UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Oct > Oct 13

Re: Witness Anonymity

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 05:15:37 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 12:58:59 -0400
Subject: Re: Witness Anonymity

>Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 16:04:37 -0400
>From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: Witness Anonymity
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>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

Hello Mendoza. I was too, and jumped in for the very same reason, I
thought it was getting out of hand myself. The diffrence is that I'm
trying to redcross for a friend that I know has been through a lot in
the last few years.

For a moment,...assume that Linda is telling the truth. Can you imagine
what it's been like for her? The stresses and all of melodrama that has
surrounded the case, etc.etc.etc. Crap like that would take a toll on the
best of us. It has with Linda. Her responses are almost 'symptomatic' of
it. Someone who has just had it with explaining, and constantly being
challenged and accused of all manner of low activity. Again assuming that
all of the above is true, do her quick defensive responses and frayed
nerves still seem such a mystery to you.

But that's assuming that she is telling the truth. If you assume the
opposite is true then yes, you are left with unexplainable behavior and
responses. You're a bright guy Peter, surely you see my point. I make no
excuses for her or her responses. I don't have to, I didn't write the
stuff. I'm only asking that you consider this from (all) angles. And that
would include the possibilty that Linda is telling the truth.

Same goes for all abductees. Depending on which 'tack' you take you will
see what you will see. Capiche' paisan? <G>

>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.

I agree Peter. I have never stated otherwise in any of my e-mails about it.
Again if viewed from the perspective that we may be dealing with a person
that has endured the trials that Linda has, even her frayed nerves
responses make sense. When viewed from any other angle explanations for it
are hard to come by.

>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.

I'll leave the arguement over burden of proof to another time and another
thread. I'll just say, that when I first went to Budd it wasn't to get
involved in proving anything to anyone other than to myself. It was only
after I became convinced that something real was going on that I turned my
attention toward reporting publicly.

If the Red Chinese were to attack Kent in the morning and you happened to
be driving by and saw the troops amassing for an attack I daresay that
you'd risk life and limb (not to mention mere reputation or public image)
to warn as many Englishmen as you could muster. That's why I'm so 'public'
about having been abducted. I have offered myself up like a sacrificial
lamb to the 'God of science' repeatedly. (Something I'll never do again
BTW) Each time the offer was ignored or dismissed as unworthy of persuit.
NOVA being a prime example of this. So screw proving anything to anyone,
they DON'T WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH. Whatever that 'truth' may be. I don't
get it, you'd think they'd jump at the opportunity to get one of us and
"do the science." But you and I know how much real science is being done in
abduction research don't we. <G> I can just as smugly demand that you prove
abductions have any other explanation. Can you? Or can anyone else.

Why, in the last twenty plus years hasn't ANYONE conclusively proven that
abductions are something else. There's a lot of talk and mutually exclusive
theories bandied about but nothing conclusive,...-ON EITHER SIDE!-

Sometimes it comes down to simple human trust and openmindedness. We can't
ALL be insane or concocting the stories or any of the other ten thousand
'explanations.' Of the many thousands, how many would you say are just
ordinary people reporting the simple truth of their own experiences.
Knowing you I think you'd say none. But then that's not looking at ALL the
possible explanations. Why isn't "maybe they are just telling the truth"
one of the scientific possibilities. Why isn't 'that little theory' given
as much creedence as say Persinger or Loftus. I'm afraid it is simply a
matter of minds too small to consider all possibilities. Minds unwilling to
explore anything that does not fit into the box marked, "known."

No, one of the possibilities that must always be foremost on the table is
the possibility that a majority may be telling the truth. Do the science
to determine if it is so or not. But all there is is armchair critisizm
of those who -do- attempt the work (whether they do it well or not) while
no-one who _is_ qualified is willing to risk doing it. Catch 22

>And some are better informed than others. Julie *is* qualified to
>comment, and her opinion carries weight.

>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.

Correction, when I -need to be-  I can throw hands with the very best of
them and I'm not afraid to do so. I spoke to Linda about my thoughts
concerning her posts, but she's a 'big girl' and has to live her own life
her own way. But I'm also very aware of her as a person and I'm not going
to let the likes of a Julie Presson (who 'raves' every bit as good as
Linda)  go unchecked.

I didn't want any part of this either Peter. Like I said, I got in for the
same reason you did. Let's hope this sucker levels off or dies a quiet
death,...but what it was, just had to stop. It was becoming embarassing
for -all- concerned.

We're sounding like two aging, battle weary knights who find themselves
fully armed and dressed for battle and wondering why they were ever
fighting to begin with. I know that I do.

Here's hoping for higher ground Mendoza. I open my helmet and lower my
lance. (Nothing phallic intended! <G>)

As always, I remain,

your friend.

Don Juan Rodriguez De Velez

                              John Velez

Search for other documents from or mentioning: jvif | 101653.2205

[ 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