kruggutter
Paranormal Maven
Thank you for your response it helps judge the case.
Not a problem Vesvehighfolk. Thank you for taking the time to consider it.
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Thank you for your response it helps judge the case.
I've got the Janet Kimball's real name, contact details and family details. I've contacted her surviving family and as indicated
in Budd Hopkins' book Witnessed they do not want anything to do with the matter. They did not entertain Janet's account as
being possible and they ridiculed her when she told them about it. I've had Kimball's handwriting professionally compared to
Linda's by a real forensic document examiner who concluded that Linda in all likelihood is not the author of the documents as
claimed by Rainey.
Dan disappeared on February 22, 1992. Linda's husband Steve, her son Stephen, her childhood friend Carmela and Cardinal
John O'Connor all met and spoke with Richard in person. Janet Kimball was interviewed face to face by Budd Hopkins who
recorded the interview. The details of her account of the beginning of the November 30, 1989 UFO abduction, from the Brooklyn
Bridge, corroborated Richard, Dan and the third man's account of the beginning of the November 30, 1989 UFO abduction, from
under the FDR Drive, 100%. Which means someone who Hopkins did meet in person, and who's account he was able to document
in person, independently corroborated the account that Richard, Dan and the third man provided.
In addition to this Yancy Spence, a truck driver for the New York Post, and Robert "Bobby" N., a worker at the New York Post, both
came forward to Hopkins in person in late 2001 to report their witnessing the beginning of the November 30, 1989 UFO abduction
incident. Their accounts were documented and videotaped as well.
Richard hasn't been heard from for over a decade and has put it behind him as best he can.
The evidence regarding the third man being the former UN Secretary-General is subtle. He indicated in his one letter to Budd Hopkins
he would not confirm his involvement and has been true to his word. Budd spoke of having his identity confirmed from an independent
source but would not publicly disclose more than that.
There's nothing simple or straight forward about this case. Something which I've said from the beginning. There is no evidence of a hoax,
and there have been more lies told about it in attempts to discredit it than any other abduction case on record.
I'll add something here that isn't really specific to this case but seems a trend, one which I find beyond frustrating. When the legwork on an old case is done it's incredible how much crap, inaccuracies, tall tales tucked within and opinion repeated as fact get's piled on. What fascinated me about Roswell? Trying to figure out what originally was reported! Bud Hopkins has been heavily smeared, it takes some work to go back and find either the truth or the weighing in on his findings by all the talking heads in the field. The Socorro case and the emblem, the testimony all get flip flopped. And somehow everyone forgets that when you ask a person to repeat a story twenty times over thirty years the story will change. We are not computers. Anyone surface skimming this subject will come away thinking most cases are hoaxes and most witnesses want attention. Honestly I'm finding the opposite. I'm finding very dry reporting and media frenzy, ufologist frenzy, ego driven book writers and skeptic/debunkers toss totally unrelated crap into the mix to see what sticks. A pilot reports a ufo and it becomes the matrix fairy. I mean, wtf!!! Seriously! Are we to lock our doors now in our made up matrix, trickster, sky critter worlds because people can't know what their reporting anymore? We are smearing witnesses beyond reason. Yes, it's true, people make shit up. It happens everywhere, involving every subject. But we as a people collectively tend to be honest. If you don't know this your in a bubble. If you don't know that people tend to say what they see without making it up, your our of sync and tuned into a negative aspect only of the human condition.
When people in this field decided that hypnosis was not a credible means of collecting information suddenly every abduction researcher was smeared with radical analysis. No comment on the hundreds of sessions where hypnosis was not used. Didn't happen. Abduction is bunk. How dumb is that? Instead of following it through, continuing to follow the research it was flat out rejected. I have no idea what the final conclusion is, and I doubt I ever will. There aren't many people that pursue it nor are there many who research it.
All I know now is that when it's common to say "the trend" is such and such it's code for me to look deeper. Jesus, people are afraid of their own shadow in this world. Oh quick, a mosquito just flew in.....duck....it might be the matrix collapsing into a thousand fairies!!!!!!!!!!
