Carol Rainey (Mrs. Budd Hopkins)

[kruggutter]

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.

Not wasting anymore time on you Tyger.

Be well and Goodbye

Sean

 

[Tyger]

Not wasting anymore time on you Tyger.

I know, that's what you said.

Be well

Sean

Really? You talk the way you do to a fellow poster, and you then say 'Be well'? Something amiss there. Just saying.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

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.

The thing of it is, I DONT CARE what his credentials are. The fact that the "H" and "2" are the same and the fact that kimball cant/wouldn't go on camera is enough for me.

 

[Burnt State]

So Ladies and Germs, what have we learned here except that in the grand spectrum of ufology the only thing more contentious and acrimonious than Roswell related inventions & memorabilia is talking about abduction cases. In both areas people create their own facts and hold to them while everyone else "inadequately" retorts. There's nowhere to go. It's like arguing Billy Meier with his champions or debating Turkish videos of aliens walking about behind transparent viewing ports with their champions. These are the themes of ufology and they never go away.

 

[Tyger]

Well, Ladies and Germs, indeed. This has been one rabbit hole. When I posted for the first time on this thread I knew nothing but the merest cloudy memory of having read about the Cortile case some time back, and watched some videos. Very hazy. I've learned a lot in a few short days. How quickly a pretty innocent passer-by (me) got labelled and dismissed because I asked some questions and offered my own (differing) 'take' on some 'evidence'.

You might ask: why was I so quickly dismissed? Likely because I hit a nerve, a big one. As it happens, the handwriting analysis is a pivot point. I did not particularly focus on that when I did my analysis of the Ledger analysis - for me it was what I am most familiar with since I have some background in that area (though let's be clear: I am not an authority in any way). That little jaunt started to reveal some oddities - like Rubin doing a complete reversal regarding his bona fides - wtf? That's not normal. Something is not as it seems: either the e-mail purporting to be from Rubin is bogus (yes) or something else is happening. My initial reading of Rubin's e-mail did not suggest what Meers is contending - it seemed a professional statement (perhaps) in answer to specific questions - but what were those questions? We need to see the communication. Since there is evidence on-line that Sean Meers has misrepresented himself to people upon first contact, did Sean Meers misrepresent himself to Roger Rubin? We need to see the communication - and Rubin needs to supply perhaps a letter - meaning that Rubin needs to be fully informed as to how his response is being used.

I came across this website/blog in all my googling on this matter: [link removed due to defamatory content — moderator!] [Note from Tyger: One person's defamation is another's background information. Google Sean Meers - the link I gave will pop up. Read it. See what you think. It explains a lot about Sean Meers and who one is dealing with, I think.]

If the above blog is accurate, then why I was summarily 'dismissed' when I started to question 'the evidence' (or 'the data') starts to become clear. I am being dismissed because I must not be allowed to continue to question. Sean Meers response posts are riddled with problems. In time, I may respond to them, but stuff like this takes time and not all of us have that in bucketfuls - at least to focus on this kind of thing.

Let's sum this up -

- I looked at handwriting. This winds up being key I now realize, because a major contention around some of the 'evidence' is that it came from someone other than Cortile. From my meager cache of experience with handwriting, I looked at the analysis of the handwriting Sean Meers directed me to look at within his links. The analysis he directed me to look at was by a Mr Ledger, who actually got some things wrong from what I observed in Rainey's video. For Ledger to discount Rubin's analysis in favor of his own analysis is weak reasoning. When I state the problems with Ledger's analysis, Sean Meers back pedals and admits that Ledger was not the the best example of a debunk of Mr Rubin. Point 1.

- So then I am instructed to look at this link: Results from a Legitimate Forensic Document Examination - The Linda Cortile UFO Abduction Case Website That I have to spend good time unravelling this nonsense is an example of how much time wasting really is taking place. But if no one takes the time to rebuttal the claims then the assertions start to looks like facts, when they are nothing of the sort. Absolutely nothing is proved by that link. Nothing. It is surrounded by claims that one must accept on faith.

Point 2: The handwriting exemplars are not provided (from the above examination) on the grounds of privacy. This is incorrect procedure. We do not have to see pages upon pages of exemplars, but we do need to see excerpts from exemplars as evidence of the claims being set forth by the analyst. Since the writing on the envelope (I assume the analyst is using) is public knowledge, the analyst could have easily identified that content (what was written) to give us a foothold letting the reader know that Janet's purported writing was indeed being looked at. As it stands, we do not know what the analyst was looking at. We must take it on faith/belief that it was the envelope Rubin was looking at (I am assuming, but even that may be wrong as why would Meers have possession of that envelope?)

