Sean Meers, Internet Censorship, and YOU

censorUfology, you’ve got a problem. No, another problem. No, not that one either–it’s a problem called censorship. It’s a problem exacerbated and defined, really, not by one of your sacred cows or celebrated figures, but by a nobody in this field. One who has come out of nowhere and taken it upon himself to defend the honor of a woman whose alien abduction claims have been shown to be a silly concoction, the researcher who hung his career on her ludicrous story, and his best friend, an abduction researcher who offered to buy one of his female subjects a chastity belt with nails in the vaginal opening to prevent her from being raped by highly advanced alien/human hybrids–with the caveat that it might not work but it will enrage them.

Internet censorship is a problem that affects everyone, not just me or the people in this article or the characters in ufology. Everyone. But in ufology and for me and the people I’m writing about, internet censorship is a problem exacerbated and defined by Sean Meers.

Normally I don’t give attention to people trying to make a name for themselves by tearing down others, because they thrive on negative attention. They tend to have not much else going on in their lives and all the time in the world to get revenge on you for speaking out against them. In fact, that’s why they do what they do–so that you will speak out against them. It makes them feel important. Back and forth you go; meanwhile, very few observers actually care about it. So let it be known that although I’m breaking my own rule here, this is it for me. I have no want for an internet war, nor to make this man any more famous in his head than the amount of time it takes him to finish reading this. It’s just that the bad he is doing is inadvertantly drawing attention to a huge problem on the internet that affects even you. Perhaps some good can come out of this, yet.

Thank the internet gods for WordPress. They won’t delete your website at the slightest provocation by an internet troll crying “slander” where there is none. When Jeff Ritzmann and I were doing the Paratopia podcast, we had one of the best message boards on the planet. I say that because it didn’t attract just any old cretin with an opinion talking about the greater mysteries of this here world; it attracted thoughtful, articulate people who actually cared. But then one fine day or two or many, we had the audacity to challenge the lords of alien abduction research and call them on their unethical practices. That’s when all of their ufologist friends came to their aid and most of our ufological allies kept their silence. Because they’re cowards. Yup, it’s that simple. They have no problem yelling at skeptics or government officials or the nearest television camera about MJ12, Area 51, Roswell, and other unprovable ufological threads–but rock the boat of the cottage industry that supports them with accusations that are backed up by real audio, video, and firsthand witness accounts? Mmm… no thanks. Better to tuck tail and keep those lecture gigs.

And that’s to be expected. That’s called preserving the status quo. You’ll get that in any field, I’m sure, not just the subculture ones where people make a living ranting against status quo.

But this got dirty. Really dirty. In fact, some anonymous person filed a complaint on behalf of David Jacobs and Budd Hopkins, the aforementioned lords, and quicker than you can say “Scared of frivolous lawsuits,” our provider shut us down. For your amusement, here’s one of the post entries that was so offensive, so libelous, we got censored:


Re: Hopkins replies to Rainey Article
« Reply #9 on Feb 16, 2011, 5:30pm »

I echo what you stated in your first post, Jeff. Let us not just assume everything is hunky dory just because the words “peer reviewed” are inserted. Peer reviewed by who exactly? I would like to see just who exactly carried this review out. David Jacobs certainly doesn’t count.

I might as well say my posts are peer reviewed by Paratopians.

Amazing, isn’t it? Erase that or lose the message board. Why? Because someone complained about it. Who? We can’t tell you that. Why? That’s our policy? Why? Change it or leave.

So we left.

That type of censorship is so crass and wrong that even some of our enemies told us they didn’t do it. Yes, even they wanted to clear their names because shutting down someone’s message board or website is a step too far. We never did find out who the complainant was, but now we have a really good candidate because there is one man who is currently trying to erase the web presence of Emma Woods and Carol Rainey: Sean Meers. In Rainey’s case, he is trying to get her documentary clips on Budd Hopkins taken off of youtube. In Emma’s, he’s trying to get her website removed. Thankfully, Emma’s service provider gave her the letter from her accuser so he couldn’t hide in anonymity. Unthankfully, they acquiesced to the bully and when she offered to change the–that’s right, ONE SINGLE–line he found offensive on the entire site – “Dr. Jacobs’ behavior towards me became increasingly bizarre and psychologically abusive” – her provider countered with,

Dear Valued Customer

Thank for responding to the notification. At this time we are not able to provide legal advice or arbitrate disputes between yourself and complainant. Please understand that adding the phrase, “In my opinion…” will not address the matter. We ask that you remove the offending language completely. We also recommend that you contact the complainant directly to clear any language to be used.

