The Linda case.

[Simone_m]

I was over at ATS much earlier today, viewing a vid in a thread, by The Dreaded Carol Rainey, about Bud Hopkins and the Linda Cortile Napalitano case. Carol was with a handwriting expert who gave his opinion that Linda's writing was on what were supposed to be, missives from --other-- witnesses.
I always was dismissive of the Linda case as a hoax. But I never read the book 'Witnessed' nor really followed the case all that closely. I have seen recently, that as Carol 'unravels' that case, my Gawd, a LOT of work and apparent cooperation and complex thinking went into it from an Italian housewife. Now I am aware that the then UN Secretary General Perez de Cuellar, never----denies his involvement as a witness to the alledged abduction when pressed.
My question to you Paracasters is, why would a Linda DO something like this? There are other more respectable, I'm afraid, ways to become known and fawned after, than, as Phil Klass used to say, "The queen bee of abductees." If I were to say (WHILE maintaining a marriage family household) "I am going to work night and day with a lot of effort, to make this Abduction Researcher think I am an ufo abductee" well, that does not make any sense to me. Could someone be that CRAZY while competently running a family and household? And WHO would even WANT to help you along, in that regard, with your hyjinks? I have a lot of new questions about an old matter.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

I was over at ATS much earlier today, viewing a vid in a thread, by The Dreaded Carol Rainey, about Bud Hopkins and the Linda Cortile Napalitano case. Carol was with a handwriting expert who gave his opinion that Linda's writing was on what were supposed to be, missives from --other-- witnesses.
I always was dismissive of the Linda case as a hoax. But I never read the book 'Witnessed' nor really followed the case all that closely. I have seen recently, that as Carol 'unravels' that case, my Gawd, a LOT of work and apparent cooperation and complex thinking went into it from an Italian housewife. Now I am aware that the then UN Secretary General Perez de Cuellar, never----denies his involvement as a witness to the alledged abduction when pressed.
My question to you Paracasters is, why would a Linda DO something like this? There are other more respectable, I'm afraid, ways to become known and fawned after, than, as Phil Klass used to say, "The queen bee of abductees." If I were to say (WHILE maintaining a marriage family household) "I am going to work night and day with a lot of effort, to make this Abduction Researcher think I am an ufo abductee" well, that does not make any sense to me. Could someone be that CRAZY while competently running a family and household? And WHO would even WANT to help you along, in that regard, with your hyjinks? I have a lot of new questions about an old matter.

The Brooklyn Bridge case has always been weak imo and one of Budd's most embarrassing moments. Why would Linda fake it? I don't know, to be numero uno in the group I guess. To get a lot of attention from Budd, perhaps. I've read Witnessed twice in intervals of approximately 8 to 10 years and both times it seemed like a fictional soap opera with a cloak and dagger twist, like the kind of alien abduction Tom Clancy might find himself the victim of. Most of the more sober ufologists have never taken it very seriously and I think they just quietly filed it away as Budd's little misguided moment. But I really find Rainey's timing to be in bad taste. Haven't they been divorced for a little while now? Why didn't she bring this stuff up before or why can't she just wait until he passes? From what I hear he's pretty close and she has to know that. It's pretty sad that it looks like the last thing he's going to experience in life is a spirited effort to make a buffoon out of him.

 

[ArchieBedford]

The problem you have with the Brooklyn Bridge case is the more than 20 witnesses on the record to various aspects of it. I have seen the boxes of correspondence and the piles of letters and read some of them. A hoax (an immensely complex and ultimately purposeless one at that) involving more han 20 people is simply impossible to sustain over 20 years. Hours of taped interviews exist. Children (Linda's kids), now adults and parents themselves, were witnesses to the abductions and their testimonies have never changed either.

Looking at the case from long distance, it's understandable to retreat into skepticism because the story looks so outlandish and so complex. But when you look at the evidence up close it gets (rather improbably) stronger rather than weaker.

It's true Linda would have no possible motive that makes any kind of sense to mastermind and perpetrate such an enormous, elaborate hoax involving so many people for so many years. It simply can't be done, in the real world. Some of the witnesses to the trigger-incident on 30 November 1989 didn't even know her, and still don't.

