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: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 20:15:28 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 23:22:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Witness Anonymity


The Duke of Mendoza presents his compliments to the List.

>From: HONEYBE100@aol.com [Linda Cortile]
>Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 04:55:30 -0400 (EDT)
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Re: Witness Anonymity

>Peter Brooksmith wrote this to Jerry Clark:

God damn hell, there is that E Fairy again. Didn't hit Jerry this
time, but somebody out there in the dark night, on a lonesome
prairie or in an Alpine village, an outback sheep station, an
estaminet in Antwerp or some bordello in Calcutta, is going to be
presented with an unwanted - very likely undeserved - E, courtesy of
the Manhattan Contessa. Aaiiiieee! But such is life.

Well, anyway: Linda said:

>Oh...come off it, Peter!!!!  You're just angry because I think
>you're a user and a pest.

and she said:

>You're also annoyed because I am 'not' naive.

and:

> [...] I haven't replied to your posts
>because I've been shunning you and I'm glad you're angry...you
>deserve to feel that way.

This is a pity, for it is a gladness about a vacancy. I am no more
annoyed or angry than my cat Morgan C.X. Earnshaw, aka "Mr Bones",
who is pushing up zeds (or zees) not 10 feet from this keyboard. How
Linda can read my emotions escapes me; much as it escapes me how she
could *really* have shimmied her way through the quasi-liquid
molecules of her glass window and up, up and away into that big red
light over her house, lo these many years ago. The world is full of
mysteries. Another is quite why my feeble attempts at wit,
successful or otherwise, and witty or not in my own opinion, should
have bugger-all to do with whatever names Linda want to call me.

But, for the record, Linda may call me a user and a pest, by all
means. Be my guest. Call me any name you want, I will never deny it.
You could even call me a cab.

Seems to me that Linda's the one to get steam on her x-ray specs all
the time. All these people supposedly making money offa her
"misery", as long as we discount Budd, of course, whose blood money
Linda accepted only reluctantly (I detect a contradiction here, or
what Jerome neatly calls "selective outrage") and spent it all on a
cavity (size prudently undisclosed) at the dentist's; so when Budd
tells me Linda has "a financial interest" in the book, which an
innocent wit would take to mean a percentage, I feel on the one hand
that the whole of the truth is not quite being disclosed by one or
the other party, and on the other a certain sympathy and
understanding that Linda hopes Budd's book sells a million (or he
makes a million, whichever) because we can all use the extra bob or
two.

Then there are all these people in Linda's personal turd file/pile,
which seems to consist - by one of those magical coincidences with
which her life is replete - of anyone who questions anything she
says. Sundry rants. Shunning this person and that (a difficult trick
to perform electronically, without saying you're doing it, which
rather disposes of the force thereof), as if it were somehow
important of whom Linda approves or does not. Fascinating stuff. It
doesn't move the debate, such as it is, onward or upward, when the
best Linda can do in response to doubting enquiries and the
occasional criticism is flounce into shunnery, or tell people that
if they were birds they would fly backwards, or that they're in need
of therapy and should learn to knit, and so on. But it will make for
a bunch of interesting footnotes in the eventual fat dossier on her
case.

I am left with the general impression that very little of what Linda
has said in this forum is substantive - entertaining as it's been in
its own special way. Not only has much of what she's said consisted
of nothing more than emotionally framed opinion (abuse or approval);
there are internal contradictions even in that, and one instance at
least of what stinks in my nostrils as a fairy story.

>From: HONEYBE100@aol.com (Linda Cortile)
>Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 00:16 (EDT)
>Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 08:23:59 -0400
>Subject: Re: Question for Londa Cortile <---note spoor of "I" Fairy

>In 1994, at lunch-time, John sat quietly in the school cafeteria
[snip]
>Unknowingly [sic], a couple of casting directors walked through the
>lunchroom (with mother superior's permission, of course).
[snip]
>these casting directors were on a national search for new children
>to play in a movie entitled, "Two Bits," starring Al Pacino.
>I'm proud to say that my pretty boy, John, was chosen to play a
>small role in the movie. [snip] John's role was for him to yell
>out: "YOU ROOFED IT!"

