Carol Rainey (Mrs. Budd Hopkins)

[Creepy Green Light]

I apologi

That's going just a wee bit too far. Saying the email is bogus is going too far, but you are free to claim you don't think the case is legit.

I apologize. I get too passionate about this topic sometimes.

 

[Bob Watson]

As I said if this is a hoax then everything mr meers has done all the time effort and most likely money is for nothing. And to honest sean seems honest in his desire to get to the truth

 

[Burnt State]

We all work hard on the things we believe in.

Different people believe in different things.

This creates tension and out of tension comes new ideas.

 

[Tyger]

That's going just a wee bit too far. Saying the email is bogus is going too far, but you are free to claim you don't think the case is legit.

Explain how that is? Very curious. Is it because Budd Hopkins referenced it in his rebuttal?

 

[Tony B.]

We all work hard on the things we believe in.
Different people believe in different things.
This creates tension and out of tension comes new ideas.

Well said, sir. As usual.

It has gotten a lot of bad press over the years but the fact is we NEED some stress in our lives - I've heard one medical researcher make the comment: "If you DIDN'T have stress, you'd be dead".

I've been reading up on the Tujunga Canyon case(s), which have something of a special interest for me in that they happened close to my childhood home, and while I was growing up in the area. Brrrr.

 

[Tyger]

Of course Rubin's email is bogus, just like the entire case. Good work.

The reason I say what I do about the e-mail is because something about it doesn't add up. I'd be curious to see the letter Sean Meers sent to Roger Rubin that elicited this e-mail response. What exactly are the questions Meers was asking? Who does Rubin think he is conversing with, and to what purpose?

This response is being used to undermine Rubin's analysis - and by extension, Carol Rainey's contentions. I think more than an e-mail should be supplied for that deconstruct. The full correspondence would be nice.

I stand by my comment, Gene.

 

[Constance]

If your suspicions are valid, whyever would Roger Rubin not have responded to that effect publicly?

 

[Tyger]

If your suspicions are valid, whyever would Roger Rubin not have responded to that effect publicly?

I don't follow your question, Constance.

 

[Constance]

What I mean is, if Roger Rubin did not send this email, why wouldn't he have said so publicly?

 

[Tyger]

What I mean is, if Roger Rubin did not send this email, why wouldn't he have said so publicly?

Does Roger Rubin necessarily know his name is being used in this way? Would he know that a screen shot of an e-mail purporting to be from him is nested within someone's website? I don't know.

I think a more clear reveal of the communication is in order since so much weight is being attached to the 'debunk' of the man's analysis of the document (Janet's envelope writing).

 

[Stagger Lee]

Thanks for submitting. I'm off to read it.

Have you read Hopkin's book "Witnessed?" It would be a lot easier to insert your opinion when or if you take the time to read the material.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Have you read Hopkin's book "Witnessed?" It would be a lot easier to insert your opinion when or if you take the time to read the material.

Not interested. Did you read my analogy with Mars and the circus test and Ferris wheel? Guess not.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Not interested. Did you read my analogy with Mars and the circus test and Ferris wheel? Guess not.

I haven't commented on your analogy- I would never make assumed comments without reading such.

 

[Tyger]

Going through the thread I came upon Burnt's post. Somehow I missed it the first time round - maybe because when I initially came on the thread I was not tracking on all the 'issues'.

A good summation of points -

Very slow progress by Rainey on her Film Project - in post production I believe according to her website. Obviously not a lot of takers for this project. Still, I think it's important to point out some recurring themes:

1. Abduction research produces the most contentious, threatening and vile of insults back and forth amongst those in support or denial - why is this? Why can't facts simply be argued as opposed to over the top rebuttals, counter rebuttals, wild claims, silenced claims, lack of witnesses vs. 20 witnesses...arguing over the nebulous if you ask me.
2. Physical proof is often claimed but there is little by way of hardcore evidence, no real implants, just incredible stories that, with very few exceptions, fit the folkloric patterns of the individual alone in the woods at the edge of the city, alone, without witnesses, threshold vacancy, missing time, encounters with strange creature and then returned. (Cortile, Walton, Allegash, Pascagoula, and those two guys in Finland are the standouts in my memory).
3. Hypnosis is a problem and Cortile verifies this in videos where usually the hypnosis claim is you only speak what you remember whereas she talks about dreams, hypnosis, abductions and can't quite clearly distinguish it all.
4. What's with all the sex, torture, violation stuff - again, makes no real sense all this medieval torture. How many people do you need to torture with such recurring methods that often follow patterns of violating the body? Forget even the notion of collecting samples - say it's all about torture - wasn't it made clear after the first twenty or so? Maybe they're sadists?
5. Who owns the rights to the stories of abductions and their related profits: the researcher or the abductee? What about 3rd parties?

