Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
operator kos wrote:Care to post a quick summary for those of us short on reading time these days?
a request
by the good Doctor (Ph.D. in history, non-medical) to send him
her panties, unwashed, so they could be tested for alien sperm;
and a proposal that she wear a chastity belt with nails across
the vaginal opening, which he'd locate for her from (in Jacobs
words) "a sex shop that specialized in bondage/dominance, a
place that I frequented quite often."1
In later sessions, Jacobs, hyperventilating, can be heard
telling Emma that he's in terrible trouble - that an outraged
hybrid (who knows that Jacobs is the only person on the planet,
other than Hopkins, who knows the evil fate that aliens are
planning for humanity) - that this hybrid is sending him
threatening Instant Messages on his AOL account to make him
cease and desist his work with the abductee Emma Woods.
(Note to Jacobs: Multiple psychiatric journals state that
medication is not recommended for someone with this disorder and
that Multiple Personality Disorder, now known as Disassociative
Identity Disorder, is serious, chronic and the sufferer is at
risk for suicidal attempts, self-injury, violence, substance
abuse, and repeated victimization by others. Good call, Doctor-
Practicing-Medicine-Without-a-License. Save your own skin and
the patient be damned.)
I ask you: What would happen to a licensed psychotherapist who
falsely assured a hypnotized patient that she had an incurable
mental illness which would make the rest of her life a living
hell? He'd get the pants sued off of him, his license suspended
or revoked and would possibly never be allowed to practice
again. A panel of peers would review his professional conduct
and make appropriate rulings.
His employer, Temple University, didn't scent a powerful law
firm in the offing and so claimed Jacobs wasn't doing research,
just "taking an oral history." And Budd Hopkins jumped in with a
letter to Emma that compared her to George W. Bush invading
Iraq, causing the deaths of thousands, if she exposed his
friend's longdistance bedside manner.
Ufology's two best-known abduction researchers continue to take
victory laps over the airwaves, while the leaders in the field
are largely closemouthed about the cringe-inducing revelations.
In my opinion, the Jim Mortellaro case is one of the best
examples of what's wrong with the abduction research that I
observed, second only to the Linda Cortile case.
Jim claimed to have earned two Ph.D.s, and implied he'd held a
national or international marketing directorship with Hitachi,
none of which was confirmed by the investigator
...
That's when I first became aware of Jim's high intake of
prescription drugs and asked why he kept a pistol stuck in his
boot. It just didn't seem like a good combo to me and I said so.
That day, Leslie Kean, Budd's new protege, advisor, and all-
round organizer, was in the studio, too. Just beginning to learn
about alien abductions from Budd, she agreed with me. Not a good
combination, Jim.
...
Leslie Kean had begun her exploration of UFO abduction by
allegedly vetting the Linda Cortile case (from Hopkins' book
Witnessed). After doing her own review of source material and
interviewing both Budd and Linda, she concluded that it was a
sound, well-researched case.
Now Kean took up the Jim Mortellaro case in a big way, once she
was let in on the spectacular opportunity of his case. It would
be the first time that ufologists would be included in a major
mainstream, scientific study of the medical evidence of alien
abductions.
Crow wrote:elfismiles, could you please link me to your info that the Cortile case is a hoax? I'm googling but no luck yet.
elfismiles wrote:
The Priests of High Strangeness: The Co-Creation Of The Abduction Phenomenon
by Carol Rainey (ex-wife of Budd Hopkins)
http://ufoupdateslist.com/2011/jan/m17-001.shtml
- PDF sample of source: Paratopia Magazine - Vol 1 Issue 1
http://tiny.cc/2pzis
http://www.paratopia.net/paratopia_maga ... _final.pdf
later, as the story continued to unfold (long after the
book's publication), Linda's presence in the lobby of the World
Trade Center when the planes hit and her bloody, barefoot escape
over shards of glass. Although... not all of those events reported
above by Linda Cortile had been selected by Budd for inclusion
in the book. I knew about them, but they weren't in the book.
I sometimes got confused between what I knew from life and the
artfully shaped version of life that I found in the manuscript.
