Carol Rainey (Mrs. Budd Hopkins)

[Tyger]

Word.

What?

 

[Burnt State]

Word up indeed, Tyger. You give clear voice to many disputed aspects of the case and the ongoing conflicts surrounding alien abduction case histories. One person's fact is always someone else's belief and another's doubts. AP is littered with such problems.

 

[Tyger]

Word up indeed, Tyger. You give clear voice to many disputed aspects of the case and the ongoing conflicts surrounding alien abduction case histories. One person's fact is always someone else's belief and another's doubts. AP is littered with such problems.

Well, thank you, so it's a compliment. But - what does it mean? 'Word' - 'Word up' - what does it mean?

 

[Tyger]

The Two Major Players of Budd Hopkins' Witnessed Case

TEXT: "Uploaded on Dec 30, 2009: More information on the Brooklyn Bridge UFO case at Carol Rainey, grant writing services, writer, producer, director, New York City, NY, NYC, filmmaker Excerpts of interviews with investigator and writer Budd Hopkins reveal his empathy with the experiencer. Linda explains how she came to contact Budd and unintentionally gives me something to worry about."

 

[Tyger]

Complicated marriage for sure!

Agent Provocateur

TEXT: "Uploaded on Dec 30, 2009: More on documentary--in-process at Carol Rainey, grant writing services, writer, producer, director, New York City, NY, NYC, filmmaker In an early scene from the marriage, Budd and the filmmaker are on their way to a UFO conference in Seattle. Filmmaker Rainey takes the opportunity to play Doubting Thomas and asks some tough questions."

 

[Tyger]

This video is on Carol Rainey's YouTube account. I think we can safely say that, like many of us, we have a suspicion but we want to be dealt fairly, with honesty. One person saw something close up, and decided to say their questions and suspicions out-loud regarding one aspect of the whole phenomenon. But there remain these examples of mystery, pristine and clean.

Fife Symington describes seeing Phoenix Lights

TEXT: "Uploaded on Mar 22, 2007: The former governor of Arizona, Fife Symington, describes the Phoenix Lights as he saw them from a park, on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360°. "It was enormous, it just felt 'other worldly', in your gut you could just tell it was 'other worldly'", said Symington."

 

[Constance]

Complicated marriage for sure!

Agent Provocateur

TEXT: "Uploaded on Dec 30, 2009: More on documentary--in-process at Carol Rainey, grant writing services, writer, producer, director, New York City, NY, NYC, filmmaker In an early scene from the marriage, Budd and the filmmaker are on their way to a UFO conference in Seattle. Filmmaker Rainey takes the opportunity to play Doubting Thomas and asks some tough questions."

Who's the Agent Provocateur?

 

[Creepy Green Light]

What?

I was just using slang to basically say "right on". Agreed with everything you said and well put.

 

[kruggutter]

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?

What I stated was:

"If heavily edited video excerpts (comprised of multiple segments of film sewn together) accompanied by unsubstantiated, derogatory claims from a
demonstrably biased source, are what is considered to be compelling evidence by some of these posters, then there is no reason for me to waste my
time on them."

The Carol Rainey videos you, and others, regularly cite do not present proof of her allegations. Something which is clear for anyone who pays attention
to them. They are also heavily edited, jumping from one scene to the next, a factor which eliminates their sequential integrity. This essentially means
that we do not know if it is an accurate depiction of any given filmed event. We do not know what was cut out and whether or not the filmed individuals
have had their responses manipulated. None of the clips are single pieces of film.

For the record, this thread did not begin with courtesy. It began with Linda Cortile being baselessly insulted.

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 Rainey 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.

Each of my papers contain fully referenced appendices that numerically correlate the proof behind each of my claims. The data I present in my papers,
unlike Rainey's, do not boil down to my unsubstantiated word which the reader has to choose to believe or not. For those inclined, they can examine
the proof behind each of the statements in my papers.

The emails she wrote prove her bias and hatred for Budd, Linda and myself, which makes her unsubstantiated claims about the aforementioned
unable to be trusted unless they are independently corroborated.

I knew it was simply a matter of time before one or more posters on this thread would casually deflect from the issue of the data and try to mould this matter
into whether or not I'm personally likeable. I have no regrets for anything I've written on this thread, nor for how I've responded to the habitual ignorance
demonstrated when it's reared its ugly head time and time again.

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 Rainey 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 Rainey knew how ill Budd Hopkins was when she published her videos? I don't think we can. She also may have thought that 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. In a way there would be no winning in her situation, with the message she felt she needed to bring.