The Cortile case also has this repetitive part about her possibly faking the evidence or generating unconfirmed content i.e. the pictures, Richard and Dan, cousin Connie and possibly many other fabulous things that Hopkins did not let out of the bag as seen at the end of the video clip - will we ever know truth here? Pragmaticism may win out. Harsh rebuttals may follow - dicey stuff, really.

This video has interesting dialog between Carol Rainey and posters to the video. The only place I have found to 'hear' Carol Rainey's view of things: the why, when and how of her thinking and decision making. Interesting reading. I have highlighted points that seem pertinent -

Poster: "Carol, can I ask what motivated you to create and post these videos that cast Budd (the man you were once married to) in such a bad light?"​

Carol Rainey: "That's a reasonable question. The short answer is that I'd become increasingly concerned throughout the years of working with Budd that his research techniques were faulty; that he'd become increasingly credulous and open to hoaxers; and that hypnosis is not a good way to learn anything objective and may be quite harmful to some people. I'd intended to not reveal these insights until Budd had died. But I was shocked into action when I examined the Emma Woods case that exploded in 2010. It showed subject abuse by Budd's best friend and fellow abduction researcher, David Jacobs, a man I knew well. It was also so spectacular in demonstrating the folly of this way of working with people that I spoke out sooner, rather than later. As soon as Budd publicly defended Jacobs' work with Emma and said that they both worked in similar ways, it was time to speak up before other people were as damaged as she had been."

Carol Rainey: "Because I had clear evidence that abduction researchers, especially Budd and his best friend David Jacobs, had lost the ability to see objectively that their well-intentioned actions were harming very vulnerable people. Current research into the neurobiology of the brain and memory processes shows quite clearly that "recovered memory" techniques like hypnosis are not recovering actual memories most of the time. The brain cannot differentiate between events that seem to be memories and events that one imagines or has suggested to him/her.

To be just, though, we should remember the context, in which Budd and others began extensive use of hypnosis in the 1980s. At that time, many professionals and certainly the public believed that the mind operates like a tape recorder, laying down memories, which can be recalled as simply as rewinding tape. Scientists now understand that many, though not all, memories (of alleged sexual abuse, satanic ritual abuse, and alien abduction, among others) are actually reconstructions of events that occurred in the past.

The brain is constantly updating, revising, and adding to any memory that’s pulled up. It’s like making a collage. We’re not even conscious most of the time that when we “remember,” we’re also incorporating into that memory many other elements: the suggestive environment we’re currently in (such as being in the home of a famous abduction researcher), television shows seen last week or ten years ago; ditto with books, movies, etc.

The researchers in this field, though, should be strongly aware of such influences. People who do this recovered memory work are not trained as scientists. More important, they often don’t read scientific literature or stay current in important relevant fields like neuroscience. If they did, I wouldn't have become so alarmed."
​

Poster:"What about John Mack? Is he not a scientist?"

Carol Rainey: "There's an amusing answer to that, really. John was a friend and while Budd and I were writing Sight Unseen, I recall sitting on a friend's porch on a summer night and excitedly telling John about a new discovery in physics that might explain aspects of UFOs. He looked pained and said: "I'm not really interested in the science of it..." I just laughed, not at all offended. It was such a 'John' response. Psychiatry isn't generally considered one of the 'hard sciences,' so no, John wasn't actually a research scientist. He was a physician, which gave him more physical science background than any other researcher I knew, but then again, he was mainly interested in things unrelated to the material sciences."
​

Poster: [A poster gives the link to Sean Meers website.]