 

[Simone_m]

Yes Arch, I would not consider the case because it appeared off hand outlandish. As Wickerman said, a soap opera with a cloak and dagger twist. Could it been an Intel Op run against (to discredit) Bud? Orrrrr far as I know, a real abduction. No matter what my own prejudices, I suppose the --wisest-- stance to take, is be on the fence.
I thought I would share with you here, in case anyones interested, the vid I viewed.

 

[ArchieBedford]

Yes Arch, I would not consider the case because it appeared off hand outlandish. As Wickerman said, a soap opera with a cloak and dagger twist. Could it been an Intel Op run against (to discredit) Bud? Orrrrr far as I know, a real abduction. No matter what my own prejudices, I suppose the --wisest-- stance to take, is be on the fence. I thought I would share with you here, in case anyones interested, the vid I viewed.

Yeah, I've seen it.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Yeah, I've seen it. because I know Carol so well and the tricks she uses, I am almost 100% certain she is perpetrating some kind of fraud here with this handwriting business - probably taking two separate letters from the same person and pretending them to be allegedly from two different people in order to get the testimony of this 'expert' on film. It's relatively easy to fool a gullible audience on youtube this way, and Rainey is very practiced at it.

Listen, isn't it time that an equal standard was applied here. Emma Woods was banned because she was anonymous, and attacking David Jacobs, but we have had "Archie Bedford" repeatedly attacking people with impunity here.

Either ban "Archie", let "Emma" back, or admit that you (meaning the mods) have absolutely taken sides.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Who is Emma Woods? Why is it so hard for her to give out her real name? She reportedly has to selected persons, but cannot when it comes to theses forums. Maybe Archie can give us his name when "Emma" gives us hers.

 

[ArchieBedford]

Listen, isn't it time that an equal standard was applied here. Emma Woods was banned because she was anonymous, and attacking David Jacobs, but we have had "Archie Bedford" repeatedly attacking people with impunity here. Either ban "Archie", let "Emma" back, or admit that you (meaning the mods) have absolutely taken sides.

Mr. Kimball

Do you see me carrying out a persistent and vindictive campaign to trash the reputation of a single public figure, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 4 years? Where is my website in which I fabricate fraudulent evidence to destroy someone, and send out thousands upon thousands upon thousands of emails directed at the entire staff of the university where the target of my vindictive hate campaign is employed (including some long-retired and even dead)? Have I persistently mailed every author, researcher and public figure who has even the remotest interest in the UFO issue again, and again, and again, with tons and tons of attachments, all aimed at trashing and destroying one single individual - all under an assumed name?

Produce your evidence of equivalence, please.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Either ban "Archie", let "Emma" back, or admit that you (meaning the mods) have absolutely taken sides.

Here's an idea. Let's just ban everyone who doesn't totally agree with whatshername. Or everyone who hasn't got their real name as their avatar. Maybe Gene should make it mandatory that everyone currently on the forums and especially ones new or signing up use only their real names and ban the use of icons/avatars?

 

[Paul Kimball]

Mr. Kimball

Do you see me carrying out a persistent and vindictive campaign to trash the reputation of a single public figure, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 4 years? Where is my website in which I fabricate fraudulent evidence to destroy someone, and send out thousands upon thousands upon thousands of emails directed at the entire staff of the university where the target of my vindictive hate campaign is employed (including some long-retired and even dead)? Have I persistently mailed every author, researcher and public figure who has even the remotest interest in the UFO issue again, and again, and again, with tons and tons of attachments, all aimed at trashing and destroying one single individual - all under an assumed name?

Produce your evidence of equivalence, please.

Yes, I do... although you actually go after more than just one. Take the post above, re: Carol Rainey. One can have legitimate disagreement with what she writes, but you make it personal, and claim an intimate knowledge that goes directly to her motivations... but you provide not a scintilla of evidence for it. Shameful that you would do this, and shameful that people here have let it go on while at the same time stifling other voices that present an alternative point of view.

Here's the flipside of the "Who are you, Emma Woods" question: who are you, "Archie Bedford"?

