From: Katharina Wilson <K_Wilson.nul>
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 18:26:51 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 09:44:27 -0500
Subject: Re: "Sight Unseen:" Distortions and Innuendos -


>From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 16:20:08 +0100
>Subject: Re: "Sight Unseen:" Distortions and Innuendos

>>From: Katharina Wilson Wilson <K_Wilson.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 14:57:06 -0500
>>Subject: "Sight Unseen:" Distortions and Innuendos

>>>From: Luis R. Gonzalez <lrgm.nul>
>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 10:10:45 +0100
>>>Subject: Re: "Sight Unseen:" Distortions and Innuendos

<snip>

>"After I left the rest room I saw some pay phones and remembered
>that I promised to call my husband after the plane landed.
>Usually, I don't call him till I get to my hotel room, but this
>time I called him right away. I was extremely agitated, and the
>first thing he said was: "I see your plane was late getting to
>Chicago". I looked at my watch and it read about 3:20 Portland
>time".

>My experience as an occasional air traveller is that getting out
>of the plane, collecting the luggage, taking the transportation
>to the nearby city, collecting the keys at the hotel, and
>reaching the room, usually take much more than 1 hour. So, if
>you usually call your husband from the hotel, when he received
>your call, he has not any reasonable reason to suppose your
>plane was late. To him, you were calling from the hotel, and the
>delay was completely reasonable.

NO - I called my husband from the airport and I told him I was
at the airport. Maybe I should have told you that I told him I
was calling from the airport.

Then, when I got to my room, I telephoned him again.

Again, I called my husband from the airport, so YES, it does
make sense.

>Do you see the incongruency?

No, because there is no incongruence.

>This part of the incident cannot had happened exactly as you
>recall, and if you are wrong here, you can be wrong in other
>things (or not).

No, _again_, I called my husband from the airport.

>Of course, the explanation could be as simple as he asking an
>hypothetical question ("Did the plane arrive late?") and you
>interpreting it as an affirmation. But even in this favourable
>case, your recall is not precise. And I defend it does have a
>bearing in the case.

You are reading things into this conversation that are not there.

>So, if you admit that your conversation took a couple of
>minutes, and you insist that your clock did show the same time
>3:20) at the luggage reclaim area, I would bid for a simpler EM
>effect (clock stoppage), because teleportation would not be
>enough, it should had been time travel!

My watch worked just fine the whole weekend and it worked fine
before that and it continued to work fine for another year until
the battery went out. Now it has a new battery, and it still
works fine.

><snip>

>I consider myself an abduction researcher, even if I have never
>been able to talk at length with any alleged abductee. In any
>case, it is not I who should want a "reality check", you
>yourself should be looking for it.

I was not implying that you needed a reality check, I was
saying that I understood why you would want one.

>First, I am not the kind of person who would go up and touch a
>complete stranger in a bathroom.

>>I am not sure about seeing myself in the mirror because checking
>>my appearance was the last thing on my mind at that time.

>Please, we are not talking about checking your appearance or
>doing strange things in a bathroom, we are talking about a
>person who after having dozen of alleged aliens encounters in
>all kind of circunstances (even MILABS, if I do not recall
>wrongly), finding herself panicking because the automatic
>faucets are not registering her, is unable to control herself
>the few seconds needed to look at a mirror and confirm (or not)
>if she is really invisible! If after suffering so many strange
>incidents in my life, I would find myself in a similar
>situation, I will not hesitate to touch somebody in the shoulder
>and politely ask her anything, or even bump premeditately
>against some person, offering later whatever excuses I may need.
>Or many other "reality checks" anybody can think in the spur of
>the moment. The only reason I cam imagine not to do so is being
>so much agitated and unnerved not to trust anything I recalled
>later.

With all due respect, no one who has _never_ been abducted (by
ETs or humans) knows precisely how they will respond and what
their emotions will be until it happens to them.

>>I hope people will still be interested in this book - you still
>>haven't heard my host's side of the story, and there are plenty
>>of other good cases written about in "Sight Unseen."

>Now that you mention it, I also find something not normal in
>your host actions. Allegedly, they were so concerned that they
>checked with United Airlines, but did not even try to call you
>through the loudspeakers. Besides, in a so busy airport, I do
>not think a luggage carrousel could be get unused for an hour,
>your red suitcase going around for a full 60 minutes. I am sure
>a better estimation of your missing time would be less than 30
>minutes.

Maybe you are not aware, but airports do not stagger flights
throughout the day, they group flights, and multiple carriers
have "rush hours" for lack of a better term. So, it is possible
for a "lull" in traffic to occur. If everyone had already
retrieved their baggage and left, there would not have been many
people around at all.

>In the end, what I am really questioning is Hopkins' attitude to
>consider anything strange in the life of an abductee as
>originated with the aliens.

Just as an FYI: Budd by no means believes that everything
strange that occurs to people is ET related. I distinctly recall
him telling me that one event I believed was an abduction was,
his actual words were, "That must have been a nice dream."

I just want to make it clear that Budd got everything down on
paper absolutely correctly as far as my experience in the
airport goes. He did not make any mistakes in reporting what
happened to me. I documented this in my journal immediately
after returning to Portland.

As far as Carol Rainey's interpretations, ideas or theories go,
they are all plausible to me. She even states that these are
only theories as to what may have happened. She is entitled to
put forth theories as to what may have happened to me. I still
to not know how whoever did this did it, but it happened and
what is in the book is everything I remember about it up to this
point.

** I really have nothing new to add to this post or to the
events that occurred to me at O'Hare, so I will not be
responding to it again. Thanks.***


Katharina Wilson