Carol Rainey: "This website [Sean Meers website] repeatedly asserts that my statements about Linda Cortile's claims are "founded solely on Rainey's uncorroborated testimony." Wrong. Every statement I make is based on video in front of you and 120 hours more which you haven't seen. I have all the source material - audio, letters, drawings, etc. Linda denies being abducted with John Gotti? But I have the original audiotaped hypnotic regression with Linda in a spacecraft with a man she tells Budd is John Gotti. At the end, Budd implores her to never tell anybody of this abduction with Gotti because she wouldn't be credible. I have all the source documents for Witnessed, including Linda's handwritten note to Budd about meeting with the Pope. As to my claim that this site [Sean Meers website] is posting stolen video that belongs to me, here is YouTube's statement about that: "Just because you appear in a video, image, or audio recording does not mean you own the copyright to it. For example, if your friend filmed a conversation between the two of you, she would own the copyright to that video recording." I own all of the Witnessed-related case video posted on this Australian's site. [Sean Meers website] He is therefore posting stolen material."
​

Poster: "Interesting comments on this case. What has always bothered me with this case is the involvement of Javier Perez de Cuellar. I would think it would be fairly easy to find out where he actually was on 30 Nov 1989. As to the use of hypnosis to "recover memories" it has been discredited several times. To use it one must walk an extremely fine line. In cases involving recovered child molestation, hypnosis has been used to send people to prison only to find out years later that the incident never happened. To base an entire investigation on hypnosis and a few letters from persons unknown and involving a high ranking person makes for great tabloid head lines and nothing else."

Carol Rainey: "Thanks for your comment, Bob. The whole story was much more complicated than what you've described -- and the investigation went on for years. It's true, though, that it does boil down to that: much of the story coming from Linda Cortile (who told me that about 85% of what she "remembers" has come out under hypnosis) and letters and tapes from two alleged security agents -- men whom Budd never met. But I can see how the case was so alluring to Budd: it seemed to have over 22 witnesses, some of them sending him drawings of the craft hovering over Linda's building. Two women in his support group also seemed to have been involved in the events, as well. Add in the agents' claim that over a dozen other government officials, in addition to Perez de Quellar, saw the events of Nov. 30, 1989 -- and you have the makings of a sprawling, dramatic story with enormous implications. Unfortunately, if one has access to the source material, as I do, it quickly becomes apparent that it was Budd's artistry and selection of material that gave the story its original heft and excitement."
​

What I'm interested in, going back to theme 1, is how both Emma Woods and Carol Rainey were very quickly painted as "evil vixens," while many of the men of Ufology rushed to the defense of Jacobs and Hopkins. So if you peel back when the criticism of Hopkins took place, or how Emma Woods tried to hide her identity, the way Cortile did, do their criticisms hold weight or not? Sure, bad taste, poor judgment, hurt feelings and revenge may all play a role, but obviously some people are feeling violated, and others feel that there's some exploitation going on. So apologists aside, it really comes down to whom do you believe in? Who is actually speaking real truth vs. who is paintng pictures.

Carol Rainey I now 'know' but Emma Woods is a new name to me. Any suggestions on where I can read all about the "evil vixens"?

 

[kruggutter]

Dear Paracast forum,

Sean here again.

I would have liked to have left this thread some time ago by now, but a false claim started and spread by a debunker at this
forum has necessitated that I come back to make some additional posts. I do this for the sake of the other posters at the forum,
the ones who actually listen and pay attention to the data when it's provided to them. The information I'm presenting is already
available at Linda's website.

The false, baseless allegation made by the debunker at this forum is that email evidence from Roger Rubin is fake. The debunker
in question is also trying to falsely perpetuate that the crux of the case against Roger Rubin and Carol Rainey's claims regarding
Linda's case depends solely on that one email.

As far as the emails are concerned I have the originals and have presented the necessary data on that in an earlier post.

Roger Rubin's Curriculum Vitae is available online. His accreditations from professional organisations are listed as follows.

Page 1; line 11 – 13,
Roger Rubin’s CV,

URL: http://www.debtinversion.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/DB-v.-Codio-Roger-Rubin-CV.pdf

In order to learn more about the differences between graphology and legitimate forensic document examination I contacted
Kirsten Singer, the president of the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners, an institution which is accredited by
the Forensic Specialties Accreditation Board. I was informed by Singer that there was no scientific basis for the field of
graphology as a valid technique or skill.

She also asserted that in searching for a qualified, legitimate forensic document examiner, within the United States, that one
should confirm that the examiner is certified by at least one of the two accredited certification bodies, the American Board of
Forensic Document Examiners (ABFDE) and the Board of Forensic Document Examiners (BFDE). These two boards have
themselves been accredited by the Forensic Specialties Accreditation Board (FSAB). She also suggested that a qualified expert
should be a member of one or more of the following national organisations, the American Academy of Forensic Sciences -
Questioned Document Section, and the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners (ASQDE).