At this time the account has been re-enabled.  Please note if there are further complaints, we will disable the account again.

Verio Abuse Team

The “Abuse Team” is recommending that she, the “Valued Customer,” allow the accuser to edit her language? What? This is a victim speaking out against a victimizer. This is all documented and backed up with facts. In a sane world, the only person who could or would scour her entire website for some bit of slander he could use is the victimizer, right? But no. This was not him. This was someone else. Someone not even from the same country. This was a total stranger–a troll. They bowed down to a troll over the valued customer presumably out of fear of a potential lawsuit. A lawsuit that’s not even in the cards. This, to my mind, is the larger issue here. If internet providers presume you guilty and shut you down on the word of someone who complains against you, without even looking to see if the verbiage is slander, without even looking at whether this is an internet bully, without even caring if the complainer is involved or not… then… anyone can do this to anyone else and we can go round and round shutting each other down all day.

Mercifully, WordPress understands these issues and actually does care about them. Their dispute resolution policy is clear and it is clearly not on the side of bullies and censors:

We strongly believe in freedom of speech. enables anyone to freely express their ideas and opinions, without censoring or endorsing them.

We take our terms of service very seriously and will suspend any sites that are found to be in violation.   By the same token, we will not suspend blogs if they are not in violation of our terms or policies, even if they are offensive or objectionable. We think the right response to bad or offensive ideas is to speak out against them, not to censor them. Instead of asking us to suspend such a blog, please consider either responding in the blog’s comments or on a blog of your own, to set the record straight.

Example:  we don’t suspend blogs for:  describing a negative experience with a business, stating an opinion you disagree with, or using offensive language.

Rather than give in to obscene censorship, Emma is porting her site to WordPress where we’re protected from trolls, bullies, zealots, wannabes, the delusional, people with way too much time on their hands, and Sean Meers, whichever of those categories he may fall into.

‘Sean Meers. Why haven’t I heard that name before?’ you might be thinking. It’s because he didn’t exist in ufology until he decided to take up for his heroes, Budd Hopkins and David Jacobs. He exists in response to the whistleblowing of Carol Rainey and Emma Woods, and the reporting of Paratopia. He’s an angry fan. It would be like if you read a book by Stephen King, contacted him, pledged your allegiance to him, and then called yourself a horror novelist. You can do the equivalent of that in ufology and get away with it for quite a while because nobody knows what they’re talking about anyway.

If Meers had stayed in his little neck of the internet ranting against us, I wouldn’t be writing this. I believe in his right to do that. But his continued dictatorial actions don’t even serve David Jacobs’ reputation well. They don’t serve anyone, actually. What they do is expose a flaw in the system.

Meers originally came to my attention when he wrote to Carol Rainey pretending to be a humble, friendly researcher. Here’s how that went:

On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Sean F Meers wrote:

Hello, my name is Sean.

I’m doing some research into the work of Budd Hopkins. I was wondering, since you’ve worked closely with him what can you tell me about Budd the man?

Thanks for your time and have a great day

From: Carol Rainey
To: Sean F Meers
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 6:18 AM
Subject: Re: Dear Carol

Hi, Sean,

I’d rather not get into this matter now, other than what I’ve stated in my article and radio show on Paratopia.

Sorry not to be of help,

Carol Rainey

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Sean F Meers wrote:

Dear Carol,

Sean here again.

I’d just like to say that after reading your work that I find your attack on Budd Hopkins and his work as contemptible. Rather than using evidence, the only thing driving your arguments is hearsay and hate. It sickens me that you’d launch such vicious diatribes against someone who is extremely frail and dying in stage four of cancer.

