Critique Rejected (2016) by Sean F. Meers

[kruggutter]

To all guests and members of the Paracast forum,

I'm writing here today to let you all know that I recently finished and published a new comprehensive piece
of documentation on the Linda Cortile UFO abduction case.

The paper is titled:

"Critique Rejected (2016): A Consolidated Refutation of the Hansen/Stefula/Butler “Critique” of the Linda
Cortile UFO Abduction Case" by Sean F. Meers

It is a fully documented companion piece to my original rebuttal of the Hansen/Stefula/Butler "critique".
It incorporates new case evidence and information that I did not have ready access to during the construction
of the original paper. Also, unlike the original, this paper has been designed with a public audience in mind
(the original was designed as a private paper for three people).

The paper is 395 pages in length in total (119 pages of my writing and a 276 page appendix) and is the
culmination of three solid months of work.

I hope that the paper is of interest to you and helps to inform you more about the facts of the Cortile case.

Links to the paper are presented below.

Online readable copy

Downloadable *.PDF format copy

Thank you all very much for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Sean F. Meers

www.lindacortilecase.com

 

[Honey-Pot]

There are some very good background information links I found that you organized. Links below. I wish there was more detailed information about Hopkins early interests in UFO's and his main UFO people contacts and points of information reference for where his UFO knowledge came from initially. Is that Village Voice article he wrote decades ago available online?

I'm not interested in the Cortile case, but the other information you have is very helpful in other ways too. Thanks.

Final Report on the Psychological Testing of UFO “Abductees”

Remembering Budd Hopkins

Tributes to UFO Abduction Researcher Budd Hopkins

 

[kruggutter]

There are some very good background information links I found that you organized. Links below. I wish there was more detailed information about Hopkins early interests in UFO's and his main UFO people contacts and points of information reference for where his UFO knowledge came from initially. Is that Village Voice article he wrote decades ago available online?

I'm not interested in the Cortile case, but the other information you have is very helpful in other ways too. Thanks.

Final Report on the Psychological Testing of UFO “Abductees”

Remembering Budd Hopkins

Tributes to UFO Abduction Researcher Budd Hopkins

Hi Honey-Pot,

I'm very pleased that you found some of the information at Linda's website of interest. I'm going to look into locating that
Village Voice article he wrote.

All the best,

Sincerely,

Sean F. Meers

www.lindacortilecase.com


UPDATE: A copy of Budd Hopkins' first article to the Village Voice is available online via
Google news. The link is below:

The Village Voice - Google News Archive Search

 

[Walkabout]

To all guests and members of the Paracast forum,


I'm writing here today to let you all know that I recently finished and published a new comprehensive piece

of documentation on the Linda Cortile UFO abduction case."=QUOTE]


It's intriguing that Kruggutter consistently refers to the comments of other writers on the Cortile case as "lies." "Lie #1" through "Lie#24." We come away from the tedious, insignificant details laid out in this 395 page paper believing that anyone who speaks about the case (other than him) is a skeptic, a debunker, or a liar. Here is the curious part -- Kruggutter quotes verbatim and extensively from Budd Hopkins' books, from his emails or videotaped statements -- all that with never a single question about the material being quoted. There is no doubt in this man's mind that Hopkins integrity is solid as the word of God.

He actually presents Hopkins' writings as the religious do with Biblical Scripture. Does he ever question whether Hopkins' motives are pure or possibly mixed (as most human motives are)? He does not. Does he ever point to a misstatement in Witnessed (there are some) or the memoir (there are some) as "Lie#2-24?" He does not, because this scholar of infinite detail never once turns to look openly, fairly, fully at the integrity of Hopkins' work and his relationship to the people he worked with.

Anyone who acts as biographer must do this hard work, too. A true scholar must also look directly at the great man's personal demons and at how well the great man truly knew himself. Kruggutter shows clearly that he, the sole biographer of Hopkins, does not know his subject deeply at all. He has no genuine personal connection to his admired figure. And that makes him utterly unable to offer us any profound insights about the many issues at hand. Poor Hopkins is being presented, by Kruggutter's very devoutness, as a one-dimensional, flat piece of construction paper.

 

[Walkabout]

It's intriguing that Kruggutter consistently refers to the comments of other writers on the Cortile case as "lies." "Lie #1" and "Lie#24." We come away from the tedious, insignificant details laid out in this 395 page paper believing that anyone who speaks about the case (other than him) is a skeptic, a debunker, or a liar. Here is the curious part -- Kruggutter quotes verbatim and extensively from Budd Hopkins' books, from his emails or videotaped statements -- all that with never a single question about the material being quoted. There is no doubt in this man's mind that Hopkins integrity is solid as the word of God.