In order to determine whether or not Rubin is certified by either of these accredited certification bodies, and whether or not he
is a member of the other recommended national organisations, I obtained a copy of his curriculum vitae (CV). According to
his CV, the only organisations that Rubin attested to being a member of were The American Board of Forensic Examiners,
Springfield, MO, the National Association of Document Examiners, Princeton, NJ and the National Society for Graphology.
None of these organisations are accredited by the Forensic Specialties Accreditation Board (FSAB), nor is Rubin a member of
any of the other recommended national organisations for legitimate forensic document examiners.

The first organisation in Rubin’s list, The American Board of Forensic Examiners (ABFE), sounds suspiciously similar to the
American Board of Forensic Document Examiners (ABFDE). They are, however, two separate, totally unrelated bodies, the
latter is accredited by the Forensic Specialties Accreditation Board, the former is not.

What this means is that Roger Rubin, by his own admission on his CV (not in his emails to me), is not certified in any of the
accredited certification bodies which are required for legitimate forensic document examiners in the USA.

Kirsten Singer’s (President of the ABFDE) August 28, 2013 email to me

The fact that Roger Rubin is a graphologist, and an astrologist as well apparently according to one article, is also independently documented.

“Michael Nouri, Unpredictable On and Off Screen”
Page 37, Second Column from the left; line 32 – 39,
Third Column from the left; line 1 – 11,
Lakeland Ledger [Florida] - October 24, 1976

Two other articles as well.

Handwriting and the Election: What Graphology Says About the Candidates - Madam Lichtenstein's Cosmic World

Roger Rubin Graphologist | Job offer might hinge on penmanship Handwriting analysis used by firms in hiring - tribunedigital-baltimoresun

In regards to the debunker's copied post from the YouTube comments section (presenting comments from the YouTube comments section as evidence is pretty weak):

Carol Rainey: "This website [Sean Meers website] repeatedly asserts that my statements about Linda Cortile's claims are "founded solely on Rainey's uncorroborated testimony." Wrong. Every statement I make is based on video in front of you and 120 hours more which you haven't seen. I have all the source material - audio, letters, drawings, etc. Linda denies being abducted with John Gotti? But I have the original audiotaped hypnotic regression with Linda in a spacecraft with a man she tells Budd is John Gotti. At the end, Budd implores her to never tell anybody of this abduction with Gotti because she wouldn't be credible. I have all the source documents for Witnessed, including Linda's handwritten note to Budd about meeting with the Pope. As to my claim that this site [Sean Meers website] is posting stolen video that belongs to me, here is YouTube's statement about that: "Just because you appear in a video, image, or audio recording does not mean you own the copyright to it. For example, if your friend filmed a conversation between the two of you, she would own the copyright to that video recording." I own all of the Witnessed-related case video posted on this Australian's site. [Sean Meers website] He is therefore posting stolen material."

It was rebutted in detail in a paper I wrote at Linda's website

New Lies from Carol Rainey Regarding the Linda Cortile Case - The Linda Cortile UFO Abduction Case Website

In closing, I'd just like to say that when data is provided and referenced to someone and they ignore it (the above data is all contained in papers
I've written and referenced here), it is unlikely that they are willing to acknowledge any further data when it is provided and referenced to them.

I hope this puts these issues to bed.

Best

Sean

 

[Tyger]

You are calling me a 'debunker'? And here I thought I was having a conversation. Apparently not. You were clear you wanted to have your links clicked on - I do so - and this is the result?

I think what is obvious is that you are polite to anyone who accepts what you write and claim. Anyone who questions, not so much politeness at all. Rather you default to treating the poster as a third party, characterize them rather than address them and resort to catch phrases. What is all that about?

The issue is hardly put to rest. Your posting here proves that you are spinning, not proving anything. Already you have contradicted yourself twice regarding the forensic examiner. You continue to try to smear Roger Rubin - is he aware of what you are doing? (Being an astrologer is not a 'crime' btw - and forensic examiners use forensic graphology in their work).

There is nothing more to say. That is true. For the discerning - at least in this area - it should be clear that your arguments are pretty weak. You need say no more.

 

[kruggutter]

You are calling me a 'debunker'? And here I thought I was having a conversation. Apparently not. You were clear you wanted to have your links clicked on - I do so - and this is the result?

I think what is obvious is that you are polite to anyone who accepts what you write and claim. Anyone who questions, not so much politeness at all. Rather you default to treating the poster as a third party, characterize them rather than address them and resort to catch phrases. What is all that about?

