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 Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Feb -> Here

From: "Steven J. Powell" <sjpowell@access.digex.net>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 13:00:53 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 20:15:04 -0500
Subject: Re: The Linda Case -- again 

>Date: Sun, 02 Feb 1997 20:31:21 -0500
>From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: The Linda Case -- again

>> 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.

Sure, I understand that, and I've run into that before.  Its odd but
aparently normal.

But she doesn't have to come forward _publically_.

>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.

Sure, its understandable.  After all, from her alleged perspective, what
does she have to ponder anyway - she 'knows' its real.

>> What exactly is a "psychoanalytic therapist" anyway.

>Good question. [...]
>But he corrected me, and said he was a "psychoanalytic
>psychotherapist," which turns out to mean:
>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.

Is he a doctor?

>> 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.

Can't argue that.

>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.

Where are the scientists now?  Same place they've always been, just that
now they (a few) are starting to lend an ear, occasionally.

>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.

I've got my fingers crossed and if I can help in any way I'd be happy to.