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: Beyond the Blunderdome

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 99 13:14:02 PDT
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:52:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Beyond the Blunderdome


>Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 22:30:48 -0400
>From: Mendoza - Peter Brookesmith <DarkSecretPB@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: Beyond the Blunderdome
>To: To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>


Peter,

>I believe I was among if not the first to express some outrage
>in public at Budd Hopkins's regression of small children, in a
>review in "Fortean Times" of an IUN Sheffield conference in
>approximately 1993. In his presentations (which I taped, but I
>write from memory) he actually admitted the children were as
>young as two and a half.

Since this is a very serious allegation, I think we need more
than your memory here.  Could we have an exact quote from this
tape?

>I don't think Hopkins is honest, although he may be sincere in
>his own peculiar way.

Interestingly, I've more than once heard the same said of you,
for whatever it's worth.

>Nor do I think Mad Max is honest. In
>neither case, however, do I think is there is any question of
>deliberate misrepresentation or hucksterism. But it surely is
>self-deception, which I've called intellectual dishonesty (see
>UFO UpDates, passim), and for which I've been most vehemently
>reprimanded, most often by people who I'd naively expected
>would know better. That the strongest detractors are citizens
>of the United States is not, I think, entirely coincidental.

Please explain what this last sentence is supposed to mean. That
it is rendered by a citizen of the United Kingdom is not, I
think, entirely coincidental.  (Or something like that.)

Cheers,

Jerry Clark