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 - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 16:05:02 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 04:25:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Psychological Trauma - Velez

 >From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
 >Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 11:24:19 EST
 >Subject: Re: Psychological Trauma
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 05:12:50 -0500
 >>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Psychological Trauma

 >>>Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2001 09:12:37 -0600
 >>>To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates@home.com>
 >>>From: Bobbie Felder <jilain@ebicom.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Psychological Trauma

 >>>>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


 >>>>My Lord man, can't you see why
 >>>>I'm always jumping on you with both feet?

 >>>I can't speak for Jim, but it seems pretty obvious to me why
 >>>you're always jumping on him. You insult the intelligence of the
 >>>rest of the List when you try to disguise your _personal_
 >>>problem_ with Mr. Mortellaro in the cloak of abductee

 >>Well Hello again Ms. Felder,

 >>This 'thread' between Mr. Mortellaro and myself is about his
 >>"claim" that all of the abductees that Hopkins, Jacobs, & Mack
 >>have hypnotized, collectively agree with the individual
 >>researchers viewpoints on the phenomenon.

 >Dear All, Errol,

 >Actually, this thread is not at all about any claim that _all_
 >the abductees that Budd, John and David have hypnotised
 >collectively agree with the individual researchers' view points.
 >That is _your_ contention. My contention is that as three
 >groups, they have differing viewpoints, generally. You've
 >already been asked pointed questions about this matter in
 >another post. I await your response withall.

I'll respond with your own statement. Let's see 'who' is making
'what' "contentions" eh.  "

 >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.

See Jim, as Alfalfa told Spanky; "You can fool some of the
people some of the time, but you can't fool Mom!"  ;)

It was _you_ not me that made those remarks.

I was "responding" to your inaccurate generalizations.
Generalizations that make the many -hundreds- of
people/abductees that you are referring to sound like mindless
drones without an original thought of their own among the lot.
"As if" they _all_ shared the same point of view as the
researcher they went to for help or information.

Just as it is _always_ wrong to make sweeping generalizations
like "all blacks are thus and so" or "All Latino's are thus and
so" you are _wrong_ to make the kind of broad-brush claim that
you have made above about such a _large_ group of individuals.

 >>I contend that he doesn't know what he's talking about because
 >>he has never known or interviewed enough of them to make such an
 >>outrageous and unfounded statement. Not just Mortellaro,
 >>_no_one_ has taken such a poll.

 >Wonderful then, as I have interviewed a large enough sampling of
 >each for my book. And of course, I don't tell you everything. I
 >hope you don't mind. There is no poll. Read David's book. Then
 >speak with his clients. Then do the same with John and Budd's
 >clients. A pattern will emerge. Clearly so.

You're kidding here right? Of course there is "no poll"! That's
what I've been saying to you over and over in this thread. Yet
in spite of the fact that a "poll" of Budd, David's and John's
clients has _never_ been conducted, you 'presume' to make the
statement you've made about them _anyway._

And I don't have to contact anybody Jim. I have known and spent
_years_ speaking privately with Budd, and David. I've got a
little information for you: For years I was curious about what
Budd himself actually thought of the phenomenon. Personal
thoughts that he has never published or revealed. It wasn't
until our relationship was three years old that he confided in
me his own personal thoughts on the subject. If you knew what
that 'opinion' really is; it would slam your pie hole shut. You
have _no clue_ as to how _wrong_ you are about, a. What Budd's
own thoughts are, and b. even less about what the abductees
think.  ;)

 >Further, it is not necessary to take a poll in order to have an
 >opinion. Shoot, if we had to do that, we'd be Japanese doing
 >consensus management and bowing low. I don't do bows. Domo
 >arrigato, Johnny San.

Finally! It only took four e-mail exchanges to get you to cop to
the fact that you are only expressing a _personal_ opinion and
not one that is based on either an actual "poll" of the people
in question or first hand knowledge. Now was that so hard?

That there are no Polls and that you are expressing uninformed
opinion is _precisely_ the point I've been trying to make all

Look at all the arm twisting it took to get you to admit it!  ;)

 >I have _never_ referred to you as the "Egotistical and Paranoid
 >King of the J.... uh, Abductees." Never. Behind your back or
 >otherwise. Produce the juice. Royalty never impressed me anyway.
 >Divine right and all that snuff.