Like I said, still amazing that planes hit the WTC and there's thousands of witnesses/videos. Plane lands in Hudson and there's thousands of witnesses/videos. Flying saucer sucks woman out of downtown New York City apartment multiple times and miraculously there's no videos, real witnesses (ones that can be interviewed & verified on camera).
That makes no sense. So if the WTC was hit in the middle of the night or a plane crashed in the middle of the night nobody would have seen it and there would be no video? In NEW YORK CITY? Lol.1989 middle of the night vs morning 2001. Non issue.
Doesn't matter. There still were too many cross section angles and private citizens with cameras and video recorders. SOMEONE would have captured SOMETHING....if something ever happened. At THE VERY LEAST there would be thousands of eyewitnesses. But in the city that never sleeps, I guess everyone happened to be sleeping...on those exact nights.How many video camera's would have been pointing at the top of an apartment complex in 1989? All the camera's I had ever seen back then, and there weren't many, had to be pointed at the entrance/exits of convenience stores, banks, etc. No one filming windows of an apartment complex in 1989. Diff world tech wise.
You are focusing on the fact a video camera wasn't pointed at the top of an apartment complex at 3 am in the winter of '89. Like I said, a non issue- considering such technology as cameras were only pointing where a man could walk, in those days. The main focus, imo- should be the witnesses on the bridge (Janet Kimball) and what her surviving family could provide. The fact that none of them would come forward, while understandable, does concern me.
I perhaps agree with others that video-taping was not an 'in' thing to be doing back then (it's hard to believe how currant that phenomenon really is) but I do agree with Creepy_Green_Light in general.Doesn't matter. There still were too many cross section angles and private citizens with cameras and video recorders. SOMEONE would have captured SOMETHING....if something ever happened. At THE VERY LEAST there would be thousands of eyewitnesses. But in the city that never sleeps, I guess everyone happened to be sleeping...on those exact nights.
Agree with Tyger. The thought of there NOT being thousands of eyewitnesses is ridiculous. Even more so if you know NYC (or have experienced it).I perhaps agree with others that video-taping was not an 'in' thing to be doing back then (it's hard to believe how currant that phenomenon really is) but I do agree with Creepy_Green_Light in general.
Two additional witnesses do not make this credible. New York is always 'awake'. The paucity of witnesses is strange. People in so many locations should have seen something like this easily. Maybe someone has to experience NYC to understand how 'awake' 24/7 that city really is. People are everywhere. In fact a mere two extra witnesses sound suspicious - there should be dozens more witnesses at the very least, if not hundreds. The police lines should have been sizzling that night - they weren't.
Well put Burnt State.'Why was it not in the news the next morning?' is a significant question. It's a major, fantastic physical spectacle of the highest order. This ain't a logging crew in the middle of nowhere. But like Walton, this story disobeys many of the normal abduction patterns. It also claims the most significant group of witnesses of high status, that apparently can only come forward by word of mouth or once in a blue moon if that.
This physical carnival event was a performance of the highest order with levitation of beings in a super densely populated space with supposed super blinding light - couldn't have been missed, really. Where's the rest of humanity missing this event and just not really talking about it, reporting it. This is Brooklyn after all who as we have recently seen likes to talk about UFO's. The whole legacy of witnesses and whether or not Richard and Dan really exist is still highly debatable.
If Richard and Dan do exist why is there not a series of police reports documenting the physical abduction, attempted murder and repeated other abduction and stalking episodes that persisted? Is it not reasonable for a parent to want to have nothing but the absolute protection of law enforcement to protect you and yours given the attempted assault? Certainly a man of God as close to the big guy as a Cardinal would by necessity need to, if not demand, that the law be pursued in such a case. These features make no sense to me.
Whether or not all the evidence has been forged or confabulated remains a reasonable option given the various unanswered questions and in the face of the excessively detailed pro and con assertions. There's certainly nothing confirmed there that I can see. And like Walton, if it was true then it has to be hands down the single most important case in history that has paranoid implications for the nature of our social structure that confirm some of the most far end spectra of the Alien Abduction Phenomenon. It's one or the other.
A feature that makes anyone's testimony highly suspect imo.It's also important to recognize that some of the witnesses who did come forward did not recollect the incident in full until years later, a feature which is also prevalent in the UFO abduction phenomenon.
A feature that makes anyone's testimony highly suspect imo.