How very improbable.

First, we are hereby invited to believe that a Mother Superior gives
permission to two adults who claim to be casting directors to swan
through her school, without prior permission from or knowledge of
the *parents*, looking for pretty children. To do this in an era in
which paedophilia is the most fashionable sin, Mother Superior must
be mad. (All right, perhaps she is.)

Second, the movie actually credits one casting director, Glen(n?)
Daniels. By a truly amazing coincidence, another of those with which
Linda's life is so liberally adorned, Daniels is deceased, dead, a
stiff, in short, an ex-human being. As unreachable as all those, er,
"witnesses" of her famous "abduction". This is inconvenient for
investigators so heretical as to want to check the story, but
perhaps no more than a fortunate accident for Linda.

Third, Daniels and his (I'll assume Daniels is male) phantom
sidekick would be flying in the face of years of experience,
standard industry practice, and very probably the movie's
accountants in finding his extras in this way. He'd also piss off
mightily the very people he had been working with for years and
might reasonably expect to work with again.

How so? The system works like this. Daniels wants a pretty boy for a
bit part in his movie, which is set in New York. He doesn't go on a
nationwide tour at vast expense to the budget, peering into schools
and playgrounds and running the risk of being sued or arrested or at
best told to piss off quick. And anyway why go to Open Thighs,
Indiana and Merkin, Oregon when there are all those budding little
actors in Noo Yoik with the appropriate local accent. Who have
agents. Who have fax machines. So Daniels sends out some faxes and
probably gets composites and CVs back and holds interviews and
auditions or looks at showreels or just possibly does a screen test
or two and finally casts Pretty Jon N in his part. Daniels would be
a fool to go outside the agency system for obvious political and
diplomatic reasons. Especially for a coveted speaking part.

All of which - especially the speaking part - suggests that pretty
Jon N has an agent and perhaps has some acting experience, which in
turn makes thespian training at least a likelihood. However, there
is another possible way Daniels might indeed have found and hired
Jon in school. That would obtain if the school were an acting
school, and of course if it is then the line about Jon having no
drama training &c would *really* be spoilt. If I were a bookmaker
taking bets on how Johnny got his part, I'd be giving much shorter
odds on some combination of the above possibilities than on Linda's
version. And Bayesian logic tells us that if Linda is not telling
the truth in this instance, doubt is cast on everything else she has
said.

If Linda is not quite telling the whole truth here, one ostensibly
reasonable motive for her private cover-up would be that she is, as
she tells us so frequently, doing nothing more than try to protect
her family; why, she may say, she'll risk even her reputation for
truthfulness in that cause. And elsewhere she has become highly
ventilated about Johnny's name and face appearing on television
without her permission. Linda's protestations here, as with her
histrionics over the matter of her own (lack of) anonymity,
contradict her actual behavior (or, perhaps, her failure to act
appropriately).

Linda - who, I am pleased to have her confirm, is not naive -
shouldn't have gone to Albuquerque if she wanted to avoid limelight
or the possibility that her cover would be broken. She certainly
shouldn't have got up on that stage. Or any other, at any other
time. She should have stayed at home and taken her own advice and
learned how to knit. But she didn't. All else, in my view, follows
from that.

And as for little Johnny. If the whole dime-novel drama of the Lady
of the Sands abduction is true, she could reasonably and legally
have insisted that no copies of the "research tape" of Johnny
identifying the "third man" be made or distributed, and that
"serious researchers" (that cant!) who wanted to see it would just
have to haul hairy buttock to sunny Noo Yoik and Budd's studio to do
so (not that there'd be much point: Hopkins's technique in this
"experiment" invalidates the result in any case). But she didn't so
insist. So her protectiveness was a little lax here. And it gets
much, much worse.

