Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New 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 Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1999 -> Jun -> Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:19:53 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:55:23 -0400
Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome


>Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 23:52:07 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome

>>From: Rose Hargrove <PRIESTESSE@aol.com>
>>Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 20:19:22 EDT
>>Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome
>>To: updates@globalserve.net

><snip>

>>Here we go again, can we suppress all opinions that do not fit
>>our view of how ufology should unfold? As far as Budd not having
>>a medical degree is ufology taught in medical school and must
>>the grays be represented as spiritual teachers of mankind for
>>the story to be believed. I believe Dr. Mack who has a
>>transformational bent to his version of the gray agenda has a
>>medical degree but not a degree in theology. Budd has done good
>>honest research and I do not believe if one reviews the numerous
>>cases he and others have researched that the conclusion that the
>>grays are here to further our spiritual or ecological needs can
>>easily be reached.

><snip>

>Well, then, you should take this idea up with Mr. Mack, who
>apparently believes just that. And he's the one with the degree.

>Research into abduction cases is virtually nonexistent these
>days, unless by research you refer to repeated regressive
>hypnosis sessions, which seem to be the preferred approach. Name
>me a single abduction case that Mr. Mack has _ever_ investigated
>above and beyond a resort to hypnosis. Name me a single case
>that Mr. Hopkins is presently actively investigating above and
>beyond the use of regessive hypnosis. Ditto for Dr. Jacobs.

>Retrieving an _account_ of something under hypnosis is not an
>investigation, but a poor cousin of same. In fact, it
>substitutes hypnotic recall _in place_ of any actual
>investigation.

>Sorry to be the messenger...

>Dennis

Hi Dennis,

No, I'm not here to "defend" Budd. I am here as a witness.
"Above and beyond hypnosis" (which doesn't happen in every case
contrary to popular belief) Budd makes calls, interviews
witnesses, does 'on site' inspections, and he even interviews
neighbors with the permission of the person reporting if it is
called for. I know he has spoken to police and to government
agencies while 'checking things out.' As witness, I can attest
to the fact that Budd is a lot more thorough than many,
(yourself included) ever give him credit for. So Dennis,

"Sorry to be the messenger"

but you're dead wrong about Budd. He may not be the best of
"investigators," (and I agree that hypnosis is being -way-
overused) but, he's an intelligent and thoughtful man that goes
about his business in an intelligent and thoughtful manner.

Making unfounded statements like the ones you
made, ie;

>Research into abduction cases is virtually nonexistent these
>days, unless by research you refer to repeated regressive
>hypnosis sessions, which seem to be the preferred approach.

>Name me a single case that Mr. Hopkins is presently actively
>investigating above and beyond the use of regessive hypnosis.
>Ditto for Dr. Jacobs.

Blanket statements such as these are meant to be dismissive and
'I assume' hopefully accepted as unquestioned fact. I'm not sure
which, but you must think that folks take on 'facts' by osmosis
(constantly hearing the same mantra over and over) or by mere
proclamation. Not so Dennis. Because you say so don't -make it
so.-

Without pulling him into anything, you should ask Greg Sandow
about how Budd "investigates" a case. He's spent a lot of time
watching him and discussing this very topic with him.

I'm with you BTW, I think that Budd and David, and John Mack
could all do a much better job. But I draw a line at sitting
idly by while people spread made up lies and malicious
inaccuracies. Or, in not speaking up when someone else does.

Again, this is just my witness testimony. I'm not "jumping on
you because you jumped on Budd" or any such sophomoric nonsense.
I speak from having worked in close quarters with Budd for 6
years Dennis. If you knew the man the way that I know him, you'd
never say an unkind word about him. No BS.

Besides, the guy has never claimed to be a "scientific
researcher" and holding him 'by force' to those standards
doesn't alter the fact that the guy is just an
author/investigator. Not an 'academic' out there as a
"scientific expert." John Mack is a different story. He's out
there as an academic. It is rightful to expect him to live up
to, (abide by if you will) academic/scientific standards. You've
just got Budd pidgeonholed into the wrong catagory. Round peg in
square hole.

If you're going to critique Budd's (or anybody elses) "methods"
it would be nice if you familiarize yourself with them first.
Fair is fair Dennis. Never say stuff -about anyone- that you
cannot prove.

Peace,