UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2001 > Nov > Nov 4

Re: Psychological Trauma - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 11:11:54 EST
Fwd Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2001 11:00:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Psychological Trauma - Mortellaro

 >Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 10:01:42 -0500
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >Subject: Re: Psychological Trauma

 >>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 09:54:33 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Psychological Trauma
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 03:56:31 -0500
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Psychological Trauma

 >>>>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 10:42:49 EST
 >>>>Subject: Re: Psychological Trauma
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@home.com


 >>>Hi All,

 >>>You wrote:

 >>>>Having said all that, I find it fascinating that those regressed
 >>>>by each, each group, Budd's and Dave's, seem to share the same
 >>>>reasoning regarding the intentions of the alien abductors. Dr.
 >>>>Dave's clients share the opinion, generally, that the aliens are
 >>>>evil in their intent. Budd's groups shares another less benign
 >>>>view over the alien abductors.

 >>>>Interesting if not telling. And I said, "If Not Telling!" For
 >>>>this is another datum and nothing more. Whether to draw
 >>>>conclusions from the datum is the pervue of the skeptibunker,
 >>>>not the researcher.

 >>>The kinds of negative things that your 'off-the-top' comments
 >>>imply is an insult to the intelligence and individuality of
 >>>anyone of the bright, and decent individuals that attend those

 >>Dear John, List, Errol,

 >>Nope. Missed the point entirely. I wrote _not_ about Budd's
 >>Group meetings. Nothing. I wrote about those _regressed_ by Budd
 >>and by David. David's regressed abductees generally concur with
 >>David's view of the evil nature of the alien. Of course, the
 >>other view is possible. That David's regressed clients are those
 >>who generally are of that view.

 >I didn't miss a thing. Just _who_ do you think attends those
 >meetings, if not the people Budd is working with? Whether he has
 >hypnotized them or not.

Hypnosis is the subject of this thread. Whether he has
hypnotized them or not is therefor a silly statement of non
fact. I was there and was not hypnotized. Cogito, ergo ...

 >Let me ask you something. How many of "those hypnotized by Budd"
 >have you actually surveyed in order to arrive at the absurd
 >conclusion that they _all_ "share the same point of view as the

Actually, that is a very good question. And the answer is
"several" when I was associated with IF. How many have you
surveyed? The reason I did so then, was to establish in my own
mind, whether I should go through with Budd's suugestion that I
be regressed. Based on my conversations with those who were
undergoing treatment at the time, I decided against.

 >As I said in my original response; you are only "parroting"
 >remarks made by others in the past. Others, who like yourself,
 >have never polled or interviewed _anyone_ "hypnotized" by Budd.
 >Much less _enough_ of them to lend any real validity to your

Perhaps I am. But I am parroting some pretty decent opinions out
there, John. Yours excluded. As to thoise remarks, they are
merely observations as I pointed out quite specifically. They
may be telling. Probably are. That I do not agree with you is
obvious. So?

 >Show me the survey or the poll of those people that you
 >conducted that substantiates your outrageous claim.

It's not outrageous. Do your own research. Many researchers,
including John Mack says the same observation. Does that make
them wrong too? Or is it merely moi?

 >>Budd's group are abductees who are more benign, in their view of
 >>their abductors.

 >You're talking through your hat. You have no way to ascertain if
 >that is true unless you got to meet them all yourself (at Budd's
 >meetings) and if that were true, and you _really_ knew them, you
 >wouldn't be making the ridiculous claim you make - because it
 >isn't true! ;)

It most certainly is true of those I've met. Now I suppose you
want to know how many? Well, there is you. Then there is me.
Then there are about six or seven with whom I interfaced,
questioned thoroughy and asked quite pointed questions of.
Enough of that. How about answering this question ...

How many of Budd's hypnosis clients have firm beliefs that their
alien abductors have evil intent? For examplel, I do not ask if
the intent of the alien entity is to hurt us but rather, to do
evil against human kind? Is it a large percentage? Small. Fifty
fifty? How about comparing that percentage (which is small from
my experienc there) with that of Dr. Jacobs regressed clients?
Pretty telling eh? Now here, John, I can quote chapter and verse
for I _have_ interviewed quite a number more of his than Budd's
clients by about 50%. And the difference is truly telling.