I knew a person once who did similar things, but as well as being full of hate that person was mentally ill and a abuser. Every attack you launch on Budd Hopkins and his work will be evidentially refuted and when it is the world will see you for what you truly are.

Sean F. Meers

With that failure under his belt, he turned to Emma Woods:

On 2/4/2011 06:22 AM Sean F Meers wrote:

Hello Emma,

My name is Sean. I’m a UFO and Abduction researcher from Australia. I only recently found out and became aware about what happened to you regarding David Jacobs. I’d just like to say, from one human being to another, that I’m very sorry for the pain of what you must being going through, and that I hope you find peace and justice in your future.

Take care 🙂

Sean F. Meers

He later wrote a hit piece involving Carol, Jeff, and me that was so illiterate he had to rewrite it a few times to even make his nonexistent points legible. He contacted me, trying to bait me the same way you see above, and I challenged him to come on Paratopia for a debate. He, of course, like they all do, refused. Then he posted my response to him as hate mail on his website. He neglected to include his initial email to me, which gives one the impression that I’d challenged him out of the blue. I let it all go because he’s as transparent as they come and any thinking person can see what he’s doing. Actually, no thinking person would be taking a Linda Cortile fanboy website seriously in the first place so I probably looked like a hero.

Back then.

When it all happened….

Check out the time stamps on those emails I cited above. These exchanges didn’t take place yesterday or last week or even last month. They took place three years ago. Three years ago! And now he’s back at it again, trying to expunge the internet of viewpoints he doesn’t like, like a child shoving palms to ears, while yelling “La! La! La! La! — I can’t hear you!”

He’s trying to rewrite and own the Hopkins legacy with not only his main website on the Linda Cortile farce, but also by inserting himself as  an “independent investigator” on Budd’s wikipedia page,* referencing himself more than anyone else by far–including Budd Hopkins! And now it would appear he is trying to rewrite and own David Jacobs’ ongoing saga as well. (So much for relating to Emma’s pain, one human to another.)

Public tantrums, revisionist history, and self-aggrandizement would be fine, except he’s dissatisfied with shouting over the factual reports he finds offensive–he doesn’t want you to hear them at all. He wants to dictate to you what information you read, watch, and hear about his ufological heroes. And far too many web hosts will go along with a misguided control freak like that because… I don’t know why. I’m guessing fear of lawsuits but I don’t really know. All I know is that Meers is so against free speech that he will go to great lengths to exploit whatever that fear is so that he can shut us down and shut us up.

That he tries is sleazy and speaks to his character. That he gets away with it is unfathomable and speaks to the need for clear internet censorship laws that protect us from would-be dictators like him. This type of abuse transcends my personal problems with a man I’ve never met. I won’t stand for it.

Will you?

Please feel free to share your ideas on how we can curb internet stalking and account suspensions caused by false accusations in the comments section.


* NOTE: As an example of how to edit without censoring, I edited to slightly better reflect reality–not censored to reflect what I want to hear–the following passage from the Budd Hopkins Wiki page:

“Sean F. Meers, an independent researcher of the Linda Cortile Case, claims to have subsequently investigated and refuted Carol Rainey’s allegations against Budd Hopkins and Linda Cortile in a comprehensive, fully referenced rebuttal to her article titled ‘Free-For-All: The Assassination of Budd Hopkins and Linda Cortile’. He believes Rainey’s statements against Hopkins’ and Cortile were inaccurate, unfounded, and originating from a biased and subjective source.”

The original Meers fantasy version read: “Sean F. Meers, an independent researcher of the Linda Cortile Case, subsequently investigated and refuted Carol Rainey’s allegations against Budd Hopkins and Linda Cortile in a comprehensive, fully referenced rebuttal to her article titled ‘Free-For-All: The Assassination of Budd Hopkins and Linda Cortile’. Rainey’s claims against Hopkins’ and Cortile were found to be inaccurate, unfounded, and originating from a biased and subjective source.”

