Carol Rainey (Mrs. Budd Hopkins)

[Creepy Green Light]

When someone tells a story, generally they want to be believed. If the story approaches a 'tall tale', then in order to be taken seriously, there needs to be clear evidence. Makes sense to me.

I am not aware that anyone needs to be afraid if they have seen such. What are the 'good reasons' to be afraid?

If you have experienced such that is your experience but I simply have never seen 'a great deal of anger'. Not sure what to make of your claim.

As for contempt, I can see that operating in the face of the hoaxing, of which there is much in this area.

You want this to believed, I guess, but you will not allow questions because questions become 'anger and contempt'. Can't have it both ways. Suppressed? By who, when and why? Those are questions that need answering.

The accusations of anger and contempt speak to high emotions in themselves. Belief of suppression speaks to powerful emotions. What to make of it all? Why so vested personally in having this event be true?

Exactly. Excellent points.

 

[Constance]

You want this to believed, I guess, but you will not allow questions because questions become 'anger and contempt'. Can't have it both ways. Suppressed? By who, when and why? Those are questions that need answering.

The accusations of anger and contempt speak to high emotions in themselves. Belief of suppression speaks to powerful emotions. What to make of it all? Why so vested personally in having this event be true?

I'm not invested in 'having this event be true'. I haven't pursued inquiry into all the research concerning it because it's clear that it will never be 'proved to be true' in the atmosphere surrounding the ufo subject in our society.

re your first comment: "You want this to believed, I guess, but you will not allow questions because questions become 'anger and contempt'. Can't have it both ways. Suppressed? By who, when and why? Those are questions that need answering."

You know, or ought to know, that there are many different ways in which a point of view can be expressed. For example, one might say "I do not see enough evidence to consider it possible that the Cortile abduction took place as described by the victim and the abduction researcher who worked with her for years," or one can engage in mind-reading and impugning the victim, the researcher, and the few witnesses who have been courageous enough to stand up and disclose their identities as 'liars', 'hoaxers', and in G. Wingfield's characterization histrionic 'drama queens'. In my view, these verbal behaviors are both presumptuous and careless in a disturbing way. Since no one actually *knows* what happened except those involved in the event, the dismissiveness and contempt expressed toward these people is needlessly offensive and no doubt troubling to them. Just in case the reported event is true, why would anyone want to add to the trauma of those involved when it is not necessary to do so?

Of course people should ask all the questions they want to ask, in a civil and respectful way. That seems to be no longer possible for too many people commenting on ufo phenomena on the internet these days.

Re this: "Suppressed? By who, when and why? Those are questions that need answering."

You wouldn't have to ask those questions, Tyger, if you were more familiar with the history of the ufo phenomena in the U.S.

ps: you claim not to be angry when you address this subject, but you certainly come across that way to me.

 

[Tyger]

Re this: "Suppressed? By who, when and why? Those are questions that need answering." You wouldn't have to ask those questions, Tyger, if you were more familiar with the history of the ufo phenomena in the U.S.

I know from past comments that you view my (apparent) lack of familiarity with 'the history of the ufo phenomenon' to be a serious failing. However, even if that is so, I may still ask questions about this event, and so my questions stand: What suppression? By who, when and why?

If you are to referring to the conspiracy theories that state that the government is engaged in a suppression of 'the facts' of alien visitation - well, here we diverge in a significant way. This is a belief (I believe). That being so, it is a belief that is beyond evidence and proofs. All 'facts' will be seen through the veil of that conspiracy. It's a self perpetuating belief imo. If it's not that, then there needs to be a clear line of argument, with evidence supplied. None ever is. Rather the very question gets bounced back as you have just done.

ps: you claim not to be angry when you address this subject, but you certainly come across that way to me.

But I'm not angry. Internet chat is far away from anything worth being angry about.

If I come across as angry, what aspects of my text conveys anger to you? I am curious.

 

[Constance]

I know from past comments that you view my (apparent) lack of familiarity with 'the history of the ufo phenomenon' to be a serious failing.

Not at all. Your choice whether to read ufo history and research. Not having done so, however, you express strong opinions about it. On what basis?

If you are to referring to the conspiracy theories that state that the government is engaged in a suppression of 'the facts' of alien visitation - well, here we diverge in a significant way. This is a belief (I believe). That being so, it is a belief that is beyond evidence and proofs.

?? How would you know without evaluating the evidence and proofs? And what persuades you that I would not have been able to do the same?

If I come across as angry, what aspects of my text conveys anger to you? I am curious.

Your general tone, and some of the claims you make, as above.

 

[Tyger]

Not at all. Your choice whether to read ufo history and research. Not having done so, however, you express strong opinions about it. On what basis?

I go by what I read of the events. In this case I did read about the Cortile case some time back, as I mentioned. From what I read, as well as watched (interviews with the participants) it did not seem credible. Still doesn't. So I guess we agree to disagree on this case.

?? How would you know without evaluating the evidence and proofs? And what persuades you that I would not have been able to do the same?

