NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Seriously Tyger, the LOL was in reference to your "boredom" on the topic. The "have you read some books" was in reference to whether you understood why I would see the topic as serious vs. mythology or any other reference one might give this subject that doesn't find it credible. Blog wherever you like, enjoy yourself and speak freely. I think I'll take a break now. Enjoy.
Thanks for submitting. I'm off to read it.
My feeling is that the 'story' spun around abductions is boring (as in lacking in dynamic real-life cause-and-effect), and often simple-minded. That last is harsh, I know, but a really good science fiction writer can come up with far more intriguing and well-put-together story lines than some of these abduction stories (which come across as thinly veiled stories of self, or outright fantasy daydreams).
I suspect so would the military.
Word.Sean, you go high-dudgeon pretty quickly. What's that about? As far as I can see there has been nothing but courtesy extended to you on this thread. There have been differences of opinion, and definitely some posters do not accept your analysis. Faced with the latter you actually state: "there is no reason for me to waste my time on them." Hmmm.....your way or the highway?
You also are adamant that your analysis is pristine, without blemish - and you accuse others of all manner of stuff - like 'hate mail'. What I see is no swear words, some 'colorful' provocative language, yes, but 'hate'? Your 'evidence for being abused by Carol Raimy is also thin imo. You go to a high-pitch rather quickly, as demonstrated here on this thread, so I am inclined to question what all this is about.
As for spouses divorced - and one feeling betrayed and ill-used by the other (I could see Budd Hopkins feeling stung quite deeply) - do you really want to get in between that? Carol will have her issues and Budd will have his. So what she wrote you with intensity - you honestly think that your sharing these e-mails proves anything about Raimy other than that she is a woman with hurt feelings, saying stuff people do in the heat of separation and divorce? Not everyone is a paragon. BTW - Gene made a good point, but in fairness, do we really know if Rainy knew how ill Budd Hopkins was when she published her videos? I don't think we can. She also may have thought to publish the videos after his death - if she knew he was that ill - was a kind of cowardly thing to do. Just some ideas.
If Cortile can be all traumatized and still give valid information - in your view - then why cannot Carol Raimy - traumatized by her marriage 'whatever' - being 'scorned' - also give good information and analysis? You can't have it be that Cortile can be right-on-the-ball while pretty emotional, and have Carol Raimy be without credence because she's emotional. How does this work?
You state: "unsubstantiated, derogatory claims from a demonstrably biased source, are what is considered to be compelling evidence by some of these posters" - well, I get the point, you don't like Carol Raimy. But if you are disagreed with - if your pov, your analysis, is not accepted, you get pretty flustered. Rainy is stating her points pretty clearly, no matter how emotional you find her in an e-mail exchange. (That exchange says more about you btw than it does her).
Rainy seems to substantiate what she is saying - and what she is basically saying is that investigation protocols were not followed by Budd Hopkins in the Cortile Case. She correctly states her view that Hopkins was too 'caught up' in the case, and she demonstrates why she has this view. She makes a compelling case. She substantiates her claim. Is it derogatory? It's for sure a criticism.
What is the derogatory part? Well, the Budd Hopkins who nailed LT Col Corso in an interview was not the same man being believing and accepting with Cortile - one could see that in the back-and-forth he had with Cortile about the attempted kidnapping of Cortile by someone in a van. Then there's the hypnosis - the whole case is riddled with problems. You state: "The argument that Budd Hopkins was credulous in his investigation of the case is also false." That is your opinion. To which you are entitled. It can be said equally so, based on a fairly lengthy - and painful to watch - video of Hopkins and Cortile talking - that he was credulous. ('Painful' in the sense that Cortile comes across as having issues, and seems to be embroidering her story as she speaks - it is difficult to watch her).
You are simply unable to accept other viewpoints respectfully, as with this: "The lazy, ignorant argument that they are concoctions of someone's mind is false." I guess that puts everyone in their place.
