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: Sun, 02 Feb 1997 20:31:21 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 00:50:31 -0500
Subject: Re: The Linda Case -- again 

Writing still more about the Linda case, John Powell says:

> From: "Steven J. Powell" <sjpowell@access.digex.net>
> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: The Linda Case -- again

> Well, I automatically have a problem with [Janet Kimball, one of the
> crucial alleged witnesses in the case] not coming forward _in
> some manner_.  Its not like she has to appear on Late Night with David
> Letterman y'know.  Would she be willing to meet with one or two people
> who don't know here true identity, take a lie detector test, answer a
> series of questions?

> What is the nature of the family problem with her coming forward?

> Compared with the possibility of independently establishing at some
> part of the reality of this alleged event I'm a little surprised at
> her total reluctance to help.

I agree, and have suggested to Budd that he call her and tell her his
own credibility is on the line. Maybe she'd respond to a personal
appeal, I thought.

The family problem, as I understand it, is that her family thinks she's
crazy (a) to believe she saw what she allegedly claims she saw, and (b)
to get involved in any way. They have made life difficult for her.

However, there's something to remember here, which I only understood
when I began learning more about the Roswell witnesses, and listening to
some of their unedited testimony. They don't have a notion of being
involved in something world-shaking, many of them. They don't have our
perspective. They're not involved with UFO research. They didn't spend
decades after 1947 chomping at the bit inside, burning with a desire to
let the world know what had happened.

They may not be people who read newspapers, or think about public
policy. They figure, as everyone does, that the government has big
secrets. They simply figured the Roswell event was one of them. So what
if they knew? Their own lives came first. One indication of how this
works is what happened when Pappy Henderson -- a pilot at the base --
told his wife, at long last, that he'd flown wreakage of a spaceship to
Wright-Patterson. He read about it in the Enquirer, and said, as she
quotes him, that since it's in the paper the secret is evidently out, so
he can talk about it. The distinction between a supermarket tabloid and
a real newspaper simply didn't exist for him.

Likewise, Janet Kimball may not feel a burning sense of responsiblity
about any of this. She's better informed about the world than Pappy
Henderson, and took what she felt was a major, daring step in telling
Budd anything at all. Now she seems to feel she's done her bit, and that
nobody has the right to ask any more from her.

From her point of view that surely makes sense. If she saw the thing
from our perspective, she might think we had a point, too. But it's not
surprising that she doesn't. The woman just doesn't pass her time
pondering the credibility of UFO research.

On other points...I'd mentioned Gibbs Williams, a psychoanalytic
psychotherapist in NY who has observed Linda, and vouches for her. John
asks:

> What exactly is a "psychoanalytic therapist" anyway.

Good question. I met Gibbs, and interviewed him for quite a while, not
just about Linda, but about his general impression of Budd and his work.
Turns out Gibbs has spent some hours, just as I have, observing Budd
with abductees. I wanted to write about that, for something else I'm
doing, and called him (as he asked me to do) to read him what I was
going to write. (By the way, I normally don't extend that courtesy in my
journalistic writing, but when a serious professional is involved in
UFOs, I understand why he might be nervous about being misquoted!)

In any case, I'd identified him as a psychoanalyst, which is what I'd
thought he was, listening to more than an hour's worth of his carefully
stated, quite reasonable Freudian opinions, and descriptions of some of
his patients. But he corrected me, and said he was a "psychoanalytic
psychotherapist," which turns out to mean:

-- he doesn't put his patients on a couch

--he doesn't put them through intensive psychoanalysis, several days a
week for many years

--he sees them as a nonpsychoanalytic therapist might, one or two days
a week, in rare cases more, but uses techniques and insights derived
from formal psychoanalysis.

Clear? He himself isn't crazy about the distinction, but says it's made
by people in his profession, and that he feels he should respect it. In
any case, he's been formally trained as an analyst.

And, finally, John says about Budd Hopkins:

> I just
> think that so-called (alleged <grin>) alien abductions is
> monumentallly too important an item for someone with his slack
> non-scientific approach.

Yep, but on the other hand, when Budd first started working on
abductions, where were the scientists? Someone had to do it.

And where are the scientists now? Not, I must say, that this excuses
Budd for such lapses as not keeping a database of how many of the
abductees he's worked with have the scoop marks he so often talks about.
Amazing to make such a point of that, and not even have numbers.

Thanks in part to your comments here, John, there's a good chance that
the supposed alien writing will receive a proper scientific study. Stay
tuned.

Greg Sandow