Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here UFOs | Paranormal | Area 51 People | Places | Random Top 100 | What's New Catalog | New Books Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Our Bookstore is OPEN Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1999 -> Jun -> Here

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 20:08:31 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:33:59 -0400
Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome


>Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 22:42:40 -0400
>From: Nathan Ranger <netrangr@ufo.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome

>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome
>>Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 15:08:56 +0100

>>Hi,

>>All this stuff about Max Burns brings up a critical issue about
>>UFO credibility and the way we present ourselves in public.
>>Surely that ID the issue here. It is what BUFORA utterly failed
>>to read. They did the same thing with the fawning over the
>>Santilli autopsy fiasco.  Although I dare say they might - not
>>unreasonably - cast back the point against various Sheffield
>>events that, for instance, the IUN invited the likes of Budd
>>Hopkins - when he is (without medical qualification) regressing
>>five year old children and promoting the image of nasty grays
>>raping humans. Somehow there is not a lot of difference here.
>>Both are apparently honest ufologists expressing a view that
>>most of us consider not only fundamentally wrong but potentially
>>destructive. We may hate these opinions but can we honourably
>>suppress them all?

>[Swish...]

>[Engage Soapbox Mode]

>Hey! Get a clue people.

>Here we have the problem: Jenny Randles, prominent UFO
>researcher and author, comes up with rules of "engagement". Her
>rules. What she thinks is right. Sure. (No offense intended,
>Jenny. You just happened to be standing in line during this
>"fit". :) )

>See people, the whole problem with ufology is the fact that
>everybody wants it to be what they want it to be so they can say
>"See! I _told_ you so!" in order to get that big ________ deal.
>[Fill in the blank with whatever you want.] Nobody gives a _damn_
>about what it (it, meaning the UFO mystery) really is, except a
>few _and_ those few get the _crap_ riduculed out of them for
>following some sort of scientific reasoning.

>Shake a leg! Yeah, I'm talking to _all_ of you! Get serious with
>this stuff instead of worrying about filling your pockets and
>your speaking schedule and pushing your _pet_ theories. Don't
>try to "message" the data so it will look like your pet theory.
>Don't claim other researchers are "messaging" the data unless
>you have real proof.

>I've witnessed some of Budd Hopkins 'Nasty Gray = child-raper'
>regression sessions. Pardon me, Jenny, but does Budd get the
>right to call your theories damaging and misleading? You're
>right that its damaging. However, its only damaging because
>people like you refuse to _really_ understand how Budd does his
>research. It doesn't fit your pet theory so Budd is a fraud, an
>imprecise buffoon of a researcher. Keep saying it, I'm sure if
>you and he get into a tussle, both your book sales will go
>up.(Incidentally, I agree with many of Jenny's theories. I just
>don't like namecalling in ufology. Its unprofessional and
>witless.)

>All researchers have their weak points. They have their areas
>that give them navigation trouble. Instead of namecalling, we
>should offer help. But, that doesn't happen. That might keep
>Budd from selling some books or keep Jenny from keeping her
>speaking schedule full.

>See, thats why they call it "fringe" science. In _real_ science
>things like this happen a lot less and there is a cohesive
>structure to keep all the data together rather than a bunch of
>profit motivated pirahnas trying to tear each other's data
>apart, devour it and poop out golden oportunities to make more
>profit. What if we went at atomic energy or space flight or
>computer engineering this way, the world would be a FUBARed
>mess! Get a clue people.

>Who needs government disinformation agents? Just paint a little
>blood on all the sharks and watch them eat each other!
>Ufological politics is more stupid than US Government politics.
>At least with government politics, there is usually a clear
>objective: get elected.

>Its it any wonder people look at us funny and think: "crackpot"
>when they hear about us?


Hi,

Not sure if you saw my 'sequel' message where I made clear that
my first posting was deliberately incitive to make a point.

Also not sure where you get the impression I am calling Budd
nasty names. Im not. I like Budd very much and am absolutely
sure he is sincere. I dont for one moment think his ideas should
not be given full consideration and I have on several occasions
happily shared a platform with him. I have not contemplated
'banning' him.

However, we disagree on many things and I am totally opposed to
the use of regression hypnosis and particularly on children. I
make no apologies for regarding this as dangerous and it has
nothing whatsoever to do with the skill and compassion I am
fully aware that Budd displays with his witnesses. It has all to
do with the risks hypnosis creates of leaving long term
psychological damage to a yoing mind.

I dont see any of this as name calling - merely expressing
reasonable doubts about a technique. Budd is completely free to
say the same about my research and I would listen to any such
criticism with an open mind. I might well find useful things
from this to alter the direction of my work. Thats how UFOlogy
should develop. None of us are perfect - certainly not me.

Best wishes,

Jenny Randles