Linda was simply part of our lives, a friend, sometimes at the
house being interviewed by the media, sometimes Budd's co-
presenter at conferences. When the rest of Budd's people
gathered in the living room for abductee support groups, Linda
was always there. Many times, I schlepped my camera and lights
to Lower Manhattan to interview Linda in her apartment, with her
family, over her tomato sauce, in situ.
...
Most of these alleged witnesses had contacted Budd via letters,
audiotapes, telephone calls, and drawings, although he'd never
come face-to-face with any of the major players in the story.
...
One June night in 1996 (seven years after Linda's alleged 1989
abduction), I was filming in our kitchen as Linda recounted to
Budd and a dinner guest yet another recent, frightening attempt
by government agents Richard and Dan - characters in the book
Witnessed - to kidnap Linda and her cousin Connie into the back
of a van. Linda described the struggle in great detail,
including the two women's successful escape.
Budd was aghast that she hadn't told him earlier and said he
urgently needed to speak with Cousin Connie. Linda left,
promising she'd have her cousin call Budd so he could question
her version of the event.
Later that night, the phone rang, and as Budd answered, I
watched a peculiar look come over his face. The usually voluble
Hopkins was very quiet, mainly listening. After he thanked the
caller and hung up, I asked who that was. His smile was as tight
and wry as a killer Martini: "That was Linda, pretending to be
her cousin Connie."4
New York, New York: the Linda Napolitano “abduction”
Did the most important UFO abduction ever – proving the physical reality of the aliens – occur in late November 1989? Or was it instead a carefully constructed plot to disinform and discredit?
...
According to Richard Tomlinson, an ex MI6 [British Intelligence] operative, “During the run-up to the 1992 Secretary General elections, [MI6] mounted a smear operation against the Egyptian candidate, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who was regarded as dangerously Francophile by the CIA. The CIA are constitutionally prevented from manipulating the press so they asked MI6 to help. […] [MI6] planted a series of stories to portray Boutros-Ghali as unbalanced, claiming that he was a believer in the existence of UFOs and extra-terrestrial life. The operation was eventually unsuccessful, however, and Boutros-Ghali was elected.”
Here is testimony that the CIA in 1992 was mounting a disinformation campaign directed towards the highest echelons of the UN, in depicting the Secretary General as a UFO believer. The Linda Napolitano abduction fits within this timeframe (1991), including the target (UN Secretary General) and the modus operandi (UFOs); it is a perfect match. Furthermore, the actions of the two agents – spreading disinformation – is allowed within the bailiwick of the CIA, as the press was indeed not manipulated; but the CIA manifesto says nothing about manipulating UFO abduction researchers, does it?
http://www.philipcoppens.com/cortile.html
Crow wrote:elfismiles, could you please link me to your info that the Cortile case is a hoax? I'm googling but no luck yet.
elfismiles wrote:All of which is making me want to go back and re-read DARK WHITE, Jim Schnabel's book on the abduction phenomena that focuses upon that same period of Hopkins research.
/nutshell part one
1. Beware the lone scientist
The Frenchness of the Close Encounters character Claude Lacombe made him seem a man apart – a lone, heroic scientist. But in the reality of the film, he wasn’t alone; he was surrounded by other scientists as well as by engineers, doctors and other technical people. So it is in real life with normal scientists. They work on teams, in effect, in vast leagues with lots of rules, and just about everything they do can be, and frequently is, questioned by their fellow scientists – in the lab, via e-mail, at conferences, in the peer-review gauntlet before publication, in the commentaries after publication, and in the to-ings and fro-ings of the grant-proposal process. You know that expression, “it takes a village”? Well, modern scientists live in something like a village – where nosy people are always looking over their shoulders, watching for mistakes. In that world, mistakes can bring very serious professional consequences.
Naturally, that intense critical culture tends to keep modern scientists on their toes. But the lone scientist doesn’t have that assistance. The lone scientist often doesn’t even address his writings to fellow scientists, but instead addresses a popular audience. Thus the lone scientist has to rely, for the most part, on his own internalization of scientific culture. And for most of us, over a long stretch, that just isn’t going to be enough.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 160 guests