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: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 01:04:03 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:22:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins


>Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:14:41 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
>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?

Can't speak for you Sasquatch, but I'm getting 'cantankerous!'

>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.

Shame it didn't make it. It _is_ a good case study and Budd did
an admirable job for an amateur.

>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.

You imply that he somehow changed when he began to investigate
abduction cases. Or changed his methods anyway. In fact, the only
thing that changed was 'what' he was investigating not 'how.'

>To the best of my knowledge, however, Budd declined to
>participate in the MUFON Abduction Transcription project, for
>reasons only he can fully delineate.

Yep. That's a question to put to Budd directly.

>I've not heard much of late about the attempt to have his
>collected alien writing samples analyzed by outside parties.

As far as I know, Dennis, they were forwarded to Stewart Appelle
at Cornell _several_ months ago. I have asked about this myself
on several occasions but haven't been able to get any new info
as to progress - if any. Aside from the 'science', I've got a
'vested' curiousity in the analysis because one of the
samples that was submitted came from me.

>In the meantime, Mario Pazzaglini, who might have made a
>significant contribution to same, unfortunately passed away in
>November of last year.

Yes, I'm familiar with him. He sent me some writing samples
awhile back and asked me to compare them to what I had seen.
Some of it was pretty dead on and some not so. That's what
I reported to him and I never heard from him again. Sorry to
hear that he's passed on. If the news was published on UpDates
I must have missed it, I didn't know.

>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.

"Withholding material"?  "Broadsiding Carl Sagan"? Gimme a sec
to compose myself, that was genuinely funny!

What Budd has, in terms of 'material' is pretty much all 'out
there' already. Reports, photo's, some lab results on ground
trace evidence, and let's not forget the much maligned
independant witness testimony. I don't see how anthing Budd has
qualifies as being labelled "withheld." Read the books. Whatever
he has is there.

Re: "Broadsiding Sagan and NOVA"

It was the _astronomer_ Carl Sagan that presumed to 'diagnose'
all abductees as suffering from "hallucinations". What an
'astronomer' was doing rendering 'psychological opinions' on a
program that purports to report on science is one best left to
the conspiracy buffs.

As for NOVA; I personally gave them an opportunity to check me
out in any way they chose to and using experts of their own
choosing. Dennis _I_asked_ them for everything from a polygraph
to a complete medical and psychological workup. You'd think that
they'd jump on an opportunity like that. No dice. Instead they
trotted out the same old lineup of 'suspects' who had no
interest other than pitching their own pet theories. They
analyzed us (on air) without _ever_ having as much as spoken to
any of us. Or even requesting something as basic as copies of
what it was we were reporting! It was a sham, and a hatchet job
and a half. They blew a good opportunity to do a little honest
investigating and reporting. They were much more interested in
sensationalism and ratings. You're defending them to the wrong
guy with me, Sasquatch. I _know_ what the real deal is with that
bunch of Hollygollywood wahoos.

>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?

Again something that should be asked of Budd directly. I don't
think it's fair or proper to use the same ruler on Budd that you
would a trained scientist. He is not that and he has never
claimed to be. (Although John Mack should be whupped with
that ruler!)

>Budd is playing with fire. Not necessarily Boylan fire, but fire,
>nonetheless.

Maybe so Dennis, but it won't be me filing the suit. He helped
me and mine. Also, wouldn't you think that if he was really the
villain that you paint him to be that _someone_ would have sued
his pants off by now? After 20 + YEARS! Twenty years, over 600
people and _no law suits_.

Hmmm, what do dat tell you Andy? <g>

And, putting those two names in the same sentence (Budd &
Boylan) takes the same stretch of creativity it would take to
put say Ghandi and Joey Buttafucco together in the same line! :)

Take care till next Sasquatch.

Peace,