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: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 00:10:47 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 10:07:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins


>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
>Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 11:19:21 EDT
>Fwd Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 12:32:34 -0400
>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins

Previously, I had offered:

>>Likewise, we can only hope that Jenny's concerns about impending
>>lawsuits against ufologists are well founded. Why? Because, for
>>damages to be proven, the "memories" dredged up by the use of
>>hypnosis would have to be accepted (at some point) as fact; not
>>only by the "victim" but by the courts as well.

Kevin's reply:

>Not quite true. Richard Boylan has already been taken to court
>because of his "abduction research." He lost his license to
>practice in California because of it. It proved nothing about
>the reality of UFOs or abductions, but did demonstrate, at least
>some of the problems with hypnotic regression and researcher
>bias.

>I haven't even mentioned all those who believe in Satanic Ritual
>Abuse, who told horrifying tales both with and without hypnosis,
>and who in turn sued the doctors for malpractice. I believe that
>it was just announced that one "victim" won $2 million in a
>lawsuit in Illinois with more to follow.

Hi, Kevin (or should I say "Dr. Randle"?),


Congrats on your recent academic achievment!

The point I was trying to make is that the courts are very
rarely about justice or the truth; but rather, about what is
considered "possible". For instance, if a plaintiff claimed that
they were damaged because they believed a toy gun once pointed
at them was real, a jury might buy into that argument. Why?
Because common knowledge is that real guns do exist; the
confusion would be understandable. If someone claimed that they
were made to believe they had been abused as a child, they could
prevail in court since society now acknowledges that child abuse
does exist. If someone claimed they had been led to believe they
were the one time participants of satanic rituals, they could
prevail because people now know that satanic rituals do exist.

On the other hand, it would take a damn good lawyer to convince
a jury that someone was damaged because they actually thought
they had been abducted by aliens from outer space. Why? Because
society hasn't really bought into the idea that life "out there"
exists. If common knowledge dictates otherwise, then why should
the plaintiff be believed? (Granted, because the courts are not
always about justice it is also possible to win a case that has
no merit.)

But it should be remembered that simply filing a lawsuit does
not guarantee it will be tried; and this is the real issue, I
think. If a prelim-hearing judge thinks the lawsuit to be
frivilous; out it goes. Therefore, for a court to take something
like "alien abductions" seriously enough to give it a place on
an already overcrowded docket indicates a gentle (but important)
shift in the public/legal acceptance regarding the possibility
of ET's. To put things in perspective, imagine someone in 1949
trying to get a "false memory alien abduction" lawsuit into
court, much less the belief and support of a jury!

I say bring on the lawsuits! Bring on the media! Let's have
testimony about ET's on legal record for a change.

Take care,

Roger Evans