Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Feb -> Re: The Linda Case -- again

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 16:28:36 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 16:41:45 -0500
Subject: Re: The Linda Case -- again

As our laconic conversation on the Linda case continues, John Powell
writes:

> From: "Steven J. Powell" <sjpowell@access.digex.net>
> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: The Linda Case -- again
> But, _personally_, I think
> its a hoax and that Hopkins knows its a hoax but it was such a _good_
> setup/hoax that he couldn't resist.


I'd love to see you and Budd have a conversation about that. For
whatever it's worth, I don't detect a trace of deception in him.

Those who've read Budd's book "Witnessed," about the case, may remember
two outsiders Budd brought in to observe Linda and her reactions. One of
them, Gibbs Williams, is a psychoanalytic therapist in private practice
in New York. The other, Charles Strozier, is a historian, a specialist
in millenial beliefs, and a MacArthur prize winner. He's also a
psychoanalyst. (Sounds too good to be true, I know, but it is.)

I've spoken to both of them. Both say they're not close friends with
Budd, and neither is convinced that abductions are physically real.
Strozier, in fact, is quite skeptical.

Both, however, came close to staking their reputations on Linda's
honesty. Williams saw her privately, and gave her psychological tests.
He doesn't believe she's capable of staging a hoax of this complexity.
Nor does he feel she shows the psychopathology he feels would be
necessary to lie with the emotion she consistently manifests. (Anyone
who wants to argue about the psychology of this please argue with him,
not me.)

> Has anyone taken out ads in the local papers served by the postmark of
> Janet Kimball's letter asking her to _privately_ come forward?

I know her name and where she lives. An ad in the local paper would be a
dramatic violation of her privacy. She would read it, and wonder who had
hunted her down. Next would they appear at her door? Her family would
freak. Since they're the impediment to her coming forward, even
privately, the effect of the ad would almost certainly be to make it
less likely that she'd come forward in the future.

Greg Sandow