The only area that is dicey - I will agree - is the claims regarding the financial arrangement. However, Rainy tells a persuasive narrative. It is only her say-so, of course, and she is not providing video of actual documents, just generic screen shots to make her point. However, what she spins makes perfect sense as the details she gives would reasonably be the conditions of such a contract. I would bet that Hopkins - and by extension Cortile - expected a film deal. I am likely one of the few who would not fault them for having that hope. I would also not fault Cortile for wanting a bit of the action - after all, it is her story. (In this I do not require abductees with a rousing good story to somehow have to pass the Snow White Test - never touching 'filthy lucre'. Though in this regard, Cortile should have just written a screenplay and hawked it to the SciFy Channel - could have made a decent bundle that way).
As for Roger Rubin - the forensic document examiner - his response to you was professional, and he gave the caveats that apply for all forensic document examiners. This is not a big deal. The same caveats would apply to the forensic document examiner you used. He was also not using psychological graphology in his analysis - which is the graphology that some consider a 'pseudoscience'. He was using forensic graphology - which he states he was trained in, and is why he identified himself as a forensic document examiner to the camera. You stated: "Carol Rainey purported Roger Rubin to be a forensic document examiner. He is not, Rubin is a Graphologist, which is a pseudoscience. He was not qualified to perform a forensic document examination." You have slurred some facts: Rubin identified himself as a forensic graphologist, and he also indicated in his e-mail to you that he is trained in forensic graphology. In the video, Rubin was doing a forensic analysis of the two handwritings, not a personality analysis.
With the little bit I know about graphology, the kicker was with the capital letter 'H' - and the real kicker was with the number '2'. The fact is that there was too little of the secondary handwriting to make a complete forensic analysis - and your forensic analyst should have told you that. Based on what we see - there are aspects to both examples that are not exact but writing can be influenced by emotions on a given day, year, etc. There is enough similarity - like with the 'H' and the '2' to make the conclusion of 'same person wrote both' tipping towards certainty - but as Rubin correctly states, there are caveats (both for his forensic analysis, and for your forensic analyst).
You write: "Carol Rainey is not an objective researcher of Budd Hopkins or the Cortile case. Her bias, lies and viciousness towards Hopkins, Cortile and myself are well documented." I am not really interested in this little drama you are stirring - traveling here to smear Rainy. Hopefully she's learned her lesson and no longer talks with you. As I have stated, Rainy can be seeing double when it comes to her ex, but she can still be making a valid critique.
You write: "If you'd bother to read the rebuttals you would become familiar with more of her lies about the case." Here's where I have to deliver some bad news, Sean - your rebuttals are a mixed bag. Also, just because a poster doesn't reference your rebuttals doesn't up-front signify anything but that they don't want to discuss them with you. Assuming someone 'hasn't bothered' is part of your curious righteous stance.
One more bit - Rainy left the drawings with an art appraiser - but even I can see a similarity in technique between the drawings. Very strange to have the same kind of color overlays done by two different people unless they had similar training in how to use crayons 'for effect'. That's possible, of course, but improbable for two random people to have such imo.
You wrote: "If you wish to continue ignoring the information and rebuttals I'm providing, and keep citing the videos so be it. I'm not repeating myself again and I'm not going to waste time sharing documented facts with those who choose to ignore them." Sadly your rebuttals are not always convincing, nor are they without error. I have given a few example.
You wrote: "I do not mind what anyone thinks about the case, that is any individual's prerogative." that's good to know.
You wrote: "My only pet peeve in regards to the matter is the deliberate, willful ignorance of the facts." Well, there we are - your facts. the willful, deliberate ignorance of your facts, your spin, your hate. That's what it looks like.
You wrote: "Peace, Sean" If you say so.
There I will not even go, because it should be clear with anyone with a critical eye what is going on. I'd say just let it alone. Remember Budd Hopkins nailing Lt Col Corso in the video Carol Rainy also put up - this is the kind of clarity he was capable of, and that she saw and is honoring in that video, I think. Probably was the man she fell in love with.
Anyway, I make it my business to stay out of couple squabbles. 'Nuf said.