Point 3: As has to be obvious to anyone, a forensic examiner does indeed 'do' handwriting. In recent posts Sean Meers has tried to indicate that forensic analysis does not include handwriting analysis (also referred to as graphology; a forensic graphologist does not do personalty interpretation; in a way Meers is 'playing footsie' with the various words and phrases like handwriting analysis, graphology, forensic analysis and forensic examiner). Forensic examinations do include handwriting analysis as is proven in Sean Meers' link to an analysis he had done with some writing samples and an envelope (aside: we have no proof from where these items he had analyzed actually originated, nor do we have any screen shots of them). The analysis as he presents it has no context. It therefore has no relevance.

Point 4: Sean Meers makes every attempt to discredit Roger Rubin as a legitimate forensic examiner, to the point of having Rubin disavow his own worthiness, in direct contradiction to what he said previously. Why does Rubin do this? We know what Sean Meers will say, but Sean Meers' say-so is not enough. In fact, that e-mail has got to be from Rubin, because it is by using Rubin's e-mail wording that Meers successfully (for some people) discredits Rubin. In other words, Meers cannot state that Rubin is not qualified - that would be defamation. Instead, he quotes the e-mail - Rubin's own words. Happily, Rubin refers to 'graphology' so that Meers can endlessly make the charge of a pseudo-science. However, forensic examiners use handwriting analysis, also called graphology, though in their case it is called forensic graphology. Rubin states that he has been trained in both forensic graphology (forensic handwriting analysis) and personality graphology (the 'pseudo-science').

Point 5: Roger Rubin's background is legitimate. That he (apparently) doesn't belong to a particular organization - and we must trust Meers on this - is proof of nothing, despite the spokesperson's claim. Maybe Rubin stopped paying his dues. Maybe Rubin doesn't need that membership to ply his trade. Maybe he does belong. Rubin has given evidence in court in over 70-80 cases so I guess the legal system had/has no problem with his bona fides.

And so it goes.

 

[Constance]

Tyger, I think that, like many skeptics and skeptibunkers, you are quick to imagine the basest motives and behaviors possible for researchers presenting reasoned points of view concerning subjects that upset or repel you. Your tone and style in arguing with such people is that of a prosecuting attorney on steroids. If we were in a court of law and I were the attorney for the defense representing Sean Meers I would have raised my voice and said "Objection" to your claim above that "there is evidence on-line that Sean Meers has misrepresented himself to people upon first contact." The judge would likely have replied "Sustained" and maintained that ruling unless you could immediately produce solid evidence to support your claim about Meers. But we are not in a court of law here, so all I can say to this and other examples of your typical aggressive style and tone is "Phooey, Madam."

 

[Gene Steinberg]

And so it goes.

I removed the link you provided, which contains emotional and defamatory content about Sean Meers. It does nothing to advance the conversation.

You are free to disagree with the Brooklyn Bridge case, and you are free to argue in a respectful fashion with Meers or any other member. But we are beginning to hit a few limits here, so let's tone it done, OK?

 

[Tyger]

Tyger, I think that, like many skeptics

I am likely that, yes.

and skeptibunkers

I am not that.

you are quick to imagine the basest motives and behaviors possible for researchers presenting reasoned points of view concerning subjects that upset or repel you.

For pity's sake, there are so many assumptions packed into this little bit - where to begin? Why even begin? Except that to let it stand - since you have decided to characterize me - suggests something.

I am not 'upset or repelled'. You really do need to stop categorizing the emotional state of posters. You can ask - as I do - one can inquire as to how someone feels, but one cannot assume one 'knows' the emotional state of another via text, and then paint them with that brush. Sometimes there will be cues, but even then one can be misled. For example, I could say I find you edgy and quick to pick a fight recently - is that really what is happening from your end? Maybe not.

I have not been 'quick to imagine' the 'basest motives and behaviors possible for researchers'. Where did that happen? I ask these questions of you - for you to point out how you are coming to these statements, but you never respond. What 'base motives' have I mentioned? What 'basest behaviors' of researchers have I discussed?

Your tone and style in arguing with such people is that of a prosecuting attorney on steroids.

My tone - again my tone. Methinks you're too sensitive.

Ever occur to you that maybe I was trained as a lawyer?

Anyway, enough footsie: someone makes claims then they have to be ready to be questioned. Simple as that. Someone presents evidence then they have to be prepared to have that evidence be questioned. As it stands there is enough questionable material on the Sean Meers website to render it all suspect imo. One person's opinion. Why let one person's opinion matter so much? Either answer the questions or move on. In Sean Meers case, I think he's moved on.

If we were in a court of law and I were the attorney for the defense representing Sean Meers I would have raised my voice and said "Objection" to your claim above that "there is evidence on-line that Sean Meers has misrepresented himself to people upon first contact." The judge would likely have replied "Sustained" and maintained that ruling unless you could immediately produce solid evidence to support your claim about Meers. But we are not in a court of law here, so all I can say to this and other examples of your typical aggressive style and tone is "Phooey, Madam."

