UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Oct > Oct 5

Re: Witness Anonymity

From: "Julianne Presson" <earthwrk@doitnow.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 15:00:29 -0700
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 22:48:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Witness Anonymity

> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Witness Anonymity
> Date: Sun, 5 Oct 97 10:16:56 -0000
> From: pwedel <pwedel@neptune.on.ca>
> To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@globalserve.net>

> >Subject:     UFO UpDate: Re: Witness Anonymity
> >Sent:        10/4/97 11:50 PM
> >Received:    10/5/97 9:10 AM
> >From:        UFO UpDates - Toronto, updates@globalserve.net
> >To:          Errol Bruce-Knapp, updates@globalserve.net

> >From: "Julianne Presson" <earthwrk@doitnow.com>
> >To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@globalserve.net>
> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Witness Anonymity
> >Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 12:50:17 -0700

> >> From: HONEYBE100@aol.com
> >> Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 03:04:48 -0400 (EDT)
> >> To: updates@globalserve.net
> >> 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

[..............]

> Julianne Presson wrote:

>>If you did not want your son's face out there you should NOT have
>>allowed him to be filmed by anyone. Who is the researcher you
>>allowed to film your son?

>Goodness, this is distressing Julianne. Should abductee's stop trusting
>researchers? Oh well, so much for one of our best resources in finding
>out about this phenomenon. The witnesses themselves. Because if we follow
>this line of thought you propose, I don't think too many witnesses will
>feel safe and comfortable in the future coming forward with information
>about one of the most important, enigmantic phenomenon in the history of
>our species.

Welllll.....this is about minor children. Ethical researchers do
NOT use children with out protecting their identity. As for
trusting researchers. What are their qualifications for doing
therapy? What is their track record with clients? Have there been
any complaints files or licenses revokes? These are ALL questions
ANYONE seeking help should ask first before allowing hypnosis or
any other type of therapy to begin.


> >> 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.

> Julianne Presson wrote:

>>You gave permission for your son to be filmed. I guess you will know
>>better next time around.

>   You're right Julianne, no abductee should every go to a researcher and
> give their real name, because, as you insinuate, they are sacrificing
> their identity to research. Or, am I wrong, do you feel that abductee's
> can trust researchers and give them their real name. Can they trust them
> not to go and violate their anonymity?

If said researchers are LICENSED Therapists and release ANY
information on clients without getting written permission from
the client there is recourse. However if you are going to a
person who is not a trained therapist you have no recourse.

In other words, do NOT go to a layman expecting to receive
Therapy of any kind. If you do not want people to know who you
are stay off the stage and videos as well as do NOT give out your
real name. People who really want to protect their privacy do not
stand on the tallest building blowing a horn.

> Linda Cortile wrote:

> >> 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.

> Julianne Presson wrote:

>>Yes your son is a minor and YOU are the "adult" who gave permission for
>>him to be filmed. Sorry you are the one who is responsible here for him
>>being on the film in the first place. Had you said NO he would not be on
>>the video.

>More distressing comments Julianne, you seem to have completely missed
>the point or are just unaware of what these abductee's go through. The
>tape wasn't supposed to be shown. A trust was violated. The culprate is
>not Ms. Cortile. The villian is the researcher, the villain is people
>like you who seem to support such behaviour. If I follow your words
>correctly, if Linda went to a researcher in trust, and had one of her
>children filmed  (in trust), then she _should_ expect that film to be
>posted in the media????????????

Linda is the adult responsible for the safety of her child. The
researchers actions were unethical. However that does NOT leave
the mother harmless. We see this all the time, with unethical
researchers (people calling themselves researchers).

Yes Linda "should" have been able to trust the researcher, and
she should have gotten something in writing. However..."shoulda
autta, notta, gotta" does not get it.

As for me supporting unethical behavior, NOT... I AM the first
one out of the gate when I see unethical behavior in a so-called
professional and NON-professionals doing Therapy.


> ********************************
>  WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE JULIANNE?
> ********************************

Your view that is what is wrong. Stop enabling...


> Linda Cortile wrote:

>>>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.