Not one but _two_ of the people that you correspond with
privately sent me copies of e-mails that you sent to them.
Tirades where you are going on about how "evil" I am, how I'm
just a "raving paranoiac", and that I fancy myself to be the
"King of the Abductees." Your words. Sound familiar?  Gimme a
break man.

I will not violate a confidence by publishing the names of the
individuals that sent me those "heads-up" notes. Maybe you ought
to "poll" the people that you make these kinds of "behind the
back" statements to to find out 'which two' of them did it. I'm
not going to rat them out in public. Shoot, they are the ones
that keep me 'in the know.'

Here's another little 'jolt' for you:

I not only have the original copies of those communications, I
sent copies of them to EBK when I first received them. <LOL>

See, it's a habit I have of sending him copies of the cowardly
flames that some people send to me privately. It's just one of
the ways I cover my own ass in case situations like this should
arise where someone like you goes "huh, what are you talking
about"? and tries to 'play dumb'. Although I don't think
'playing dumb' is that much of a stretch for you. More than once
I have been glad that I share that kind of stuff with someone
that I trust.

You're a _coward_ for not having the cohones to tell me to my
face. And even worse for doing it behind my back with people I
do not know personally. (And who do not really know me.) You
only compound the offensiveness of it all by acting (in public)
like you don't know _exactly_ what I'm talking about.

Just to put a 'cap' on all this, we have established the

1. You made a statement that is not based on anything other than
your personal "opinion."

2. Your "sampling" of all the people that have worked with Budd,
David, and John consists of no more than thirty individuals.
(And I'm only taking your word on that number.)

3. The clients (Budd's) that you did meet demonstrated what you
yourself refer to as: an "impressive" diversity of points of

4. In spite of the fact that you insist on saying that there is
a difference between the people Budd has hypnotized and the
people that attend his meetings, they are one and the same. Like
_all_ the contradictory statements that you have made, it too is
absurd. Budd's clients are Budd's clients, whether he has
hypnotized them or not. His "clients" are the ones who attend
the meetings.

You make sweeping statements about the personal beliefs of
literally hundreds of individuals that you do not know and have
never spoken to, and then you get annoyed when someone who
_knows_better_ calls you on it. What a guy.

Where do I come off:

Forget that you are speaking to John Velez the individual for a
moment. You're arguing with the former Webmaster of Budd's
Intruders Foundation. As such, and with all that experience
under my belt with the people you are referring to, I'm telling
you that you couldn't be more wrong when you paint all these
individuals with the same brush the way you do.

While you "may have" spoken to thirty of them, (I'll assume that
10 were Budd's 10 were David's and ten were John's.) Over a
period of many years I have spoken to, spent hours on end with,
and in some cases broken bread with, literally _hundreds_ of the
people in question. I dare say that my "opinion" which is based
on first hand _knowledge_ and gleaned from  -hundreds- of Budd's
clients, easily 'trumps' your thirty. If you think that thirty
people is (as you say) a "significant" enough number to justify
your outrageous claim, then how much more significant would my
own experienced opinion be about the 'Hundreds' of these people
I actually know?

In your estimation, and using your own yardstick, (that 30
people represents a "significant" sampling) would my opinion be
more or less significant than the one you express?

Think _before_ you speak in the future and we can avoid these
little head-butting sessions. I'm just tired of having to
'clean-up' after some the 'messes' you make on this very
_public_ List. I lost all patience with you after your
interference in the Carpenter business. Something that affected
_all_ abductees. But then, you have established a pattern of
saying things about abductees and researchers that ultimately
turn out to be completely inaccurate, and just plain wrong. That
book of yours is going to be a doozy I'm sure. And BTW,
_my_name_ or any reference to me better not appear _anywhere_ in
it. If you do, you can start packing your bags right now because
the new house, that cannon of a gun that you carry, and that
poopy and pishy puppy you talk about will all be mine.  :)

Nuff said, point made.

John Velez

Frmr. Webmaster, Budd Hopkins' Intruders Foundation

                       A.I.C. - Abduction Information Center
     "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."

[ 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