We’ll see how long it takes for the fantasy version to be reinstated. Then again, he fancies himself an “independent” (and yet he also says he’s friends with the people he is independent of) “researcher” (pretty hard to do from his armchair in Australia). Methinks the fantasy runs too thick to edit.

POSTSCRIPT TO THE NOTE: The original fantasy language has returned. That didn’t take long. What? 24 hours?

8.12.15 UPDATE: Someone has finally cleaned up the Hopkins Wiki page:

12 thoughts on “Sean Meers, Internet Censorship, and YOU

  1. It would appear that Sean Meers is a talentless scourge and errant literary highwayman as irrelevant as he is erring and as psychopathic as he is unreasonable. One could contrive no better a Sancho Panza for our Dr. Jacobs than a smearing Meers. That he would pretend to be the control on anyones expression boggles the mind. It’s like Rush Limbaugh effortlessly ball-gagging Sandra Fluke.

  2. i would like to write to carol rainey pretending to be something,,,, how is that done??? seriously, i fell asleep to one youtube video about an arizona crash and awoke to a radio show about the cortile case,, maybe a jimmy church interview of george hansen who spoke of investigating the case some twenty something years ago and finding gaping holes in it, finding that the case followed a recently published book. he stated that he brought this to budd hopkins as well as to law enforcement, who had been accused of felonious activities by ms cortile. i think the program is called fade to black and it is episode twenty three,,, maybe??? anyhow,,,, why wasn’t this addressed??? so ms rainey’s vid was not even close to the first critical examination of this case. wow. i am truly going thru and real reevaluation of the field of abduction research and even ufology in general. there seems to be a lot of outright deception as well as lines drawn in the sand with people trying to defend their turf. all this is seriously tearing this field apart. can this be a good thing????

  3. As if they were the victims of a coercive telepath, people I respect want to give Dr. David Jacobs a by and treat Ms “Emma Woods” as an obsessive nut-ball or shrill harridan grasping for attention and smearing the good Doctor’s name… and by extension the memory of the even more revered Budd Hopkins.

    Firstly, my problems, my only problems (but they’re biggies), with Hopkins was his rank authoritarianism and steadfast if not unwavering support of David Jacobs… where Jacobs was so profoundly, so demonstrably reader, dirty, you know? I offer also that not much is lost vis a vis Hopkins legacy, given Hopkins big three cases, Copley Woods, Linda Cortile and finally Jim Mortellaro, were all wild blue horse muffins discredited by comparative believers George Hansen, Raymond Fowler, Carol Rainy et sig al:

    These are quality observers, intrepid Documentarians, adroit writer/researchers— folks not associated with CSI, in other words, so not hardwired to the errant and reflexive prosaic/mundane… named persons of good reputation reasonably open to finding zebras in the place of horses—these shoot massive holes in the narrative and veracity of the “Big Three.” In the third case above, Mortellaro, I was very near the supportive center of that case and I can report that it turned out to be a real steaming pile of yak heave, personally, but I digress.

    The preceding remains an eye-opener …and cold winds blow through dreaded halls lit by flickering exit signs in the dead of night… See, it remains that history would show Hopkins’ “big three cases” are all entirely bupkis, David Jacobs is a self-admitted monster (Admitted stealthily to George Knapp on Coast @ Coast) as pointed out previously and I have been speaking with Emma Woods for many years now and she strikes me as a remarkably sane, inordinately strong, and a very intelligent woman who won’t suffer a psychopath’s foot in her throat. A pox on David Jacobs, eh, and too bad about the memory of Bud Hopkins. He drew that card himself.

    Sadly, I suspect David Jacobs and that sullen old authoritarian Budd Hopkins have an idiosyncratic credit with persons apart from myself, credit that plunged to _worthlessness_ with me when Jacobs is seen “commiting” the betraying “crime” that he perpetrated on a trusting Woods… and Hopkins, thinking only of his own legacy, doubled down for him in an intellectually insulting defense. I say this having once loved Hopkins and Jacobs myself… but Jacobs made his own bed and the supporter of Hopkins never travailed to sail South of Hopkins in repectful disagreement like I did in an issue of UFO Magazine. He could get dismissive and nasty, eh?