The issue is hardly put to rest. Your posting here proves that you are spinning, not proving anything. Already you have contradicted yourself twice regarding the forensic examiner. You continue to try to smear Roger Rubin - is he aware of what you are doing? (Being an astrology is not a 'crime' btw - and forensic examiners use forensic graphology in their work).

There is nothing more to say. That is true. For the discerning - at least in this area - it should be clear that your arguments are pretty weak. You need say no more.

You're the clearest definition of a debunker that there is. You don't listen, you jump to unsubstantiated conclusions, you're rude and you make your arguments into
an issue of personality while ignoring the data.

How precisely have I contradicted myself twice regarding the forensic examiner? Is it anything like the errors you claim I made in the rebuttals
which you never elaborated on?

The fact that Rubin is an astrologer as well is incidental and mentioned because it was in the same article where he is listed as a graphologist.

You fail to acknowledge Rubin isn't qualified as a forensic document examiner, you claim evidence is faked on no evidential basis.

Based on what do you claim forensic document examiners use forensic graphology in their work?

Pointing out what Rubin is and isn't qualified in isn't smearing it's pointing out the facts.

Sean

 

[kruggutter]

You are calling me a 'debunker'? And here I thought I was having a conversation. Apparently not. You were clear you wanted to have your links clicked on - I do so - and this is the result?

I think what is obvious is that you are polite to anyone who accepts what you write and claim. Anyone who questions, not so much politeness at all. Rather you default to treating the poster as a third party, characterize them rather than address them and resort to catch phrases. What is all that about?

The issue is hardly put to rest. Your posting here proves that you are spinning, not proving anything. Already you have contradicted yourself twice regarding the forensic examiner. You continue to try to smear Roger Rubin - is he aware of what you are doing? (Being an astrology is not a 'crime' btw - and forensic examiners use forensic graphology in their work).

There is nothing more to say. That is true. For the discerning - at least in this area - it should be clear that your arguments are pretty weak. You need say no more.

I have wasted too much time on your debunking antics for too long Tyger.

I don't need the headache anymore. I've got nothing more to say to you.

Sean

 

[Tyger]

You're the clearest definition of a debunker that there is. You don't listen,

I absolutely have 'listened'. I just don't agree with what is being said.

you jump to unsubstantiated conclusions

Where?

you're rude

When?

and you make your arguments into an issue of personality

Nope, that's what you're doing.

while ignoring the data.

Quite the reverse. I've looked enough to know that you have very little 'data'.

How precisely have I contradicted myself twice regarding the forensic examiner?

Look for yourself. Figure it out. It's you who are doing the spin.

The fact that Rubin is an astrologer as well is incidental and mentioned because it was in the same article where he is listed as a graphologist.

Mmm-hmm. You are pretty transparent. You lose credibility the more you spin.

You fail to acknowledge Rubin isn't qualified as a forensic document examiner

I'm not aware he is not qualified. I know you have worked very hard to make out he is not qualified. It is essential that his assessment of the Linda/Janet handwriting not stand. It is key - so Roger Rubin must be debunked. Must. Hence your strenuous efforts - to the point of having Roger Rubin disavow himself, contradict his own statements about himself. It's pretty obvious what you are doing.

you claim evidence is faked on no evidential basis.

Do you mean the Linda envelope? Or the drawings? That must be it because I don't know of any other evidence I've mentioned. I went on the evidence of what I saw regarding the drawings. My opinion. You have your opinion. Check.

Based on what do you claim forensic document examiners use forensic graphology in their work?

Based on descriptions of what they do in their work (as you know).

Pointing out what Rubin is and isn't qualified in isn't smearing it's pointing out the facts.

Your 'facts' are your spin on the matter. That's what I see.

So let's agree to disagree. You have already shown that it's hard for you to accept challenge to your scenario. Why continue this any longer? My first post to this thread was actually laudatory for all your hard work. That comment you liked and were gracious. When I posted Carol Rainey's videos, suddenly I became someone not worth bothering with. And then when I take the time to really look at some of the 'data', you accuse me of being 'rude'. Methinks, Mr Sean Meers, you are a no-win situation. So let's just agree to disagree. Seems the right thing to do.

 

[Tyger]

I have wasted too much time on your debunking antics for too long Tyger.

I don't need the headache anymore. I've got nothing more to say to you.

Sean

You know what? With this little bit, you have just convinced me that I am more dead-on in what I have said than even I know. And what I've said is not all that much btw, compared to others on this thread. Interesting responses.