You still haven't bothered to look at the data. Carol Rainey knew exactly how ill Budd was before he died, she lived in Budd's basement after the divorce.
She also made a point of writing a post at UFOUpdates where she denied that Budd was dying and that she knew this specifically because she lived so
close to him. He died five months after that. A copy of that (March 10, 2011 UFOUpdates) post is available in the following document.

Subjective Critics of the Case - The Linda Cortile UFO Abduction Case Website

If Cortile can be all traumatized and still give valid information - in your view - then why cannot Carol Rainey - 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 Rainey be without credence because she's emotional. How does this work?

Cortile's information has been accompanied by independent corroboration, Rainey's has not. Rainey has been caught in many documented lies,
Cortile has not. The initial critics of Linda's case resorted to referring to an unrecorded meeting between Linda and two of them whenever
they attempted to claim that Linda said something of concern. The essence of their initial critique was by and large unsubstantiated hearsay,
something which the alleged "critique's" primary author admitted to when he acknowledged the meeting wasn't recorded.

I never indicated that Rainey's information was false because she was emotional. As indicated earlier, her hate mail letters are clear proof of bias,
something which plays in pretty heavily if we are supposed to accept her uncorroborated testimony as credible.

That you are contending that Rainey can still give good information and analysis about an issue despite clearly having an axe to grind about that
same issue is illogical. You acknowledge her bias about the issue and then you expect us to accept her uncorroborated testimony about it?

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 Rainey. 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).

What I don't like, which I clearly indicated, is the credibility that Rainey's unsubstantiated derogatory claims are given without her having to bother to present
proof of them. I do not care whether anyone accepts what I write or not. Lazy, ignorance is the only thing I take issue with and there is a significant degree of
it present within this forum about this issue. Again, it is evident you are trying to reduce this matter to one of personality and popularity.

Rainey 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.

Seems to substantiate? Based on what? She's sewn, according to her, over 120 hours of film into a series of excerpts with no sequential integrity. The only way to
evaluate her claims is to view the 120 hours. She does not establish that Hopkins was "too caught up in the case", she alleges it. What she attempts to demonstrate
it with is again heavily edited excerpts.

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.

You are truly ignorant of the case data. It was not an attempted kidnapping by Richard and Dan as portrayed by Rainey, it was a misunderstanding. One which
occurred because Linda was scared to death of being taken off the streets again due to a prior incident.

The incident in question is discussed in detail at the following link.

The Cousin Connie Incident - The Linda Cortile UFO Abduction Case Website

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).

It is not my opinion it is a fact. That is why I presented the 17 documented reality tests he performed in his investigation of Linda's case and the 17 documented tests of Linda's
suggestibility levels during multiple sessions of hypnosis (and some pre and post sessions). You really ignore data well, given that I reiterated that data twice.

Hopkins had reason to believe Linda was taken off the street because she was taken off the street twice before. Data and evidence was yielded from those kidnappings, which led
to the identification of some of the vehicles. At any rate the event was a false alarm as detailed in The Cousin Connie Incident paper.

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, Rainey 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).

(sigh) I've already covered this issue in detail. Please see ("The Finances from Budd Hopkins' Book Witnessed" contained in the following paper).

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

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: '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 still can't acknowledge that by his own admission he was not qualified as a forensic document examiner. His qualifications as a graphologist are not qualifications
of a forensic document examiner. Rainey's portrayal of Rubin as the latter is duplicitous. Again, you've ignored the data from a legitimate forensic document examination,
in favour of a fraudulent one.

Results from a Legitimate Forensic Document Examination - The Linda Cortile UFO Abduction Case Website

You'll have to forgive me if I'm not convinced by your personal opinion about the handwriting. You are not qualified as a forensic document examiner, your opinions
about it are just that.

It has also been documented that when amateurs attempt to perform analyses they over match documents 6 times more than professionals do.

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

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 Rainey. Hopefully she's learned her lesson and no longer talks with you. As I have stated, Rainey can be seeing double when it comes to her ex, but she can still be making a valid critique.

I had to contact the police to get her to stop contacting me. Something you'd be aware of if you'd bother to acknowledge the extent of the case related hate mail.

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.

What your feelings on my rebuttals are I don't care. You've shown time and time again that you don't bother with the data before drawing your conclusions.
Your tired, but tried and true debunker tactic, of making this an issue of popularity and personality rather than data is as predictable as it is cliched.

One more bit - Rainey 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.

If her art appraiser's qualifications are anything like Rubin's I don't see any reason for concern.

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.

What examples? You haven't listed any errors from the rebuttals.

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 Rainey 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.

Tyger, arguing with you about this particular subject is a waste of time. You ignore proven data, accept unproven data, and when confronted with that fact you attempt to make
the entire subject, like most debunkers, an issue about the likeability of the researcher. The "evidence" you find compelling is laughable and I suspect you accept it simply because it
conforms to your preferred viewpoint like all debunkers.

