UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Oct > Oct 4

Re: Witness Anonymity

From: HONEYBE100@aol.com
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 03:04:48 -0400 (EDT)
Fwd Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 08:16:23 -0400
Subject: Re: Witness Anonymity

>Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 15:55:18 -0500 (CDT)
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Witness Anonymity

>Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 12:17:15 -0400
>From: BOB SHELL <76750.2717@compuserve.com>
>Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Witness Anonymity
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net

Bob Shell wrote:

>Yes, it is true that Budd used your real name in his presentation
>in San Marino this year.  I was in the audience at the time.

>Whether it was a slipup, or he just thought it didn't matter in an
>overseas presentation, I don't know.  Budd was somewhat tired
>at the time, I think.

>There was no reaction from the audience when he did it, and no
>indication on his part that he noticed it.  I think it passed as an
>unremarkable event.

Dennis Stacey wrote:

>Then I submit that my own inadvertent use of Linda's real last
>name in a book published in England, for which I received much flak
>here, be accorded the same status - that of "an unremarkable event"
> as I, too, was tired.

Slipping up verbally and knowingly publishing my real name are two
different cases.  Whether it was a remarkable or unremarkable event,
is irrelevant.  Am I to believe that you feel free to use my family name
no matter how I feel about it?

>More recently, there are rumors that Honey Bee is reportedly un-
>happy with a videotape of her son shown at another out-of-country
>UFO Symposium by parties unnamed here, one in which her son
>reportedly identifies Javier Perez de Cuellar as the man who gave
>him the fabulous brass diving helmet.  Maybe Our Lady of the Sands
>could enlighten us further as to her present position on this matter?
>Maybe she could even tel us who might have been responsible for the
>distribution of said video?

No Dennis...you have it all wrong.  This is what has happened:

A video tape which was made of my son, relating to the diver's helmet
he had received from the "Third Man," was taped for research
purposes, only.  My son was nine years old.  In turn, this video tape
was given to a trusted colleague "in strict confidence" for his files, or
archives.  I found out about two weeks ago that this video tape was
sold to a foreign TV show equivalent to our 20/20 or 48 hours and it was
also shown here in the U.S.  In other words, my younger son's privacy
has been sold.   I've successfully protected my family's identities all
of these years, but all in vain.  I saw the tape, and there was my son,
full faced.

No one contacted me to ask for my permission, nor did I sign a release
(which, of course, I wouldn't do).  So, FCC laws have been ignored, as well.
My son is a minor!!  This particular video tape should not have been
viewed anywhere.  Now my son's little round face is out there.

Am I unhappy, Dennis?   No.  I'm furious and I will get to the bottom of
this disgusting event.  And when I do, a lot of heads are going to roll.
It's one thing for an adult to fight for his/her privacy, but when this
happens to a child, especially mine,  it's a different matter.

It seems to me that, money rules.  A little boy was sold out.

Linda Cortile

Search for other documents from or mentioning: honeybe100 | dstacy | 76750.2717

[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com