This isn't about taking sides in the dispute - this is about trying to ensure that an even standard is practiced in this forum.

Or maybe the following has come to be considered fair, honest and objective commentary supported by the hard facts that people have demanded from others here:

"because I know Carol so well and the tricks she uses, I am almost 100% certain she is perpetrating some kind of fraud here with this handwriting business - probably taking two separate letters from the same person and pretending them to be allegedly from two different people in order to get the testimony of this 'expert' on film. It's relatively easy to fool a gullible audience on youtube this way, and Rainey is very practiced at it."<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: ad_showthread_firstpost_sig --><!-- END TEMPLATE: ad_showthread_firstpost_sig -->



---------- Post added at 02:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:04 AM ----------

Let's just ban everyone who doesn't totally agree with whatshername.

That's not what it's about - it's about looking for the same standard for everyone. If you're going to ban Emma Woods for being anonymous and attacking people, the same standard should apply to anyone else, in this case the equally anonymous "Archie Bedford".

But the Paracast seems to be satisfied with the double-standard, so good for everyone here. For my part, I expect more... and I just don't see that here in this case.

So, as Gene would say:

Peace...

And as I would now add:

Out.

 

[ward]

For what it's worth, i thought Witnessed was Budd weakest work. I remember at one point in the book i felt like it was a soap opera. The "highly placed" official saying something like "i can't help but deny my involvement" and the Budd thought there was a meta message in the comment, i just didn't buy it.
It felt like some kind of mini series soap opera towards the end of the book and when the "good" secret service guy was finally revealed to be the "secret lover" of Linda ONLY during abductions when they were children. I just said oh come on, this is screen play stuff, it was corn ball.
As much as i have respected Budd in this sub field of ufology i just think this is painfully his worst work.

---------- Post added at 11:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:50 PM ----------

The Brooklyn Bridge case has always been weak imo and one of Budd's most embarrassing moments. Why would Linda fake it? I don't know, to be numero uno in the group I guess. To get a lot of attention from Budd, perhaps. I've read Witnessed twice in intervals of approximately 8 to 10 years and both times it seemed like a fictional soap opera with a cloak and dagger twist, like the kind of alien abduction Tom Clancy might find himself the victim of. Most of the more sober ufologists have never taken it very seriously and I think they just quietly filed it away as Budd's little misguided moment. But I really find Rainey's timing to be in bad taste. Haven't they been divorced for a little while now? Why didn't she bring this stuff up before or why can't she just wait until he passes? From what I hear he's pretty close and she has to know that. It's pretty sad that it looks like the last thing he's going to experience in life is a spirited effort to make a buffoon out of him.

Wow Darn Wickerman1972 i just read your Post and its almost identical to my points. Soap opera is right. It felt more like a fictional Streiber book honestly.

 

[Keiko]

That's not what it's about - it's about looking for the same standard for everyone. If you're going to ban Emma Woods for being anonymous and attacking people, the same standard should apply to anyone else, in this case the equally anonymous "Archie Bedford".

Sorry Paul, I don't see the equivalence. Whether or not someone agrees or disagrees with AB's posts on this internet form, he is not public figure in this field. So someone can take or leave what he says. He's just another anonymous poster on a chat forum among the billions of others. He posts on lots of topics and threads and has for ages. People say lots of nasty things about public figures of ufology on blogs...and throw in personal anecdotes and opinions without proof or evidence.

EW is a carving out a public persona (career?) on the single issue of attacking Jacobs and calling him an abuser. Now you can disagree with Jacobs and abduction work in general but things like ringing shows/conferences he's booked to go on and emailing the history faculty at Temple etc now that's hardly acceptable. She is doing all this from the comfort of a <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <wunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <wontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0pt 5.4pt 0pt 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0pt; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->[FONT=&quot]pseudonym[/FONT]. From what I recall Gene banned EW because she consistently focused on this topic even though others tried to engage with her about other aspects of ufology and posted links etc to her website (self-promotion?) She would not reveal her identity privately to Gene so he could verify her as a credible source/individual. He never asked her to publically reveal her name to all members of the forum. That is not what it was about. So the most you could ask for if you want to continue this line of reasoning is for AB to disclose his identity to Gene privately.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

If you're going to ban Emma Woods for being anonymous and attacking people, the same standard should apply to anyone else, in this case the equally anonymous "Archie Bedford".

