Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here UFOs | Paranormal | Area 51 People | Places | Random Top 100 | What's New Catalog | New Books 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 Our Bookstore is OPEN Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Oct -> Here

From: HONEYBE100@aol.com [Linda Cortile]
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 00:36:54 -0400 (EDT)
Fwd Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 01:29:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Witness Anonymity


>From Vince Johnson at TENSOR HSTN@ccmailsmtp.hstn.expl.pgs.com
>Date: Mon. 06 Oct. 97 13:21:15 cst
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Witness Anonymity

Vince Johnson wrote:

>In "Eyewitnessed," Hopkins described why he made the videotapes
>of you and your son - because the case was of such historic impor-
>tance that future researchers should have access to these tapes to
>validate your experiences.  A reasonable position, in my opinion...

There was only one video made of my son.  It was filmed in my home,
by my husband, with our camera.  This particular video was made for
the appointed researcher's files, at his request, if certain portions of my
case needed to be validated in the future.  If the occasion ever arised,
these videos were supposed to be viewed privately.  No one was to have
personal or physical access to them outside of the appointed researcher
and the child's parents.

Apparently, without my knowledge, this video tape of my son was
'entrust ed' to a colleague. In spite of that, the video was
distributed around. You know, TV, conferences, etc. From what
I've heard, this video was sold. I don't have all the details,
yet.

Are things so bad  within the UFO community, that  trusted colleagues
can't be relied on anymore?  Or, have things always been that way?

>But as I've questioned in previous posts on this subject, don't you
>find your experiences to be historically significant enough for you
>(and your son) to suffer this relatively minor invasion of privacy?

This invasion of privacy is not minor.  It's a disgrace.  I don't believe
that any case is worth the indignities of anyone, much less a child.

>Did Budd ever tell you that *nobody* would ever see these tapes?
>If he didn't, I just don't see why you should be so outraged over
>these materials becoming available to researchers for study.  After
>all, that's why they were made.

I was told that these tapes would be viewed privately, on a need to
be basis, for study.  I don't know if you have children, but I'm sure if
this had happened to your child, you'd be outraged too.

Regards,
Linda Cortile