He actually presents Hopkins' writings as the religious do with Biblical Scripture. Does he ever question whether Hopkins' motives are pure or possibly mixed (as most human motives are)? He does not. Does he ever point to a misstatement in Witnessed (there are some) or the memoir (there are some) as "Lie#2-24?" He does not, because this scholar of infinite detail never once turns to look openly, fairly, fully at the integrity of Hopkins' work and his relationship to the people he worked with.


Anyone who acts as biographer must do this hard work, too. A true scholar must also look directly at the great man's personal demons and at how well the great man truly knew himself. Kruggutter shows clearly that he, the sole biographer of Hopkins, does not know his subject deeply at all. He has no genuine personal connection to his admired figure. Which makes him utterly unable to offer us any profound insights about the many issues at hand. Poor Hopkins is being presented, by Kruggutter's very devoutness, as a one-dimensional, flat piece of construction paper.

 

[kruggutter]

It's intriguing that Kruggutter consistently refers to the comments of other writers on the Cortile case as "lies." "Lie #1" and "Lie#24." We come away from the tedious, insignificant details laid out in this 395 page paper believing that anyone who speaks about the case (other than him) is a skeptic, a debunker, or a liar. Here is the curious part -- Kruggutter quotes verbatim and extensively from Budd Hopkins' books, from his emails or videotaped statements -- all that with never a single question about the material being quoted. There is no doubt in this man's mind that Hopkins integrity is solid as the word of God.

He actually presents Hopkins' writings as the religious do with Biblical Scripture. Does he ever question whether Hopkins' motives are pure or possibly mixed (as most human motives are)? He does not. Does he ever point to a misstatement in Witnessed (there are some) or the memoir (there are some) as "Lie#2-24?" He does not, because this scholar of infinite detail never once turns to look openly, fairly, fully at the integrity of Hopkins' work and his relationship to the people he worked with.

Anyone who acts as biographer must do this hard work, too. A true scholar must also look directly at the great man's personal demons and at how well the great man truly knew himself. Kruggutter shows clearly that he, the sole biographer of Hopkins, does not know his subject deeply at all. He has no genuine personal connection to his admired figure. Which makes him utterly unable to offer us any profound insights about the many issues at hand. Poor Hopkins is being presented, by Kruggutter's very devoutness, as a one-dimensional, flat piece of construction paper.

Hello Paracast user Walkabout,

Sean here.

Thank you for taking the time to go through my paper, and discuss and critique it. In regards to your claim that I don't question or point out the errors of the late Budd Hopkins, that's not true.
Here are some specific instances from my collective works where I do just that.

• In Fact #4 of my paper “Inaccuracies from Kevin Randle’s Statements on the Linda Cortile Case”, I point out a logistical error Budd Hopkins made.

URL: Inaccuracies from Kevin Randle's Statements on the Linda Cortile Case

URL: http://www.lindacortilecase.com/uploads/3/4/2/0/34208873/ifkrslcc.pdf

• In Fact #8 of the original “Critique Rejected”, I discuss a possible error on Hopkins’ part.

URL: http://www.lindacortilecase.com/uploads/3/4/2/0/34208873/critique_rejected.pdf

• My entire paper “The Actual Distance from Janet Kimball’s Position on the Brooklyn Bridge to Linda’s Window” points out and discusses a significant error on Budd Hopkins’ part where
  he overestimated the distance from a specific point on the Brooklyn Bridge to Linda’s apartment by approximately 402 feet.

URL: The Actual Distance from Janet Kimball's Position on the Brooklyn Bridge to Linda's Window

URL: http://www.lindacortilecase.com/uploads/3/4/2/0/34208873/djkpbblw.pdf

• Budd Hopkins also made an error in a paper he published on Linda's case in the book Alien Discussions: Proceedings of the Abduction Study Conference Held at M.I.T. Cambridge, Ma..
  In that paper he accidentally wrote that Linda was asleep prior to the beginning of her November 30, 1989 UFO abduction. She was not, she hadn't gone to sleep yet. Hopkins corrected
  that error a few months after that conference in a MUFON UFO Journal article about Linda's case titled "The Linda Cortile Abduction Case" by Budd Hopkins (Page 12 - 16, MUFON
  UFO Journal, September 1992, Number 293). He also corrected it when he published Witnessed.

I appreciate where you are coming from and I respect your motivations, but in my work on Linda's case I've found errors from people on both sides of the spectrum, and some in
between. I've also found errors on my own part which I've acknowledged and corrected in my papers when I apply internal criticism to them.

There is no shame in making mistakes, as long as a person acknowledges and corrects them once they have been identified. It goes with the nature of research and you can often learn
quite a lot along the way.

Hope this information is of help and thanks again for reading.

All the best,

Sincerely,

Sean F. Meers

www.lindacortilecase.com