    You know what I’m betting? Jacobs supporters have never, no, not one time talked with Emma Woods, listened to her or must errantly believe the massive and well vetted evidentiary aural pathway provided is faked, confabulated and contrived. How can these supporters then speak to her “obsessiveness”… and “stalking behavior”?!? Forget for a moment she’s on the other side of the freaking world and can be wholly, and very safely, ignored… Reader, the evidence convinces me that Jacobs intellectually “raped” her, he mind-f**ked her reader, and when she caught wise of what he was doing and he decided he couldn’t otherwise profit from her… he cut his loses and betrayed her… this seems clear to a person willing to see forests for trees, eh?

    Consider… Over the long haul, I’ve come to understand Emma Woods. And she’s not that hard to understand… See, the same thing happened to me vis a vis one Rich Reynolds and his slander of me… and does anybody want to discuss my “obsessivness” and “stalking behavior” in a public forum as regards Rich Reynolds? Mmmmmm-no? I’ll happily eat your literary face.

    No! I will pursue and responsibly harass Rich Reynolds until I get effusive and unabashed apologies and seven figures in “slander per se” damages! Remember he smeared my reputation and the reputation of my son of the same name… may be a future embarrassment to my granddaughters. In a more enlightened time I would have cut him to pieces in a duel! The court of public opinion remains the only tool for the remotest recompense…

    Emma Woods, I offer, is cut from a similar if not more refined yard of cloth. There is nothing obsessive in diligent activity leading to the righteous restoration of your own self-respect and sense of self, personal attributes stolen by a seeming psychopath. It’s not stalking behavior campaigning to right an egregious wrong… …this is important.

    It’s important enough to risk a possible place in recorded history, valued friendships, even banishment and expulsion from the “respected” community. Where it comes to justice for one innocent hugely wronged, the memory of Budd Hopkins or extended credit for David Jacobs is not worth the price of admission. I’m driven to this expressed opinion by the observed selfish cruelties of the late Budd Hopkins and a presently smirking David Jacobs with his legion of biased and conflicted supporters. I see myself in Emma Woods. Read on.

    “Perforce we are plagued with an _odious_ ignorance… the sordid results of those faults all our own, as some lack respect for the folk shoved beneath them… where lacking compassion draws blood from a stone!”

  4. I think the entire issue of one lone…not wolf, a noble animal…one lone snake slithering around in the darkest depths of the Internet and STRIKING here and STRIKING there–I think this needs to become a public issue. (Lord, it sounds Biblical, right? Garden of Eden and Serpent feeding slickly sweet lines to a fair maiden or two before he turns on them viciously?)

    The issue of a lone individual permitted to tear down other people’s platforms needs to be known far outside the smallish world of ufology. I invite anyone interested in preserving the right of you and me to express our opinions and research findings online to join me in my new avocation: I will be working as a citizen with the Electronic Frontier Foundation to make sure that Internet trolls are not permitted to make such gratuitous take downs as have been happening. Their site:

    (This will _not_ be about S.M., the Australian. This is about the freedom of all of us. So the lone whatever should _not for a second_ think that this is going to bring him what he really wants: international recognition for his holy mission of protecting those righteous defenders of the planet against sexually violent male hybrids. The guy’s messianic and a cultist, for sure, but in courts of law how will he and his lurid ideas, his beloved, flying Manhattan housewife…how will that appear in a court of law?)

    The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is a powerful lobbying, politically connected organization, quite dedicated to the concept of American free speech. They are determined to see that it is upheld in online forums, as well. Here is one paragraph from their site at the address below:

    “Preserving the Internet’s open architecture is critical to sustaining free speech. But this technological capacity means little without sufficient legal protections. If laws can censor us to limit our access to certain information, or restrict use of communication tools, then the Internet’s incredible potential will go unrealized.”

    and: “EFF defends the Internet as a platform for free speech, and believes that when you go online, your rights should come with you. Learn more below and consider supporting our efforts.”

    Most Internet users are not yet aware how fragile their rights really are, according to do-nothing hosts. Let’s all work on changing that!! I know a journalist or two who can help. I’m sure the rest of you do, too.