> Julianne Presson wrote:

> >Oh PLEASE.....get out of the "victim role" for a minute and ask yourself
> >why you would allow ANYONE involved with abduction research to film YOUR
> >minor child???

>   Why do you think she was approaching researchers Julianne? Do you have
> any idea what happens to a person, a persons family, when this phenomenon
> visits them? Do you have any idea the importance an abductee will
> feel,(and a responsilbity to their fellow humans), to investigate and
> find the truth.

When one needs therapy they go to a REAL therapist.

Why do you feel an abductee would "feel Important"? Why would
they be any more special than anyone else? That is exactly the
problem my friend, abductees are no more important than anyone
else and they have NO corner on KNOWING because of abduction
experiences.

I live with a abductee and we have had visitations. The point is
the woman talks the talk but does not walk the walk. If you do
not want to be identified you do not "GO PUBLIC".


>  Please do not suggest the pursuit of fame and adoring fans. All these
>people (abductee's) seem to ever get (from a segment of the community) is
>grief, condescencion, and rudeness posted at them. Some of us make them
>feel like they should never come forward...

Look, I have seen repeated flames to people like Peter
Brookesmith from this woman in this List. Are you saying she has
a right to flame others here and tell them off but no one should
call her on her behavior because she is a abductee? NOT, that is
SICK behavior.

Stop enabling "victimhood" in abductees. Life goes on, even for
abductees. They can choose to Heal or they can run all over the
Internet BLAMING everyone else for their mental state. If LInda
is NOT looking for attention then why does she get up on stage
and talk and why did she allow any filming of herself or any
member of her family by anyone? Video is NOT requires, a
statement and shots of the helmet would have worked as well for
research.

> Julianne Presson wrote:

>>YES and Budd Hopkins brings in his share of that money for himself.
>>Sorry Hopkins is NO Saint. Why people would allow someone who uses
>>the faulty hypnosis modality he uses on them or their kids is beyond
>>me. I have seen him in action on Discovery Channel and he would be
>>better served to spend a few years getting some education and
>>practical experience. His showing pictures of grays to kids under 7
>>years old and then uses hypnosis on them that is suggestive at the
>>least and invalidates any data gathered in the sessions.

>  We do not have to associate Linda's motives with Budd's now, do we? Or
>is that required to strengthen an already weak point.

She is his main show when he speaks. How can you NOT associate
the two. And why are the people associated with Hopkins so leery
about the truth?

My points are hardly weak.

>>Now have one of your temper tantrums over this message. Frankly your
>>continued "horn blowing" in this List about everyone taking advantage of
>>you is getting boring. This is NOT a therapy group, it is a mailing
>>list.

>  Don't worry, Linda has a lot of friends who will not through temper
>tantrums. Nor will she. But we will make note of your position in
>research. We will regard your scientific ethics with the words you have
>spoken here.

Is this supposed to make me shut up about unethical behavior??? I
guess you don't know me very well do you. :-)

>   I have not observed Linda do any horn blowing. I have consistently seen
>her stand up in defense, not offense, if a message is posted about her. I
>have not seen her post anything first that started one of these threads,
>have you?

What is this "Blame Shifting". Everyone else here makes Linda
flame them?

The best defense is NO DEFENSE. Why would she have to flame
anyone who does not agree with her? What are you "The Gate
Keeper" of the group.

>> Your "pity pot" backed up a long time ago, it is time to get
>>off of it.

>  Very mature Julianne. You know Julianne, I've been doing research with
>the aboriginal community in my neck of the woods. Some of these people
>need and require their anonymity. They have seen some remarkable and
>important things. They _need_ to know that they can trust me not to
>repeat their names. Some of these people are braves. If I were to violate
>any of the braves anonymity (who did not wish me to), I would in short
>order be without my testicles or my life, take a pick. And no one would
>ever know who did it. I do not need that type of insentive to respect
>common decency in another human beings desire to convey important
>information, and remain anonymous. Sometimes when I read posts like this,

>I think there are others that do.

PLEASE....are you saying Linda should cut Peter Brookesmith's
nuts off or have one of her friends do it. Your statement above
has nothing to do with what we are discussing. This is NOT
Indians living in the wilderness.

Julianne




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

[ Next Message | Previous 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