Carol Rainey and UFO Updates

I've been a subscriber to UFO Updates, a long-time e-mail discussion list, for a decade now. I cancelled my subscription once before, when I thought someone was poorly treated by the moderator, Errol Bruce-Knapp, and I've done so again, this time because of his banning of Carol Rainey as a result of her defending her recent critiques of Budd Hopkins and his "alien abduction research".

I consider Errol a friend, and wish him all the best personally, but this was a mistake. I know a number of researchers who support Rainey behind the scenes, including some very senior and popular ones, but they won't get involved publicly.

That's a shame. There is a real discussion to be had about the "alien abduction" phenomenon, and Ms. Rainey has been making a substantial, and documented, contribution to it, by way of her critique of Hopkin's methodology, particularly as it concerns the "Linda Cortile" case. But the Luddites of so-called "ufology" don't want anything to do with it, just as they largely ignored earlier critiques, from Dr. Susan Clancy all the way to Jacques Vallee and Kevin Randle.

In the end, UFO Updates is small beans in and of itself, but this says something about UFO research, which should be cutting edge, revolutionary stuff, full of new ideas and open minds.

In many quarters, of course, it is indeed exactly that - but not in "ufology", which has absolutely nothing to do with research into the UFO phenomenon, and whose practitioners have no understanding of what real research and discovery are about.

Like old men playing chess in the park, and swapping the same stories about supposedly better days, they are irrelevant to anyone or anything other than the pigeons who occasionally wander by to gather up the stale breadcrumbs they still toss to the ground.

Paul Kimball

New excerpt from rough cut of Carol Rainey's documentary "Priests of High Strangeness: Co-Creation of the Alien Abduction Phenomenon"

Even as a rough cut, this is more compelling material from Ms. Rainey.

One thing to note - while I suspect that many people will focus on "Linda Cortile's" sharing in the profits from Hopkins' work on her "case", I see nothing wrong with that, in theory. It all depends on the context, and timing.

One could just as easily say that if "Cortile" received nothing, and Hopkins was the sole person to profit from her story, that he was exploiting her for profit.

The issue of whether a witness should profit from their story, and to what extent, is not an easy question to answer, and it varies from case to case, and person to person. However, a good basic rule of thumb, at least to me, is that anyone who looks for money up front is incredibly suspect; anyone who is offered a piece of the profits by a researcher after-the-fact might not be telling the truth, but if they're lying it's probably not because they're motivated by profit.

Having said that, I'll add that the part of this segment from Ms. Rainey's rough cut that stands out to me is the story about someone trying to kidnap "Cortile" - how ridiculous the story seems on its face, and how easily and completely Hopkins swallows it, and immediately links it to her alleged "abduction".

If someone tried to grab me on the streets of New York, or anywhere else, I would report it to the police, not Budd Hopkins. Wouldn't you?

Ms. Rainey is absolutely right about one key thing: what Hopkins was engaged in wasn't objective research.

Paul Kimball

Carol Rainey, The Alien Abduction Cult & Ufology

There is an orchestrated campaign at the moment of personal attacks and propaganda which goes far beyond the level of reasonable criticism against filmmaker Carol Rainey, who has spoken out about the activities of Budd Hopkins, David Jacobs and other "abduction researchers". I recently pointed out one egregious example, "Archie Bedford", who lied about Rainey on the message forum of The Paracast (with the full support of the show's owner).

This is what cult members do - criticize their gurus, and they will spare no effort to attack you, not on the facts, but on your person.

UFO researchers often decry similar tactics by those they label "debunkers" (and indeed, Phil Klass had a well-deserved reputation for making these kinds of attacks). It's just as bad, however, when people do the same thing in support of people with whom you agree.

And yet, in the comments section of the video above, we see approving remarks by a poster who uses the handle "kruggutter", who in reality is Sean F. Meers, a person whose 166 page "rebuttal" to Rainey's work has been met with praise at The Paracast and even UFO Updates. And then there are videos like this:

Presumably Meers endorses these even more inflammatory videos made about Rainey, as they all seem to be part of the same gang - the poster of the video above comments on the one below, endorsing it as follows: "Hhaahahahahahahah that Witch!".

One can disagree with Ms. Rainey; indeed, it is even fair game to question her motivations (as it is for any filmmaker). But there is a right way to do it, and a wrong way to do it, and what we see in the above examples is the wrong way. It is shameful behaviour, and it has no place in a civil society that values reasonable and rational discourse. Sadly, however, it is all too typical of "ufology", a "field" that has far more in common with the likes of Phil Klass than it will ever admit, or even realize.

Paul Kimball

Rough Cuts

The clip above is a rough-cut excerpt from a documentary currently being made by Carol Rainey, entitled "Priests of High Strangeness."

A word about Rainey, and some of the flak I've seen her catch for releasing this rough cut. All of it, as far as I can tell, is coming from people who don't know what they're talking about. As someone who has spent the past decade making documentaries for television, I do know what I'm talking about, so let me say that there is absolutely nothing improper or even unusual about a filmmaker releasing rough cut segments from a film in progress. I've done it myself from time to time. Motivations can vary from trying to drum up interest (and possibly funding), which is part of the business, to putting the material out there to gauge reaction, which might then lead to changes in the direction of the film. There are many other reasons.

Whatever you think of Rainey or her motivations in making the film, there is nothing untoward in releasing advance footage as she has. Judge it for what it is (my take: compelling from a preliminary evidential point of view), and withhold final judgment until the film is complete.

Paul Kimball