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 -> Jun -> Re: Dennis Stacey 'Outing' Abductees

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 12:30:48 -0500 (CDT)
Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 22:06:13 -0400
Subject: Re: Dennis Stacey 'Outing' Abductees

>Date: Tues,  9 June 1997  03:45 EDT
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto - <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: HONEYBE100@aol.com  (Linda Cortile)
>Subject: Re: Dennis Stacey 'Outing' Abductees

>Dennis Stacey wrote:


>"Linda is already outed and has been for some time"?
>Oh, the tangled web we weave...wishful thinking on your
>part, Dennis.  I suppose, that's what you'd like everyone
>to believe, huh?  But the fact remains, you have been
>trying to *out* me for years, unsuccessfully.


Dear Linda,

You're getting as difficult to respond to rationally as Mr. Komarek, but let
me try. I have not been trying to out you personally for years. I've already
posted a list of articles I published about your case in the Journal over
the last five years or so, 12 articles in favor of, one against.

But had I been trying, you can bet your Yankees' cap that it wouldn't have
been unsuccessfully. I could have mentioned your last name any time I wanted
to in a number of media outlets that I write regularly for, beginning with
Fortean Times and Omni magazine, both the late print edition and now the
electronic version. I could have posted it on this and other WWW lists.
Instead, I inadvertently used it once, which I apologized for. You are, of
course, perfectly free to refuse that apology. You're not free to distort
the facts of the matter.

>No, you don't
>have anything against me personally, but you do have
>something against Budd Hopkins.  Using me as a tool, to
>get back at Budd for whatever disagreements you've had
>with him in the past, isn't a good tactic to use.  It just doesn't
>work.  People are not going to *out* me just because you wish
>they would.


Again, you're into mind-reading. I have disagreements with some of Budd's
interpretations of the abduction evidence, beginning with his interpretation
of the Roper Report findings. In the interval, I can't think of anything he
has offered to the Journal that I haven't printed. If I "have something
against" Budd, that's a surprising way to express it. I even tried to use
one of his early articles, from the Village Voice, in the UFO book I just
co-edited, which means that I would have been putting money in his pocket.
The reason why it doesn't appear has to do with the fact that the people in
charge of the Voice's rights departments are a bunch of flakes. When
approval finally came through, it was too late. There is still the
possibility that Budd's article could appear in the American edition if
there is one.


>As far as Budd Hopkins is concerned, you and I know who
>revealed my legal name.  Why do you pretend it was Hopkins?
>The three debunkers from South Jersey (you know, the ones
>you've sided with against Hopkins) gave my real name to Jim
>Moseley in 1992.   Jim Moseley, in turn, published it in his
>newsletter. This is how my name was originally revealed.
>The gate-keeper, Budd Hopkins, did not reveal my name and
>you know that.

Again, you misconstrue my statements, which were intended to imply that more
care could of been taken. In other words, someone needs to ask why your name
was entrusted to them in the first place if absolute privacy was the first
priority. There *are* ways to keep state secrets, you know, just ask the Air
Force.

>I don't know what's been rolling around in your
>head, Dennis, but you have even asked John Velez and Greg
>Sandow to direct their rage at Budd. You seem obsessed with
>your dislike for Hopkins, even if you were joking.  It shows.


The issue you're referring to--the location of the mail-drop--is a minor but
complicated one, but had nothing to do with asking John or Greg to direct
their rage (or mine) at Budd. I am not obsessed with any dislike for Budd. I
do have a passing interest in (and concern for) increasingly escalating and
exotic claims made for the UFO abduction phenomenon. In that sense, I'm from
the big state just south of Missouri.

I originally asked John to ask Budd about the drop's location because I had
heard different stories about its whereabouts. Eventually, Budd responded
with a letter that I should address any questions I had about the case to
him. I agreed with that. You then came online, saying you were willing to
answer questions about the case yourself. I asked you exactly one, to which
Greg responded before you did.

>It almost seems as though, you cannot separate me from Budd
>Hopkins.  To you, I don't have an identity of my own.  Strange,
>isn't it?  You couple the both of us as *one person* simply
>because he has investigated my case. Even you must admit, this
>is a very unusual way for you to perceive things.


It is a very unusual way to perceive things, I admit, it just happens not to
be how I do perceive things, but I appreciate your trying.

>Every abductee and alien abduction researcher, has good cause
>to moan and groan to you.  After all, you've offended most of us.
>And speaking of most of us,  the majority does not know my real
>name, as you have presumed.  So, I'd like to keep it that way.


Another one that's hard to respond to because it's so general. Have I
offended Eddie Bullard, for example? Did I offend David Jacobs by asking him
to review Budd's "Witnessed" in the Journal? Do I offend John Carpenter by
running his column in the Journal? Did I offend Ray Fowler by asking him to
write about the Allagash case for the UFO book? Have I offended Walter Webb,
Richard Haines, Jacques Vallee, Jerry Clark? Maybe you should stop confusing
the whole of ufology with the NYC circle?

In fact, this whole field needs to seriously psychoanalyze itself to see
whether it's going to allow honest differences of opinion and interpretation
to exist, or whether it's simply going to lump everyone into two opposing
camps, as in you're either for me or against me. The latter is certainly
Komarek's approach, and from where I sit, it seems to be the one you're
taking as well.

Dennis