All whatshername had to do was give Gene her real name and she would be happily posting here along with the rest of us. I don't see what is so hard about that. If she had done we wouldn't even be discussing this distractive side issue.
Does Archie have a website dedicated wholly and solely to trash the reputation of Carol Rainey or any of Hopkins and Jacobs detractors?
I think it was one of the hosts of a podcast, that should never be discussed, who vainly has tried to divert attention away from the attention seeking whatshername and try to focus on Archie and now others have glommed on to that bandwagon. Al thingymebob has to do is show some guts and announce to the podcast world that my real name is................ and this whole side issue would be resolved and possibly more credibility would be ascribed to her.
I don't think that the majority of forumites have had any issue with Archie or anybody here using their pseudonyms until now.

 

[ArchieBedford]

So the most you could ask for if you want to continue this line of reasoning is for AB to disclose his identity to Gene privately.

Keiko - for the record, Gene knows my real ID as I chose to share it with him some months ago. So does Don Ecker, and more than 20 other regular paracast posters. Some of us just need a little public discretion for personal professional reasons; I always respect that request from others and always will.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Sorry Paul, I don't see the equivalence. Whether or not someone agrees or disagrees with AB's posts on this internet form, he is not public figure in this field. So someone can take or leave what he says. He's just another anonymous poster on a chat forum among the billions of others. He posts on lots of topics and threads and has for ages. People say lots of nasty things about public figures of ufology on blogs...and throw in personal anecdotes and opinions without proof or evidence.

EW is a carving out a public persona (career?) on the single issue of attacking Jacobs and calling him an abuser. Now you can disagree with Jacobs and abduction work in general but things like ringing shows/conferences he's booked to go on and emailing the history faculty at Temple etc now that's hardly acceptable. She is doing all this from the comfort of a pseudonym. From what I recall Gene banned EW because she consistently focused on this topic even though others tried to engage with her about other aspects of ufology and posted links etc to her website (self-promotion?) She would not reveal her identity privately to Gene so he could verify her as a credible source/individual. He never asked her to publically reveal her name to all members of the forum. That is not what it was about. So the most you could ask for if you want to continue this line of reasoning is for AB to disclose his identity to Gene privately.

"EW" didn't disclose her identity to me, although she has reportedly disclosed that information to others. AB has. AB is just a casual poster, whereas "EW" has devoted her entire life, apparently to the exclusion of most everything else, to bringing down David Jacobs. She has even made herself into a celebrity of sorts by writing magazine articles and appearing on radio shows. Is that equivalent behavior?

---------- Post added at 06:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:03 AM ----------

Yeah, I've seen it. because I know Carol so well and the tricks she uses, I am almost 100% certain she is perpetrating some kind of fraud here with this handwriting business - probably taking two separate letters from the same person and pretending them to be allegedly from two different people in order to get the testimony of this 'expert' on film. It's relatively easy to fool a gullible audience on youtube this way, and Rainey is very practiced at it.

You have made a lot of inferences here, AB. For those who don't know Carol Rainey, maybe you could provide some more details so people would have a better opportunity to come to their own conclusions.

 

[tyder001]

I have to say that there really is not real evidence that we are being visited by people from space. Now, we may be and there are certainly plenty of things in history and even everyday life that are not explained by a simple reductionist explanation. But, by and large if you put the "evidence" for "men/women from space" out there it is simply a conclusion that some folks have come up with over time. To me it is up there with the six day creationist and the primordial soup myths. It's a way of explaining something but not the only way and perhaps not even the correct way. Still, I do admit to seeing something a couple of times that I can't explain. But, I don't get the feeling it was "Mork from Ork."