I don't care what you think about the case, your understanding of it is extraordinarily poor. I do not apologise for expressing my contempt for your ignorance on the subject.

I'm not interested in wasting any more time on you because you don't listen and you don't take the time to read the relevant data.

To you and your supporters on this matter I say believe what you wish. I don't care if people agree with me or not, all I ask is that they listen and acknowledge what's been proven.
If they show themselves unable to do this then I don't engage them because it is pointless to do so.

I have no interest in making this some long, drawn-out cliched argument that you and I are going to squabble and waste time on for months. I don't need the aggravation and
neither do you. I have nothing further to say to you about this.

Be well,

Sean

 

[kruggutter]

Word up indeed, Tyger. You give clear voice to many disputed aspects of the case and the ongoing conflicts surrounding alien abduction case histories. One person's fact is always someone else's belief and another's doubts. AP is littered with such problems.

Facts are facts, they are not disputed. Opinions and beliefs are.

Best

Sean

 

[kruggutter]

I want to say thank you to the members of the Paracast forum who've taken the time to hear me out
and review the information and numerous papers on the Linda Cortile UFO abduction case that I've
recommended throughout this latest discussion. The effort and open-mindedness is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely

Sean F. Meers

 

[Bob Watson]

Sean:
I keep an open mind on the subject. To me no one involved with the casr had a reason to hoax. There are aspects to the case. I find puzzling. I wish video interview with the witnesses were around to watch. And I wish you had personally met them.

 

[kruggutter]

Sean:
I keep an open mind on the subject. To me no one involved with the casr had a reason to hoax. There are aspects to the case. I find puzzling. I wish video interview with the witnesses were around to watch. And I wish you had personally met them.

Hi Vesvehighfolk,

Thanks for your post.

I've met four of the witnesses in person. Greg Sandow an earlier investigator of the case has met more of them in person when he did his
investigation of the case years back. Richard Dolan met with Yancy Spence in person and spoke to Robert "Bobby" N. by phone.
Reporter Jay Sapir met with the third man in person, as did Budd Hopkins.

There are many videos at Linda's site with interviews with the witnesses. These are witnesses to many different aspects of Linda's case.
There is a video of Robert "Bobby" N. who was a firsthand eyewitness to the beginning of Linda's November 30, 1989 UFO abduction
available at Linda's website. There is a video with Linda's younger son Johnny providing his testimony about meeting the third man.
I have digitally blurred out both Robert and Johnny's faces, however, because I did not want to unnecessarily advertise their identities.
There's also video testimony with Jay Sapir, the reporter who met with the third man at Chicago's O'Hare Airport in November 1993
with Budd Hopkins. Sapir's face is not blurred out because he is publicly affiliated with the case and well known as a journalist.

Testimony from other witnesses is provided in the form of text documentation.

I would like nothing better than to have each of the witnesses' video testimony publicly presented but they have a right to dignity and
privacy, especially given the behaviour of some of the debunkers in this field. Going on the public record in relation to something as
controversial and polarising as alien abductions is a difficult thing.

It is important to recognise that the witnesses are well established as real people who have been met and interviewed by other investigators.
There are some who have not but their testimony has been independently corroborated by other witnesses who have been met. I'm specifically
referring to the testimony of Richard, Dan and the third man which was corroborated by Kimball, Spence and Robert N., all three who were met,
interviewed and provided documented testimony on their sightings.

Puzzling, to say the least, is an excellent way to describe Linda's case Vesvehighfolk

Best

Sean

 

[kruggutter]

I've got to focus my attentions back on to a new paper I'm working on at the moment.
With a little luck it should be finished some time within the next month or so.

Best wishes everyone.

Signing off.

Sincerely

Sean F. Meers

 

[Constance]

I want to thank you again, Sean, for the education you've provided in your posts and links here and for the entirety of your effort to investigate the Linda Cortile case. What you've produced is a great service to all people interested in the ufo subject and the paranormal aspects of the abduction phenomenon, at least to those who read what you provide. I had avoided reading about the abduction research in the interests of preserving my own peace of mind (I simply remained in willful ignorance about it), but learning what I've learned from you so far about the Cortile case and Budd Hopkins's commitment to understanding these abductions and helping the abductees to understand and cope with their experiences, I'm going to read everything on and linked at your website.