Well, your scenario would be in error. No 'sustained' because there is evidence of the statement.

Read the link I supply. There is evidence that he presented himself to Carol Rainey (and then Emma Woods) in an inoffensive and benign fashion, and once connected did a turn-about. That he did such before, makes me question how he presented himself to Mr Rubin. We need to see that communication, and a letter from Mr Rubin indicating that he knows how Sean Meers is using his communications.

I mention the on-line evidence about Sean Meers because I experienced something similar (though not exact) - my initial post to the thread was supportive of all the 'research' I saw at first glance on his website. Meers response was pleasant and gracious at that point. It quickly changed when I (and others) posted the Carol Rainey videos. Then Mr Meers pretty much became dismissive (that's putting it kindly) when I (and others) began to analyze the content of his links. Words used that come to mind are 'lazy' and 'ignorant'. Then the debunker stuff started. We were greeted with phrases like we were 'a waste of time', etc.

I've been warned to stay clear of Sean Meers btw, because of his litigious tendencies, and his attempt at on-line censorship. That I will do - and I am very happy that he has said he will have no more to do with me. Good sign. I hope he keeps to his word. He did say 'Goodbye', after all. One can hope.

 

[Tyger]

I removed the link you provided, which contains emotional and defamatory content about Sean Meers. It does nothing to advance the conversation.

Not sure what is being referenced but sometimes background makes for understanding a lot. In that it does advance the conversation imo. Emotional content - if it was there - is irrelevant. It's the factual content - the points that were being made - that were key to this thread's conversation.

For example I have heard it inferred that Carol Rainey was not the best wife material and made her reveal during a time when Budd Hopkins was dying - was the word 'contemptible' used to describe her? That's pretty strong. For myself, I care naught for such things. I am interested in the content - and I have yet to find Rainey's content unsound. However, Sean Meers' content, on two counts I looked into, is unsound. How he communicates is relevant because on one of those counts a communication is being used to debunk someone.

You are free to disagree with the Brooklyn Bridge case, and you are free to argue in a respectful fashion with Meers or any other member. But we are beginning to hit a few limits here, so let's tone it done, OK?

I agree, and thank you for supporting respectful debate. I assume you also support that Sean Meers should engage in respectful debate as well? I hope so.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I have an email from Rainey, written when Budd Hopkins was in his final months of life, which was quite insulting, and I won't quote it here. But that left a real bad taste in my mouth about her. I did allow her to post in our forums until she went a little too far, and we shut it down.

 

[Tyger]

I have an email from Rainey, written when Budd Hopkins was in his final months of life, which was quite insulting, and I won't quote it here. But that left a real bad taste in my mouth about her. I did allow her to post in our forums until she went a little too far, and we shut it down.

Then you and I are different in that regard. I have worked alongside scientists who are absolute (as the saying goes) 'a-holes' - yes the stories I could tell - but in every sense they were superlative investigators in their field and their science was pristine, without fault (imo). Carol Rainey's thesis, as far as I have been able to determine up to this point, stands, regardless if she sent you an insulting e-mail, or sent a few. Sean Meers may be one heckuvva guy over beers at the local pub, but his website gives evidence, based on a few areas I have looked at and a few other areas others (I respect) have reported on, of being wonky. My opinion.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

So Ladies and Germs, what have we learned here except that in the grand spectrum of ufology the only thing more contentious and acrimonious than Roswell related inventions & memorabilia is talking about abduction cases. In both areas people create their own facts and hold to them while everyone else "inadequately" retorts. There's nowhere to go. It's like arguing Billy Meier with his champions or debating Turkish videos of aliens walking about behind transparent viewing ports with their champions. These are the themes of ufology and they never go away.

Hate to sound like a cheerleader but....I'll sound like a cheerleader. Right on Burnt.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Tyger, I think that, like many skeptics and skeptibunkers, you are quick to imagine the basest motives and behaviors possible for researchers presenting reasoned points of view concerning subjects that upset or repel you. Your tone and style in arguing with such people is that of a prosecuting attorney on steroids. If we were in a court of law and I were the attorney for the defense representing Sean Meers I would have raised my voice and said "Objection" to your claim above that "there is evidence on-line that Sean Meers has misrepresented himself to people upon first contact." The judge would likely have replied "Sustained" and maintained that ruling unless you could immediately produce solid evidence to support your claim about Meers. But we are not in a court of law here, so all I can say to this and other examples of your typical aggressive style and tone is "Phooey, Madam."

Funny, because the very thing you accuse Tyger of is exactly how I feel about you & Meers.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Great analogy Burnt.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

The part about Tyger saying (paraphrasing) that he has to sift through 700 links of nonsense couldn't be more on point. Gimme a break.

