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: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 14:11:26 -0500
Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 17:49:41 -0500
Subject: Re: The Linda Case -- again

Yet more Linda....

Vince Johnson wrote:

> From: Vince_Johnson_at_TENSOR__HSTN@ccmailsmtp.hstn.expl.pgs.com
> Date: Wed, 05 Feb 97 10:39:56 cst

> I haven't read Budd's new book, so maybe this has already been
> explained: How did 'Janet Kimball' know to contact Budd Hopkins
> after her alleged Brooklyn Bridge sighting of the Linda abduction?

> Was she already familiar enough with abduction lore to associate
> Budd Hopkins with her sighting?

"Janet Kimball" saw Budd on some TV show. Not one she had sat down to
watch. She had the TV on, and something with Budd came on. She wasn't
familiar with abduction lore at all.

This is consistent with how most people find him. As I've mentioned here
before, I've read his unopened mail. People contacting him for the first
time have either read his books, or seen him on TV.

> > If she felt strong enough about the
> > importance of her alleged sighting to contact Hopkins, why wouldn't
> > she feel strong enough about it to provide Hopkins with an
> > "on-the-record" affidavit? Doesn't she realize that at this point,
> > all Hopkins has to support the Linda case is hearsay?

> > Doesn't she realize how her equivocation weakens Hopkin's case --
> > which, if true, would be of great historic importance?

> > Assuming 'Janet Kimball' is a real person, how do you square her
> > willingness to contact Hopkins, with her unwillingness to go on the
> > record?

Does she care about Budd's case? For what it's worth, I've asked Budd to
make this appeal to her myself -- talk to someone else, even privately,
for the sake of my credibility. But what's it to her?

I wrote about this problem in an earlier message. We're all caught up in
UFO research, those of us on this list. We put things into a much larger
context than Janet Kimball does. One big reason that she contacted Budd
was that she saw something that profoundly troubled her. (Forgive me if
I leave out all the usual "allegedly"s. Maybe someday I'll program a
keystroke to type that word!) She needed to get it off her chest, and
feel that she'd done something to help with whatever the situation might
be.

Having done that, she feels that she's done her part. And also, as I've
been saying, her family is reportedly hounding her to stay uninvolved.
That's surely not uncommon in UFO matters. Kimball wouldn't be the first
to not want to be publicly identified with UFOs.

Finally, it's not uncommon for journalists to get calls from people who
don't want their names used, and want to slip back into the woodwork
once they've finished talking. You have to be working on an important
story, and you have to be doing it long enough for people to know you're
involved. If you're working on something really public, though, you'll
get calls. I don't find any contradiction between Kimball's coming forth
originally, and wanting no part of it any more now.

Greg Sandow