  5. Thank you Alfred. Your understanding and support mean a lot. Carol, I think you are so right about it being an important issue. Here’s hoping we can push back the attempts to censor information.

  6. As a person aspiring to the Ronin myself (Ask Nancy Birnes) I suspect that there are few _lone_ wolves… I would offer that these serve masters and are toothless without them. It is one thing to feel welcome in a camp and striding confidently to the fire still wearing your saber, wholly another to have scraps thrown from the fire and whimpering in acrawl on your belly sans sword, awash in cognitive dissonance, bereft of honor, and mused by psychopathic monsters. What is this hold that Jacobs has on people who should know better in the face of abundant evidence to a terrible contrary?

  7. Yeah — Sean F. Meers may be a third string Groupie thinking he’s in the band capering in masturbatory delight at the fuss he’s causing and actually beneath concern, consideration and contempt, but… didn’t he reach out as a third party and effortlessly snuff out Emma Woods voice like Rush Limbaugh ball-gagging Sandra Fluke? That’s why he has to be mashed like a bug, eh?

    • Meers is the worst type of hypocrite: His website is full of slander and defamatory statements, but he’s protected by iPage the way we’re protected by WordPress. And he has the unmitigated gaul to try to shut people down for defamation?

      But that’s just standard shit-for-brains hypocrisy. That’s not what makes him the WORST type. What makes him the worst is that he wants this. When he bitches about people slandering his character, the fact is he is a fanboy who inserted himself into his favorite author’s story. He has no character to slander, no fame to defame. All of this is what he wants because it’s who he is. He’s not a researcher. He’s a man who has set up this very situation so that he can exist here. This will be my last offering of masturbation material for Mr. Meers, who is waiting for replies with bated breath. (There’s probably a pun there but not intended.)

  8. I’m asked a lot, “What did Hopkins and Cortile do to you, Alfred?” People seem to want to know what happened in that reagrd. They have no questions about my criticism of Jacobs , by the way. Folks seem to get that in spades… …and I mean, given every shred of evidence… considered evidence, and vetted evidence forgetting the admissions of Jacobs himself! It’s like a spell is cast!

    Hopkins was “fine,” in comparison… I loved him myself… until you found you had to disagree with him… then he could turn into Dick Cheney, eh? So it was his authoritarianism eclipsed by his foursquare, steadfast, and unreasoning support for Jacobs I can’t get passed… where Jacobs was so profoundly, so demonstrably, reader, “dirty,” you know?

    Cortile? I feel she is a liar and psychopath and led Hopkins down a primrose path he wanted to be led down because it proved his thesis, a thesis ultimately not supported in any of his big three cases: Copley Woods, Linda Cortile and finally Jim Mortellaro… In the third of the three, Mortellaro, I was very near the supportive center of that case and I can report that _that_ affair turned out to be a real steaming pile of yak heave, personally, but I digress. Sorry if the reader’s a Hopkins fan. I was too. I was too.

    … But what does anyone, reader, have to do with another but disappoint, dishearten, disillusion… even let down, deceive, or betray. It would seem, and early on too, that Jacobs, imo, was a stealthy practitioner of all of that!… and do you know what a _named_ authority on psychopathy and serial killers told me… I bet you DO know… that in _his_ considered opinion Jacobs is cut from closely related cloth and is every bit the dominating predator describing the serial murderer.

    Hopkins was _cool_ with that; so, and in some extreme ways, what did Hopkins do to _me_ as a result of his lack of due diligence, his evidentiary cherry picking, his ponderous denialism, his squirmy hypnotism, and his gravid self-interest or concern for legacy… but disappoint, dishearten, disillusion… even let down, deceive, or betray me. That’s the short answer to the concerns of reader

    Some might provide that the dead can’t defend themselves. I offer that many supporters remain… like Sean F. Meers for example… to take me to task for my transgressions upon honored memory in any neutral forum at any time… Indeed, Dr Jacobs than thank Sean F. Meers for the rekindled interest in him currently playing out… …in my opinion! I wonder if that pleases him.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s