My own major interest for years has been the investigation of consciousness. I'm persuaded by now that human consciousness (and animal consciousness) is a phenomenon lived both individually and collectively in the local world of this planet and elsewhere in the universe, wherever living organisms evolve long enough to develop it. Telepathic communication received on innumerable occasions by humans encountering 'alien' beings near landed ufos and by abductees, as well as telepathic and other psi abilities of humans in general, must become part of the still young interdisciplinary field of consciousness studies if we are to come close to understanding what consciousness is. You've given me much more to think about and apply to the study of consciousness, for which I also thank you.

 

[kruggutter]

I want to thank you again, Sean, for the education you've provided in your posts and links here and for the entirety of your effort to investigate the Linda Cortile case. What you've produced is a great service to all people interested in the ufo subject and the paranormal aspects of the abduction phenomenon, at least to those who read what you provide. I had avoided reading about the abduction research in the interests of preserving my own peace of mind (I simply remained in willful ignorance about it), but learning what I've learned from you so far about the Cortile case and Budd Hopkins's commitment to understanding these abductions and helping the abductees to understand and cope with their experiences, I'm going to read everything on and linked at your website.

My own major interest for years has been the investigation of consciousness. I'm persuaded by now that human consciousness (and animal consciousness) is a phenomenon lived both individually and collectively in the local world of this planet and elsewhere in the universe, wherever living organisms evolve long enough to develop it. Telepathic communication received on innumerable occasions by humans encountering 'alien' beings near landed ufos and by abductees, as well as telepathic and other psi abilities of humans in general, must become part of the still young interdisciplinary field of consciousness studies if we are to come close to understanding what consciousness is. You've given me much more to think about and apply to the study of consciousness, for which I also thank you.

Thank you very much Constance, I greatly appreciate your support. I also appreciate the effort and open-mindedness you put into hearing me out
and looking into the data I recommended. It means a great deal to me, particularly because Linda's case is so controversial and complex in structure.

Consciousness to me, is the supreme riddle. Whether we as humans will ever understand it in its entirety is unknown. For the most part we simply have
to experience it as best we can.

There are many cases in the paranormal fields that have been casually written off by a litany of unfounded allegations, heaped on top of other unfounded
allegations. It is not an uncommon posture for some to reflect on such allegations as though they were fact. I do my best, in regards to Linda's case, to
put such claims to the test and find out exactly what they are founded on.

Thank you very much again Constance.

Best of luck to you in your future.

Sincerely

Sean F. Meers

 

[Bob Watson]

Sean: everything I asked you was to eliminate all doubt that the witnesses exist. Now I am satisfied with that I can move on wirh other aspects of the case.
I wish you well and I hope you understand if this somehow turns out to be a hoax I feel sorry for you in all the time effort and treasure you devoted to it. Best always
Bob
(Vesvehighfolk)
And Victoria watson
(Rikki)

 

[Constance]

I've got a copy of Sandow's article as it originally appeared in the International UFO Reporter.

Greg Sandow - The Linda Cortile Case - The Linda Cortile UFO Abduction Case Website

http://www.lindacortilecase.com/uploads/2/9/1/0/2910920/gstlcc.pdf

Best

Sean

I want to repost the link above provided earlier in the thread by Sean, a two-part review of the Cortile case by Greg Sandow published in the International UFO Reporter, which responds in well-reasoned detail to many objections lodged by skeptics.

 

[Constance]

All best to you too, Sean. It was a pleasure to read your thorough research (still much to read), and as I said your work has opened my eyes to a part of the ufo phenomenon that I'd avoided for too long.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

There all types of believers, and that will never change. Not necessarily a bad thing. Flat earth believers, never landed on the moon believers etc etc. For me, if the crux of an event doesn't make sense, a lot of times I'm not interested in all the follow up data (notice I didn't say "all the time"). For example; if I read a story in which it claimed that when one of our unmanned spacecraft was circling Mars to take photos of the surface, it returned stunning photos of a circus tent and Ferris wheel plainly visible on the surface, I wouldn't care what comes after it. You can post 400 links to corroborate the evidence & story, point me to witnesses that never existed etc etc etc etc and I don't care. I'm never going to believe a circus tent and Ferris wheel are on the surface of Mars. That analogy is exactly how I feel about Linda's case. If mr. Mears put as much time and effort into Linda's case into a real encounter, such as the Coyne Army helicopter case in which there are real witnesses (Lt. Coyne) and his crew, the case would probably have been solved by now. I also gained some insight by one of Constance's other posts regarding the Roswell slides. Basically he's saying he's real excited about the expo in Mexico City and already signed up to watch either the live feed or a recorded version (I forget). Which tells me if you think there's even 1% chance of anything that comes out of Mexico City being valid, then it's not surprising you think think the cortile case is the least bit valid. I'm not saying that that makes anyone a bad person, just an observation that clears some things up for me.