Carol Rainey (Mrs. Budd Hopkins)

[Creepy Green Light]

Since my opinions on this matter are on occasion misrepresented by certain people who should know better — since they've been corrected on many occasions — let me state them yet again.

Carol Rainey has the perfect right to disagree with the findings of Budd Hopkins, and to argue against the cases he investigated. What she did, however, was to actively promote her documentary and engage in attacks against Hopkins when she knew he was near death from terminal cancer. Talk about hitting someone when he's down. She also sent me once a perfectly immature email repeating the mantra "the dying man," claiming Hopkins, by being able to walk by himself and do some basic tasks, wasn't so sick after all. He died some months after that.

That sort of behavior was reprehensible, as was that of her fellow travelers who actively promoted those attacks at the time.

It had nothing to do with their validity or lack thereof — it was all about the poor taste and the timing. It could all have been done far earlier, or just wait till after Hopkins' death in 2011, knowing the end was near. There was no urgency to choose a time when Hopkins was most likely to be hurt by the attacks and unable to give a full-blown response (though he did respond somewhat briefly).

In short, it was a matter of being a decent human being.

Wow, that is important information to know. I had no idea. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Tyger]

That "scorning" evidently happened years earlier, however. But grudges can last.

Is it that Cortile and Hopkins had a love affair?

 

[kruggutter]

Is it that Cortile and Hopkins had a love affair?

Not between Hopkins and Cortile.

 

[Tyger]

Not between Hopkins and Cortile.

So what's the 'scorned' part referring to? Marriage gone bad?

 

[kruggutter]

So what's the 'scorned' part referring to? Marriage gone bad?

It's not my place to say really. Budd addressed their marriage briefly in a page from his autobiography.

Art, Life and UFO’s
by
Budd Hopkins
Kindle Edition (*.MOBI Format)
Location 6351 - 6363 (Kindle for PC 4)
ISBN: 1933665793

 

[Tony B.]

Some people develop a fondness for feeling poisoned by rejection and nourish that feeling to boundless levels of malice. She is apparently one such.

Unfortunate, yet true. And this, in my opinion (feel free to disagree) is a classic case of the Embittered Ex-Spouse.

This is one of those rare situations where someone SHOULD be held to higher standards of proof, simply for the reason that they have an axe to grind. Although this is vehemently denied by Ms. Rainey and her supporters.

 

[Constance]

Unfortunate, yet true. And this, in my opinion (feel free to disagree) is a classic case of the Embittered Ex-Spouse.

Yes, it looks that way to me (having myself experienced a lengthy struggle to escape an Embittered Ex-Spouse).

This is one of those rare situations where someone SHOULD be held to higher standards of proof, simply for the reason that they have an axe to grind. Although this is vehemently denied by Ms. Rainey and her supporters.

Unfortunately people like this do not [and perhaps psychologically can not] recognize that higher standards of behavior exist in civil societies and that they are subject to be judged by those standards. Narcissists and other sociopaths recognize no natural or civil rules of behavior that apply to them.

 

[Bob Watson]

 

[Burnt State]

Features some Cortile material in The Abductees

 

[Tyger]

I have done some (very) little poking around in this 'case' some time back. I watched conversations between Hopkins and Cortile, and saw some comments by Rainy. I am far from a 'follower' of anyone, but my 'take' on the whole thing was that Cortile was 'not credible', and I found Rainey's perspective valuable because of her 'inside track'. That was my 'take' at the time. Don't know if I'd think the same were I to look at the whole thing again, but I suspect so.

 

[Burnt State]

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.

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.

 

[Constance]

will we ever know truth here?

I'd say most probably not. For me that's all the more reason not to pursue the details of these cases. If what's actually happened to these afflicted people is ever explained, I'll happily settle for reading the executive summary of the findings. There should, however, be a public victims' fund to compensate these people for all the shit they've had to endure from humans, over whom we ought to have at least some civil control.

 

[Rikki]

has this been debunked?

 

[kruggutter]

has this been debunked?

Yes.

Inaccuracies from Carol Rainey’s Video “A Key Witness in the Linda Cortile UFO Abduction Case” - The Linda Cortile UFO Abduction Case Website

 

[kruggutter]

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.

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.

It comes down to what has been proven and Emma Woods and Carol Rainey haven't proven their derogatory claims about Budd Hopkins, David Jacobs, Linda Cortile or her case.

Inaccuracies from Carol Rainey’s Video “Budd Hopkins Hears of New Danger in the Linda Cortile UFO Abduction Case” - The Linda Cortile UFO Abduction Case Website

 

[Stagger Lee]

After reading "Witnessed" - I couldn't help but feel bad for Linda's husband, and children. Hoax or not.
I've always thought the key to open this case would be Janet Kimball's family coming forward to verify what she saw on the bridge that night- or any one of the many drivers who Janet heard screaming during the incident.

 

[Tony B.]

After reading "Witnessed" - I couldn't help but feel bad for Linda's husband, and children. Hoax or not.

Amen to that!

 

[Bob Watson]

Mr Meers:
do you have any evidence what so ever that the witnesses on the bridge truly exist?
have you met "Richard" and "Dan"? do you have any SOLID proof they are real?
have you met Janet Kimbel? do you have SOLID proof she is real?
Do you have SOLID evidence of the secretary general of the UN witness the event?
please answer with a minimum of links or simple yes no answers...

 

[kruggutter]

Mr Meers:
do you have any evidence what so ever that the witnesses on the bridge truly exist?
have you met "Richard" and "Dan"? do you have any SOLID proof they are real?
have you met Janet Kimbel? do you have SOLID proof she is real?
Do you have SOLID evidence of the secretary general of the UN witness the event?
please answer with a minimum of links or simple yes no answers...

I've got the Janet Kimball's real name, contact details and family details. I've contacted her surviving family and as indicated
in Budd Hopkins' book Witnessed they do not want anything to do with the matter. They did not entertain Janet's account as
being possible and they ridiculed her when she told them about it. I've had Kimball's handwriting professionally compared to
Linda's by a real forensic document examiner who concluded that Linda in all likelihood is not the author of the documents as
claimed by Rainey.

Dan disappeared on February 22, 1992. Linda's husband Steve, her son Stephen, her childhood friend Carmela and Cardinal
John O'Connor all met and spoke with Richard in person. Janet Kimball was interviewed face to face by Budd Hopkins who
recorded the interview. The details of her account of the beginning of the November 30, 1989 UFO abduction, from the Brooklyn
Bridge, corroborated Richard, Dan and the third man's account of the beginning of the November 30, 1989 UFO abduction, from
under the FDR Drive, 100%. Which means someone who Hopkins did meet in person, and who's account he was able to document
in person, independently corroborated the account that Richard, Dan and the third man provided.

In addition to this Yancy Spence, a truck driver for the New York Post, and Robert "Bobby" N., a worker at the New York Post, both
came forward to Hopkins in person in late 2001 to report their witnessing the beginning of the November 30, 1989 UFO abduction
incident. Their accounts were documented and videotaped as well.

Richard hasn't been heard from for over a decade and has put it behind him as best he can.

The evidence regarding the third man being the former UN Secretary-General is subtle. He indicated in his one letter to Budd Hopkins
he would not confirm his involvement and has been true to his word. Budd spoke of having his identity confirmed from an independent
source but would not publicly disclose more than that.

There's nothing simple or straight forward about this case. Something which I've said from the beginning. There is no evidence of a hoax,
and there have been more lies told about it in attempts to discredit it than any other abduction case on record.

 

[Bob Watson]

Thank you for your response it helps judge the case.