UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Oct > Oct 12

Re: Witness Anonymity

From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 16:04:37 -0400
Fwd Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 18:46:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Witness Anonymity

The Duke of Mendoza presents his compliments.

>Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 04:27:08 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Witness Anonymity

I was going to refrain from comment on this thread until Linda
returned from her son's nuptials, but this is getting out of
hand.

>In every
>case with Linda the flame started with someone else! From what
>I've seen she has reacted (granted poorly at times) to sucker
>punches initiated by others.

I dunno quite how you define a flame, but I think you'll find
that the pattern of events is generally that whenever a hard
question or a criticism is directed at Linda, she responds with
gratuitous insults, bizarre gibes and no facts or explanations.
Go check the archive and see if that's not so more often than
not. Her classic response is to refuse to answer at all.

Certainly some of the criticism has been trenchant, but (as I am
getting tired of saying and no doubt everyone else is even more
weary of hearing) Linda is entangled with very large claims. If
she chooses to believe what emerges out of her mouth when under
hypnosis, that's her privilege, but also her problem. It doesn't
release her (and her cohorts, such as Budd Hopkins) from an
essential principle of dealing with claims that fly in the face
of common sense (let alone scientific or judicial practice).
Which is that it's up to *her* (and company) to provide the
watertight proof of the claims. That also means that if someone
falls over laughing at the "case" and splutters "Linda, you're a
hoaxer", she's the one who has to prove she's not, *not* the
other way round. Good manners, but nothing else, would suggest
that anyone making the accusation should explain why they reach
that conclusion, but it doesn't alter the burden of proof. Not
many ufologists seem to know that.


>Your rather 'racist' and extremely insulting insinuation about us
>shining Budds shoes is so low and off base that I'm not even
>going to dignify it with a response. I'll just let it stand as
>the pure stinking turd that it is.

John, this does not become you. Nor does it become this List.
Mockery is one thing; this is another. You may recall that it was
Linda who first introduced the concept of turds into this
polylogue. As for shining *her* shoes, I understand this task has
been delegated to the Secret Service, who leave little billets
doux when the job is done.

>>As for Hopkins he does NOT do valid objective research PERIOD.

>Opinions are just that - opinions

And some are better informed than others. Julie *is* qualified to
comment, and her opinion carries weight. "Witnessed" is larded
with examples of how not to conduct hypnosis, as the couple of
medically trained hypnotists on this side of the water to whom
I've shown the book heartily (and with some outrage) have agreed.
And if you know a bit more about the case than appears there it
is perfectly obvious that Budd's "research" was top-down, looking
for evidence to fit his preconceptions.

I'm not the first to comment that the first proper object of his
scrutiny should have been Linda, but even from the very early
moment in their acquaintance when she claimed to have had
something rather funny up her nose, he failed to take the most
basic steps to verify her account (or if he did, he doesn't say).
So it goes on throughout the whole tedious book, which follows a
pattern of presumption, bad logic and incompetence
well-established in his previous writings.

By all means object to this, or any other deconstruction of Our
Lady of the Sands. Demanding my liver for summary consumption
along with your world's-best fries in the process is just fine.
But it or anyone else's criticism, no matter how offensively
*they* may put it, *doesn't* justify the kind of language you
used to Julie. It puts you on a par with Linda's explosive
irrationality, and you are above that, when you want to be.


best wishes
Pensive D. Musing
Garlic Merchant


Search for other documents from or mentioning: 101653.2205 | jvif

[ 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