned the thread titles and was surprised not to see mention of Hopkins' passing...

Already covered 21-8-2011 here:

ATS thread link - Budd Hopkins RIP, page 1

Perhaps the search function might yield more accurate results than your 'scan of thread titles'.

Here is a quote I'd love to share:

When are these going to get it ?: Art Bell, Jerome Clark, Robert Dean, Richard M.
Dolan, Don Ecker, Stanton T. Friedman, Dr. Steven M. Greer, Budd Hopkins, David M.
Jacobs, George Knapp, George Noory , Dr. Kevin D. Randle, Nicholas "Nick " Redfern,
Robert Sheaffer, Whitley Strieber,

The world of UFOlogy would regain some modicum of respect if the above were out
of the picture.

I guess you got part of your wish, Ed. View the original thread to see that I clearly wasn't the only person who knew what he meant by "out of the picture". He also mentions that he has met Dolan. I don't get it. He has met Dolan and every other ufologist in the world apparently. Could have single-handedly destroyed Budd's career with a single book review because of his awesome hypnotist skills and apparently it was James O'Berg that started calling him Ed (implies they're buddies). Yet nobody here really knows a thing about who he is or what he does because he dodges those questions every time.

Posts and threads like this are all this person is good for. Trolling. He has admitted to also posting under SkepticalEd. Thought it was against ATS rules to have more than one account? I also know there's a SuperiorEd that also posts here from time to time and shares the same type of attitude. Any relation, Ed? Not saying it's you for sure, just wouldn't be surprised at all if it were.