UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2001 > Nov > Nov 7

Re: Psychological Trauma - Mortellaro

From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 09:12:40 EST
Fwd Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 04:03:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Psychological Trauma - Mortellaro

 >Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 13:46:30 -0500
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >Subject: Re: Psychological Trauma

 >>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 13:14:03 EST
 >>Subject: Re: Psychological Trauma
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>>Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 10:43:42 -0500
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Psychological Trauma

 >>>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>>>Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 15:57:30 EST
 >>>>Subject: Re: Psychological Trauma
 >>>>To: ufoupdates@home.com

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


 >>>Hello Kevin,

 >>>You write:

 >>>>The real point is the abduction researchers know what is
 >>>>happening but they fail to understand the significance. And
 >>>>that, I believe, is the point that Jim is making.

 >>>I find it amusing that Jim made his point so 'clearly' that
 >>>everybody else has to (interpret) "guess" as to what he may have
 >>>meant. I'm going to ask you the same thing as I asked

 >>>Show me the poll or the interviews with a substantial group of
 >>>either Budd, David, or John Mack's clients that substantiates
 >>>these outrageous claims that they 'uniformly' all share the
 >>>_same_ point of view as the individual researchers in question?

 >Hi Kevin, hi All,

 >Kevin opines:

 >>Actually, this is something of a red herring. I quoted from both
 >>Mack and Jacobs, making the same point that Jim had made. It was
 >>Mack who suggested that Hopkins, Jacobs, and Nyman pull from
 >>their experiencers what they want to see. Mack said it to us
 >>during a video taped interview and he said it to Bryant in his
 >>book... as I mentioned before.

 >"Pulling from their experiencers what they want to see" has to
 >do with "leading" or "suggestion" Kevin. The "Docca" claims that
 >the experiencers themselves all share the same "take" (point of
 >view) as the researchers in question. Two different subjects.
 >You are talking about a "before" situation (where someone is
 >lead in some way) and the "Docca" is talking about an "after"
 >effect (people who have adopted or share the same point of
 >view/take) on the phenom as the researchers they consulted.

Hello Errol and List,

Actually John, you failed again to read my posts on this thread,
taking only what you wanted to make your point. Which is not the
point. Above you refer to before and after. I wrote, quite
clearly, that I was not certain which came first. Whether indeed
the researchers led or that their charges were of the same mind.
But I also wrote that I thought they were being led. Which was
your argument with me. Now you assume one side of the argument
only. Kevin and I are on the exact same frequency John.


 >...are we discussing Hopkins', Jacobs', and Mack's alleged
 >'leading' of their clients, or are we discussing Mortellaro's
 >unfounded claim that they are _all_ de facto in agreement with
 >the researchers in question "points of view?"

Nothing is unfounded as you may have already read. I have my
data. And I shared some of it with you here. The rest ... well
... read the book.

 >If anyone is introducing "red Herrings" it is the Randle Fish
 >Market! The Docca and myself are debating one thing, and _you_
 >are introducing another. Fish anyone?   ;)

Go fish. Nothing is further from fact than your assumptions here.

 >>In our research we used abductees who had been regressed by all
 >>three... and those regressed by Yvonne Smith, John Carpenter and
 >>several others including "He Who Shall Remain Nameless."

 >>But once again, if you have an argument with the observation,
 >>then please take it up with John Mack and David Jacobs as well.

 >I don't have any 'argument' with them. It is Mortellaro who is
 >making unfounded claims and insulting a large group of really
 >nice, bright, individuals with his insinuations. Now you chime
 >in with "they lead their clients." Yet neither one of you has
 >answered my simple and very straightforward question:

OK. Before they were being made fools of and now they are
bright but insinuated. (sigh)

 >Show me the poll or study that shows that the clients of
 >Hopkins, Jacobs and Mack all share the same point of view as the
 >researchers in question.

I already showed you mine. Now show me yours.

 >Simple question. But try getting a straight answer around here!
 >You guys picked a bad time to mess with me. I'm in between web
 >jobs and I have a little _time_ for the List. Bring it on!
 ><screeching maniacal laughter>

Uh, wait. Was that meant to be satirical?  Thanks. There is a

 >Until I get a relevant response from _either_ of you on the
 >question at hand,

You got the response, you just fail to acknowledge it.

Love and respect,

Jim and the voices in my head

[ Next Message | Previous 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