From: Vince_Johnson_at_TENSOR__HSTN@ccmailsmtp.hstn.expl.pgs.com Date: Fri, 05 Sep 97 12:02:50 cst Fwd Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 23:59:32 -0400 Subject: Re: The Question of UFO Witness Anonymity >From: HONEYBE100@aol.com [Linda Cortile] >Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 05:53:32 -0400 (EDT) >Fwd Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 12:55:44 -0400 >Subject: Re: The Question of UFO Witness Anonymity >Vince wrote: >>What Scott says about invasion of privacy to anonymous witnesses >> is true. >>But when people claim to have observed startling, even historic >>anomalous events and expect others to believe them without >question, shouldn't these eyewitnesses have enough courage of >>their convictions to allow the use of their real names? Isn't any- >>thing less than hearsay? >>Isn't the challenge of correcting our old mistaken perceptions of >>reality important enough to suffer the temporary aggravations and >>annoyances of being "outted"? >>This is my problem with the entire Linda/Dan/Richard/Perez de >>cuellar scenario. If the events of the Linda case are true, I >>would think the nuisances of the ske;tics and debunkers would >>be trivial compared to the historical importance of revealing the >>truth - on the record and naming names. >>That all of the palyers (other than Linda who still resents being >>named publicly) in this scenario have refused to go public in- >>dicates either that these putltive players grossly underestimate >>the importance of the events they claim to have witnessed, or >>that they're insufferably wimpish - or else it's all just a hoax. >>Is there any difference between the primary players avoiding >>publicity in this case and someone who witnesses a murder but >>won't report it to the police because they "don't want to get >>involved?" >Vince: >You must understand that I'm a wife and mother first. Every- >thing else in my life is last. My first responsibility is not to >the UFO communtiy. It's to my family. There is no way that I would >compromise the safety and well being of my family, or anyone else >for that matter, for the benefit of UFO research. >I believe that I have done my part by allowing Hopkins to bring my >case public, along with myself. As far as the other witnesses are >concerned, there are 22 of them (on different levels). Only three >of them have not come forward to speak with Budd and I can >understand why. If I held a position that any one of those three >held, I wouldn't have come forward either. We had hoped that >they would've discussed the event with Hopkins in the future as >Richard and Dan said they would. However, they must have found >out how disfunctional some of those within the UFO community >are, and it drove them away. They must have seen what I was put >through, as a good example of what might have happened to them >had they come forward. I don't know. I can't speak for them. Hi Linda, While you have been extremely forthcoming (public speaking, participating in this list, etc.), you have to admit that the three alleged eyewitnesses to your event seem to be suffering from the "insufferable wimpishness" to which I referred in my original post. Assuming that your case is true just as you've stated, the three "eyewitnesses" would have to be utter wimps -- too timid and afraid to not only confirm a socially and scientifically significant event -- but leaving you twisting in the wind as, in the minds of many, the mastermind of a collosal hoax. I personally can't square their apparent indifference to confirming your tale -- for the benefit of all humanity as well as for you personally -- with their professed (as reported in "Witnessed") affection for you. How do you explain this? Do you acknowledge that the "eyewitnesses"' refusal to come forward casts doubt upon your claims? >To you, if you can't have your own way, then witnesses who do not >come forward publicly or release their real names, are either under- >estimating the importance of the events they claim to have witnessed, >or that they're insufferably wimpish - or else it's just a hoax. >Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. But I don't. In fact, I'm glad >that the three most important witnesses did not come forward. If >they had, the quality of my family's life and mine would've been >unbearable. The third man denied ever being involved with my case, as >was expected. He told us that he would deny it if his name ever >became public, etc. Well, his name did become public. How would confirmation of your account negatively impact your family's situation? Wouldn't you rather have everybody know you were telling the truth all along? Wouldn't an unambiguous confirmation put the abduction phenomenon front and center in the media and scientific spotlight? Wouldn't that be a good thing? >No Vince, the aggravations and annoyances haven't been temporary. >From what I hear and experienced, it'll probably go on for most of >our lives. But to tell you the truth, my family and I feel better >about it, after all these years. We don't particularly care about >what others think. >Take my word for it, if you please. The quality of UFO research by >some, is good. As far as I'm concerned, if it weren't for the handful >of those researchers (maybe 4 or 5), UFO research wouldn't exist. >So, when you tell someone like me or other witnesses to give up their >anonymity, safety and well being for the UFO community, expect one >of two things or both, to happen: Hasn't the opposite occurred? Have you been kidnapped by secret agents since your story became publicly known? Other than for being put into a position of defending your story, how have you been harmed by the publicity in your case? In a post to Roger Prokik (Sep 2), you wrote: >Are you saying that those of us and our families shouldn't only >suffer the indignities of ridicule, but we should also stand in the >background (as I have for 8 years) and watch everyone else, but us, >(debunkers, researchers, skeptics, believers and journalists) >make money on the misery of my family and I? Are you dealing >with a full deck, Roger? Other than Budd Hopkins, who else has made money off your case? Regards, Vince
UFO UpDates - Toronto -
updates@globalserve.net
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-691-0716
A Hand-Operated E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related
Phenomena.
To subscribe please send your first and last name to
updates@globalserve.net
Message submissions should be sent to the same address.
|
Link it to the appropriate Ufologist or UFO Topic page. |
Archived as a public service by Area 51 Research Center which is not
responsible for content.
Financial support for this web server is provided by the
Research Center Catalog.
Software by Glenn Campbell.
Technical contact:
webmaster@ufomind.com