That sounds a lot worse than noise. Even shouting is an understatement. That's why we have avoided such nonsense on The Paracast.
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!
That a group of people felt compelled to sit down and RECORD the meaningless meanderings of two clodhopper bartenders shows clearly that there is no depth to which believers will not dive in their search for Saucer Jesus.
The above video is (in a nutshell) the WHOLE and complete problem with paranormal belief.
That a group of people felt compelled to sit down and RECORD the meaningless meanderings of two clodhopper bartenders shows clearly that there is no depth to which believers will not dive in their search for Saucer Jesus.
Lance
But what field actually does have an intellectual bottom? Medical research must content with the holistic healing crowd, nutricuiticals, and faith healers. Physicists must deal with the people that were convinced that the LHC would spawn a planet consuming black hole.Ah, I agree with the above, Ron. But when the discipline has no intellectual bottom (as demonstrated above) it's hard to gain any traction (as demonstrated by the complete lack of respect for the entire field).
Lance
Ron,
I hope you see that the ideas you portray above as poor quality for medicine and physics all come from outside the field. These are ideas that do not have traction inside the discipline. Surely you grasp the difference. With UFO's (for instance) you can take the top 10 UFO ALL-STARS and I can show you 10 different bad ideas, none of which have traction EVEN within the field.
I don't think you can blame the media for the pig sty so richly illustrated in the form of the Pickle brothers and the silly group of UFO morons gathered around to hear and film their hilariously stupid ideas.
Lance
Well in regards to MUFON, I wholeheartedly agree. MUFON under Clift is a clear case of the inmates running the asylum. However, if you look, there are researchers and investigators out there that are neither a nutcase nor a glory whore sensationalists. Sure, they are more difficult to find, but even harder if you don't look.I understand your point Ron but, from my perspective, you underline my own. Let's just say that the TV news crew you mentioned was more responsible and went and found the current MUFON president to interview.
After hearing Clift's interview on the Paracast, I was amazed at how uncritically he approached even the most dubious of topics in the field. No doubt drawing upon his background as a real estate agent, he showed an astounding amount of credulity and muddled thinking. All of this makes him almost as silly as the "kooks" to my eyes but perhaps ultimately more damaging to the credibility of the ideas you express above.
Lance
Hi Lauren,
Thank you for letting us know about this new video.
A few problems I noticed immediately about this were:
* At 12:07 into the video Carol has the wrong two windows circled. Linda does not live on that floor or at that position in the Knickerbocker village complex.
* The phonecall that Budd received where afterwards he remarked to Carol that "that was Linda pretending to be her cousin Connie" was not shown on this film,
instead we have Carol telling us this in a voiceover while Budd is laying on the couch watching TV.
* At 7:19 into video the video appears to have been edited, jumping rather sharply from Linda speaking to Budd speaking. Budd offers a response immediately after the edit,
however given that the tape was edited at that point we do not know precisely what he was responding to.
* At 13:22 - 13:57 in the video regarding the claims Carol stated Linda made, not all of these are true, some examples.
1) "Dan" made the claim in his December 1991 that Linda had blood cells that did not die. (Page 219 Witnessed)
2) Linda's son Stephen made the claim to a disguised "Richard" on the bus one day that his mother's family descended from Joan of arc. (Page 120 Witnessed)
Carol offers no proof that Linda made some of these claims, furthermore the claims that Linda did make are deliberately presented out of context in a way that could only make Linda look like a lunatic.
* In the video Linda wanted Budd to meet her Cousin Connie, if Linda was pretending to be her cousin why would she urge Budd to meet her. The whole Cousin Connie and the 1996 incident with the
gentlemen and the van was a misunderstanding. It had nothing to do with "Richard" and "Dan". Carol's video offered no evidence that "Richard" and "Dan" were responsible for the 1996 incident nor did
it present Linda indicating that "Richard" and "Dan" had come back for her in 1996. It's up to Linda and Budd whether they wish to publicly relay what really happened in regards to that matter. It's of no
consequence to the legitimacy or illegitimacy her case.
* In her video Carol claims Linda and Budd were to share the profits equally.
According to the contract Carol shows Linda's percent of all movies profits was 20%
According to the contact Carol shows Linda's percent of the book profits was 15%
So according to Carol, Linda and Budd were to get half each yet the contract that Carol showed indicated this was not the case.
Peter Robbins in his article "Some thoughts on Budd Hopkins" already mentioned that Linda and Budd made a contract detailing the division of profits should Witnessed be made into a movie. Linda would
need money to begin with to perpetrate everything if it was hoax, $20 a week for 22 people over 21 years is roughly $480,000 she would need to begin with. At $1000 a week for 22 people over 21 years
she would have needed roughly $25000000. Furthermore Carol never indicates how much money Witnessed the book made. Depending on that figure what 15% of those profits are is entirely unknown.
On a personal note I find it offensive that Carol would publicly use footage of Linda's hypnotic regressions without her permission.I also find it suspect that in her article "The Priests of High Strangeness: co-creation of the alien abduction phenomenon" she claims that since her divorce she and Budd have moved on with their lives, yet all she is doing since her divorce is devoting her time to slamming her ex-husband's work and individuals from his work.
I do not place any stock in the validity of Carol's work, especially since she lied in her spectrumnetwork interview that Budd had never met the third man. I find it suspect that after ten years of marriage with him she did not know precisely how many years he was trained in the use of hypnosis before he himself practiced it. I find it suspect that her documentary began filming as early as 2004 and only now when Budd is sick is she releasing it. Outside appraisal's of Linda's mental health by Psychotherapists such as Gibbs Williams were unable to pick up on any kind of pathology in Linda's mental health, yet Carol indicates she easily picked up on these things despite having no training to do so. Carol again uses the Hansen/Stefula/Butler critique to back up some her statements, a house of glass structure if there ever was one.
If people wish to understand the Linda Cortile case, "Witnessed" by Budd Hopkins is a must, on top of that I recommended Greg Sandow's independent in depth appraisal of the Linda Cortile case. Instead of grinding axes, Sandow worked for his findings.
Thank you all for listening, apologies for the length of this email and apologies for dignifying Carol's latest video with a response.
Sincerely
Sean F. Meers
Hi Wickeman1972,
Respectfully, Carol Rainey's clips are fiction the Linda Cortile case is not.
How will this topic not die ? I guess being pro-Budd labels me now as an annoyed guy frigging sick off all of it..
I respect both sides, but I find it unwise to lay it out to all who care (which are a lot, it seems) , when it comes to family matters, as long as it is not abuse in any way, it should stay behind closed curtains. I know I am naive, that's my opinion though.
Hi Wickerman1972
Could you tell me why the case is, in your opinion, obvious fiction? I'm curious to hear why you think so.
Thanks
Sean
The problem here is that were Linda to have faked the case, 22 people in collaboration over 21 years, she would need a significant amount of money to begin with to pay these people
What you propose is a false dilemma. There are motivators which have nothing to do with financial gain that could be in play.