Now, having said that, I cannot tell you that Budd or David or
Mack is right or wrong. Frankly, I can easily accept truth from
all three. Which is what I would suggest in your case. I've
tried hard to open my mind. It not only feels good, but one
tends to learn somethings which would not ordinarily be learned.

 >>I attended two such of Budd's meetings at his home and was
 >>indeed impressed with the diversity and the help rendered
 >>there. But I was not speaking of those meetings at all.

 >Those meetings are attended by the people Budd is working with!
 >What the Hell are you talking about? You say that those who Budd
 >has worked with have a more "benign" view of the abductors than
 >those who David Jacobs has worked with. Then you turn around and
 >say that the people at Budd's meeting demonstrate a "diversity"
 >of viewpoints that you are impressed with! Jim, if the whole
 >thing wasn't so very stupid on the surface I'd be laughing my
 >ass off.

I am quite surprised at you for not understanding English. The
diversity at Budd's meetings have nothing to do with the fact
that those he's hypnotised (whether at the meetings or not)
share a more benign view of their abductors. Stupid? Who, me?
Polish your speel cheeker.

 >But your "off the top of you head" remarks are not funny. You
 >are insulting the intelligence and individuality of _all_ those
 >who have worked with Budd Hopkins.

How indeed is the intelligence of those whom Budd has worked
been insulted? That statement alone is insulting to those you
seek to support. Let those who would, speak for themselves. You
are not their representative. As an activist, you should portray
a more open state of mind.


 >Six of one, half a dozen of the other. The people at Budd's
 >meetings _are_ the people he has regressed! And many that he
 >hasn't. That's another misconception that you are spreading with
 >this absurd comment. You give the impression that hypnotizing
 >his clients is something that is generally performed on people
 >who report to Budd. More unfounded BS on your part.

Not so, John. There were a number, myself included, who were not
_then_ regressed. That's not BS. It's a fact. And, I gave _NO_
such opinion as you mentioned above. That was strictly from your

 >>And of David's regressed clients.


 >I challenge _you_ and _anyone_ else, to show me the interviews
 >with Budd and David Jacobs clients where they all admit to sharing
 >the _same_ point of view as either of these gentlemen. Put up
 >or shut up. I'm sick and tired of blow-hards making false blanket
 >statements about people that they have never met or spoken to.

You wrote, "where they all..." Utter nonesense. I refer you to
the use of the words, "in general" in order to help you

First I am not a blowhard. And second, I do not appreciate being
called names on this or any List. Try calling me names in
private email. You have my address. And third, those were
neither false nor blanket statements as are yours.


 >You know even _less_ about John Mack's people than you do about
 >Budd and David's combined! And as has been demonstrated, you know
 >little or nothing about them. ;)

Actually John, you know _nothing_ of what I know or do not know.
I've come quite a long way since I stopped supporting AIC. Stop
short of personal embarrassment and allow you mind to open.

 >>Each group of _regressed_ abductees
 >>appears to conform to the views of the regressor...

 >BS. Talking just to make wind. No basis in fact. Show me the survey
 >or the interviews. At least I attended meetings with these people
 >for over five years. I got to know them personally. I'm telling you
 >that there are as many divergent points of view among them as
 >there are people.

 >>Simply an observation.


 >Enough, I've given your ridiculous statements much more time
 >and attention than they ever deserved. I just didn't want your
 >uninformed speculations to go unanswered. I was there. I know
 >the people you are talking about. And I know for a fact that
 >what you say of them of is untrue.


 >Get a new hobby man. You're not good at this one.

Cheeses you should have stopped right there. Hobby? Astronomy.
Ham radio. Cars. My dawg. The abduction phenom? Not a hobby.
I've worked too hard at this for the last five years for it to
be an avocation. It is a vocation.

I refer you to your closing reamrks, your trademark...

"Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."

I would add, "Open Mind" to integrity.


[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com