 

[Constance]

Funny, because the very thing you accuse Tyger of is exactly how I feel about you & Meers.

No problem, Creepy. You're entitled to your opinion.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

I was reading an article late last night that said Cortile was either on this craft when this was filmed or was on this exact craft but at a different time. Either way, the claim is this is valid footage?

 

[Tyger]

You know, we can only do what we can do. I always go towards what interests me and with which I have some background. In perusing Sean Meers link purporting to give a laundry list of Carol Rainey's 'lies' - I came upon this -

Inconsistency #3
The third apparent inconsistency occurred when I read Rainey’s claim that she had “been a filmmaker for 25 years” and that she had “been making award-winning documentaries for PBS, cable, and commercial distribution for over two decades”. The reason this appears to be an inconsistency is because upon checking her credentials at the most comprehensive internet movie database in the world (www.imdb.com) the only credit I could find attached to her name was that of being an additional camera to the John Mack documentary “Touched”. While there certainly could be a reasonable explanation for the absences in her IMDB résumé I nonetheless found it odd that someone who had been working as a filmmaker for 25 years, “making award-winning documentaries”, had not accrued significantly more film and television credits.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5695426/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1
Checked and recorded on Friday September 27, 2013​

Who can say if Sean Meers has a full grasp of the thinness of his evidence. I really don't know. He is either a very weak 'investigator' or he is very clever about his disinformation. It's quite possible he doesn't have a clue when he is wrong. It's also quite possible that he knows full well when he is manufacturing 'data'. This is where anyone can make statements as though they are fact, and if the reader has no background in such areas, it can sound reasonable and the conclusions 'make sense'. However.....

.........the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) is a voluntary listing. Every listing there has been posted by either the actor or the filmmaker or a Talent Agent - whoever has an interest in promoting the said talent or product to the general public. While the IMDb is impressively large and most actors use it for fan-based purposes, I am personally acquainted with producers and young actors who choose not to use it. One musician has used it for only a few of his gigs, but generally relies on other modes of resume dissemination. Social Media has become big for that. Carol Rainey's failure to use IMDb is not unusual nor indicative of her 'lying'.

However, of particular note: In fact, Carol Rainey does not have to be the person who posts info to that IMDb page that has her name. Anyone can do so. Please note that at the bottom of the IMDb page there is an Edit button. Anyone can edit that page. In fact, anyone can mount the page. We have no way of knowing whether Carol Rainey mounted that page. Since 'Touched' is listed, we can click on it and see that someone connected with that project did enter a page of information on that documentary. Hence whoever knew Rainey had worked on 'Touched' would have been able to mount the page and give the link. They did not go so far as to enter personal information - an indication (to me) that this page is likely not the doing of Carol Rainey herself. It could be anyone. What is clear, is that Carol Rainey is disseminating her resume in other ways than via IMDb.

Sean Meers is attempting to make out that Carol Rainey is a fraud with the above 'inconsistency'. It is, in fact, no inconsistency at all. It is simply that Sean Meer does not understand what the IMDb is and how it is used or not used by talent in the industry. Unless he does know, and it is he himself who mounted the page. I don't know. It is clear that John Mack used it in 2003 to post a page about the documentary featuring him.

It is also clear - from a video taken of Budd Hopkins in about 1998 by Carol Rainey - that Budd Hopkins considered his then-wife a videographer, as he so referenced her, and believed she was making a documentary on abduction.

Anyway, one can trawl through all the heaps of this and that in Sean Meers documents purporting to disassemble Rainey, but in the end no one has the time. One thing is clear - the whole abduction research phenomenon would make one heckuvva documentary on the mind and beliefs and human nature. My understanding is Rainey is writing a book, and the documentary will follow. I can bet doors have swung shut for her given what I have been reading. True believers will not talk to her or open up. It must be a bit like trying to do a report on a religion (like Scientology). If anyone is able to do it, it will be Rainey, but documentaries like this take time and can be decades in the making. So we will have to wait and see.

 

[Tyger]

I was reading an article late last night that said Cortile was either on this craft when this was filmed or was on this exact craft but at a different time. Either way, the claim is this is valid footage?

I would say bogus - a (poor) construction suspended from a wire - which explains it's bobbing motion. Tons of problems with this footage. So clearly a hoax.

But how would Cortile be involved? Isn't this from the 1960's? The presenter says 1966.

 

[Tyger]

I'm going to cease looking through Sean Meers 'investigations'. They are really no better close up than at a distance. Shallow stuff imo. In the end, that's what all this stuff turns out to be. Very disappointing. Oh well. A house-of-cards. It was at the beginning, and it still is, no matter the intervening years. Just more tall-tales between then and now.