The copy of the ("outrageous, wicked, moronic, scurrilous" &c &c)
report on Linda's case by Hansen, Butler & Stefula that I have is
dated 8 January 1993. The prefatory acknowledgements in "Witnessed"
are dated 14 May 1996, and it's safe to assume the MS was complete
by that date. So, for well over three years Linda's real name has
been out on the street, and in that time had appeared in various
magazines, on pictures supplied by photographic agencies, and
possibly elsewhere. Nonetheless Linda appears to have raised no
objections to Hopkins's speculations about "Richard" being Johnny's
real father, "the product of an alien-controlled 'bonding' procedure
with Linda" (p340 of the Pocket Book paperback). In other words, for
'bonding' read 'bonking', courtesy of alien panders (no wonder they
have eyes like saucers). In what are perhaps the most stupefying
passages in his or any book, Hopkins writes (pp336-7):

"We must consider the possibility that Richard may have been the
individual selected by the UFO occupants to sire little Johnny...
Or can it be that some kind of genetic manipulation has occurred, a
mix of some sort, and Johnny is carrying characteristics of both
Richard and Steve, his putative father."

It would be hard to surpass the exquisite bad taste of this, and it
is difficult to imagine how either Hopkins or Linda thought that
Johnny would remain unaffected or even undamaged by its
publication. In 1996. When they knew Johnny's real identity and
home location were, whether they liked it or not, for good reasons
or bad, already available to anyone who chose to look hard enough.
But then Hopkins remarks:

"I am not interested in putting the issue of Johnny's parentage to
a scientific test for the obvious reason of its potentially
destructive effect upon the Cortile family. Here again, simple
human concerns must override our need to know."

Rarely have I read such a grotesque display of humbuggery, or been
so nauseated. One one level, you can take all decency out of your
system and contemplate a question that could be resolved
scientifically, and see Hopkins, tangled in poltroonery, back
away from that. But if Hopkins really believed that "simple human
concerns must override our need to know", he would never have been
so unspeakably crass as to raise the issue in the first place.
Humbug, and sickening humbug too.

Budd Hopkins is, in real life, and kept away from his hobby-horse,
a decent and honorable man, it seems to me; and I would predict
that if Linda had objected to this and related parts of his book he
would have excised them before publication. The hypothesis is
easily tested. Meanwhile it's not too illogical or irrational to
assume that Linda has to take some responsibility for their
appearance. In which case her declarations of unbending care and
concern for her progeny ring hollow as a shaman's drum.

On the matter of hypnotising children in abduction investigations
(which Linda has taken leave to doubt), I may add here that Hopkins
and other leading abductionists have been criticised by many -- not
just skeptics -- for subjecting very young children to the technique.
Some, whatever Linda may squeak, have been as young as two and half
years old (I have Hopkins saying this on tape, in public, and
expressed my outrage at it when reviewing his "performance" in
Fortean Times in 1993). Even had it not been shown how easy it is to
implant false memories in anyone - and to a child these would be
especially distressing memories - this shows an astonishing degree
of arrogance and callousness.

Suppose Hopkins and his cronies are right, and aliens are snatching
children unawares from their beds at night. What possible good can
outweigh the potential harm in dragging these experiences into
consciousness? And suppose they are wrong? How much less defensible
could this kind of thing get? John Harney speaks for common humanity
when he writes (in "Magonia" #59, April 1997):

"When I was a small child I suffered from nightmares, but my parents
comforted me and reassured me that the monsters in them were not
real and that they were only dreams. I believe that most children
are treated in this way. Imagine the effects, then, of making it
plain to children that not only are the dream-creatures real, but
that there is no escape from them. Such an approach hardly seems
therapeutic, to put it mildly, but this is the line taken by Hopkins
and company. If they can persuade intelligent and more or less sane
adults to believe such nonsense, the long-term effects on children
hardly bear thinking about."

Indeed they don't. I'd call it a form of child abuse.

Yours &c
Peregrine, Duke of Mendoza
Quite close to anger by now
but not for my own sake


Search for other documents from or mentioning: 101653.2205 | honeybe100

[ 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