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: Budd Hopkins

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:14:41 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 19:31:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins


>Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:19:53 -0400
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
>Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome

<snip>

>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,

>John Velez

John, you have to much to say that is good regarding people,
whereas I often don't. Am I getting cynical in middle age?

Actually, I had an article lined up by Budd for inclusion in
UFOs 1947-1997: Fifty Years of Flying Saucers. Some of you may
have seen it, most of you haven't. It was called "Sane Citizen
Sees UFO" and originally appeared in The Village Voce for March
1, 1976. It was a classic example of an investigation of a
single case, that of George O'Barski, who ran a liquor store in
Chelsea where Budd routinely bought his dinner wine.

I particularly wanted to use it because it was a damn good case,
and I thought it would somewhat recast the public perception of
Hopkins B.A. -- Before Abductions. Off the top of my head, I
can't remember why it didn't make the final edit, but if memory
serves (and often it doesn't in my case), I think the Village
Voice was late in granting reprint rights, which they eventually
did.

In any event, it demonstrates that, prior to researching
abduction cases in the main, Budd was an excellent foot soldier
when it came to investigating UFO cases per se.

To the best of my knowledge, however, Budd declined to
participate in the MUFON Abduction Transcription project, for
reasons only he can fully delineate. In a somewhat similar vein,
I've not heard much of late about the attempt to have his
collected alien writing samples analyzed by outside parties. In
the meantime, Mario Pazzaglini, who might have made a
significant contribution to same, unfortunately passed away in
November of last year.

This is Budd's material and he is of course perfectly free to do
what he wants with it, even if that extends to withholding it
from the scientific and ufological community (until the next
popular book is published), while continuing to publish
broadsides against Carl Sagan and NOVA for not treating the
abduction phenomenon seriously and scientifically.

The question remains: is Budd himself scientific or not? That
is, is his approach to the abduction phenomenon that of a
scientist or that of a concerned human and therapist, or
something of both? Does he keep anything even remotely
resembling statistics from his own investigations? (Not much,
according to Sandow himself.) Does he routinely publish his
findings for other researchers to peer review, comment upon, and
(god forbid the possibility!) criticize? A quick glance through
recent issues of the MUFON Journal, IUR, and JUFOS doesn't turn
up too many case investigations with his name on them.

An article in the Intruders Foundation newsletter remarked on
the fact that the aliens never expressed interest in the human
heart; until I pointed out that one of the Allagash abductees
drew a picture of aliens opening a human chest cavity and
hauling out the heart. (See the cover of the April, 1993, MUFON
UFO Journal for same, or Fowler's book on the case.)

I've met Budd on several occasions, and like nearly everyone
else, found him an imminently likeable guy. By most accounts
I've read, so was Sagan.

If likeability were the issue, there wouldn't be any issue. But
it isn't.

Budd is heading down a long, dark tunnel with no headlights on.
It may not happen tomorrow, it may not happen the day after
tomorrow, but it will happen. Sooner or later, one of his
"patients" (or their families) is going to file a serious
lawsuit against Hopkins over his use of hypnosis and there will
be all sorts of hell to pay. One of his friends ought to take
him aside and warn him of its inevitability.

Contrary to what you (and others) might think, I wouldn't like
to see it happen to such a nice guy. But Budd is playing with
fire. Not necessarily Boylan fire, but fire, nonetheless.

Dennis