 

[Sean Elifritz]

The problem you have with the Brooklyn Bridge case is the more than 20 witnesses on the record to various aspects of it. I have seen the boxes of correspondence and the piles of letters with my own eyes, and read most of them. A hoax (an immensely complex and ultimately purposeless one at that) involving more han 20 people is simply impossible to sustain over 20 years. Hours of taped interviews exist. Children (Linda's kids), now adults and parents themselves, were witnesses to the abductions and their testimonies have never changed either.

Looking at the case from long distance, it's understandable to retreat into skepticism because the story looks so outlandish and so complex. But when you look at the evidence up close it gets (rather improbably) stronger rather than weaker.

It's true Linda would have no possible motive that makes any kind of sense to mastermind and perpetrate such an enormous, elaborate hoax involving so many people for so many years. It simply can't be done, in the real world. Some of the witnesses to the trigger-incident on 30 November 1989 didn't even know her, and still don't.

I think we can all work out why Rainey is trying to resurrect this old chestnut after 15 years. It has nothing to do with the case, or with the numerous people who were involved in its investigation. Those of us who know Carol well see the same old patterns yet again, of her trying to trash her ex-husband's reputation be it in the art world or in more personal areas. She will never let go the fact that he divorced her, and this is not the place to go into the reasons why.

Witnesses are one thing, quality witnesses are another. Like Lance pointed out Adamski had witnesses. Stan Romanek also claims to have plenty of witnesses to back up his ridiculous stories. Look at Roswell, as that case gets older and older and more and more famous new witnesses keep pouring out of the woodwork like cockroaches. They likely number in the hundreds now. One of the incidents to really get my goat involves a faked UFO video taken in 1997 in Mexico City:

Despite its obvious silliness (When viewing a higher resolution version you can actually see with the naked eye a ghost image of the object passing through the building. And if memory serves me right Maccabee claimed to find no evidence for a hoax in it and that just blows me away) multiple witnesses inexplicably emerged.

I'm not saying I feel I know with certainty that the Linda case is a hoax but it is something I've always suspected. And I think that a lot of other people have suspected it because despite Budd's proclamations that it is one of the most important cases ever I rarely encounter others in the UFO field referring to it in that way. In fact, I'd say it barely gets talked about in one way or another at all. And that leaves me wondering about the relevance of Rainey's decision to "expose" it now. That it isn't genuine is something I think most have instinctively concluded anyway. Perhaps the exact details of the whys, wheres, whats, and whos that make it a hoax are not well known but I'm not sure learning of specifics like that are really going to enlighten me in any way. But I suppose Carol feels otherwise.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Right or wrong, she has every right to be critical of the case and to express those criticisms in a venue of her choosing. But I'm concerned about the timing. After all these years -- at a time when Hopkins is quite ill and not apt to engage in an extended dialogue on these issues -- her "expose" all of a sudden becomes a pressing matter.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

The timing is likely linked to the Emma Woods thing and shouldn't have a bearing on much of anything.

Actually, "EW" has been out there for several years. I got emails from her months and months ago. Rainey's experiences with Hopkins date back — what? — 15 years?

 

[Ron Collins]

Either ban "Archie", let "Emma" back, or admit that you (meaning the mods) have absolutely taken sides.

Paul, from my standpoint this is not as cut and dried.
1) Gene banned Emma. His show, his forum, his rules. I was never consulted and nor would I expect to be. To be honest I never read through all the Emma Woods stuff to see how bad that finally got so I cant honestly compare the two. But, my understudying is that Emma was banned also because she told outright lies. I will let gene comment about that if he wishes but I doubt he will want to reopen that particular can of worms.
2) Emma was about 1 topic. Archie has contributed to many discussions and has been well behaved in most of them.
3) I do not personally find the abduction phenomenon in general all that compelling. Aside from the very few cases like Walton, Allagash, The Hills, and Kelly Kayhill. (my spelling of these is probably atrocious, apologies) so I can assure everyone that I have not chosen a side. I suspect that you would get a similar answer from Angelo.

I do agree that Archies habit of bringing up the Carol Rainey stuff is getting old. Though I am not sure it is egregious enough to warrant a banning. Thus it has never been formally addressed. As you are bringing it up I will ask him to tone it down. I think that is fair.