I have not read about any proof or evidence (of conspiracy or suppression) that is persuasive. Generally, such thinking seems rooted in a paranoia, or an intent to be more important, but I would never make a blanket statement. Rather, each claim needs to be considered when it is made. We're talking about suppression and conspiring to suppress - I just don't see it.

People tend to be very banal thinkers - or conventional. Stuff that is viewed as 'crazy' has a natural tendency to be 'suppressed', be it by personal choice or by choice of some governmental blindness. No conspiracy, or suppression - just human nature.

Your general tone

What am I suppose to do with that, Constance? Not at all helpful. Tone? In text? Unless I'm cussing and 'going blue' - how can you judge my 'tone'? This is significant - as you are investing emotion where there is none. That makes for conflicted discourse where there is none occurring.

I do have a formal way of writing (I think) - is that the source of the 'tone'? I'm not clear on how you are getting 'tone' from what I experience as pretty matter-of-fact posting (certainly not with emotion).

and some of the claims you make, as above.

What claims would I have just made on this thread that would lead you to believe that I am 'angry and outraged'?

I think my only 'claims' on this thread have been in relation to the statement that there would not be many people out at 3:00 a.m. on a bridge when the temperature was 28'F. This conclusion - linked to why there would not be many witnesses (because people would not be out-and-about at such a temperature at 3:00 a.m.) - seems in error, for the reasons I gave. I lived in the Northeast for decades, and I speak from experience: 28'F at 3:00 a.m. is not a condition that would keep people home, so using that condition to argue why there are not more witnesses, is very weak. Do you view my pointing that out as evidence of 'anger and outrage'? Still curious.

 

[Tyger]

Of course people should ask all the questions they want to ask, in a civil and respectful way. That seems to be no longer possible for too many people commenting on ufo phenomena on the internet these days.

I think I am asking in a civil and respectful way.

My questions still stand: What suppression? By who, when and why - that would make the witnesses afraid in the Cortile case?

Telling me that: "You wouldn't have to ask those questions, Tyger, if you were more familiar with the history of the ufo phenomena in the U.S." Is not relevant to my question. Why are witnesses afraid in the Cortile Case?

 

[Constance]

What's strange, Tyger, is that I didn't even address my post to you, yet you keep wanting to argue about it. Why is that? Here's what I wrote, to Creepy Green:

Carol Rainey (Mrs. Budd Hopkins) | Page 5 | The Paracast Community Forums

For some reason you seem to have taken that little post personally, and you certainly are in fighting mode about it. I'm not. Take it or leave it. Think what you will. It's time to let it go.

 

[Tyger]

What's strange, Tyger, is that I didn't even address my post to you, yet you keep wanting to argue about it. Why is that? Here's what I wrote, to Creepy Green:
Carol Rainey (Mrs. Budd Hopkins) | Page 5 | The Paracast Community Forums

Nothing strange - it's the nature of a chat site and the nature of thread discussions. I know what you wrote to that poster, yes. I chose to respond to you because I could see that you were challenging someone in a way that could potentially be felt to be aggressive. I entered the conversation at that point in the way I did to relieve the pressure on that poster.

For some reason you seem to have taken that little post personally

Not personally, but as point of debate.

and you certainly are in fighting mode about it. I'm not. Take it or leave it. Think what you will. It's time to let it go.

So here we have it: you think I'm fighting. I am not. I'm asking questions, and they all still stand. They are honest questions, especially the ones pertaining to how you are interpreting my text.

But I hear you - you want me to cease and desist from further queries. Will do.

 

[Tyger]

There's plenty of the above in the field Tyger. People have expressed disgust, taints the field, fruit loops, whack jobs, attention seekers, god only knows if I took another half hour to think. The fact is there's been a huge dismissal of the subject from prominent thinkers in the field. From podcasts to personal blogs, it's everywhere. The anger is expressed that these abduction people clog the field with garbage and help to keep scientists from engaging the science. The contempt, well that's easy to find.

Do you feel the reactions you state exist, in the summation you give, are unwarranted?

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

Do you feel the reactions you state exist, in the summation you give, are unwarranted?

Yes. I don't feel we've made the conclusion that abduction is not real. I believe we have enough evidence that we are being visited by something....so I can't rule out that next step. We have famous cases that still stand untouched by time, Socorro where Zamora see's beings outside a craft, Walton abduction, Betty and Barney Hill. Kathleen Mardens book tells of some other stories, one in which another couple go through something similar to the Hills. What's difficult in this field is that there's this other aspect that's embarrassing. Folks that are truly mentally ill and their illness is wrapped up in aliens and abductions. I can only imagine a person like Bud Hopkins standing at a podium trying to speak on this subject and someone in the crowd stands up and says " I was there, I saw her and the reptillians took her to planet Mooshoo." Within this field there is high strangeness and for some researchers it becomes obvious their not comfortable with it. Which makes me wonder how they can honestly do credible research if they are not open to the idea there may be more to all this if alien craft are flying our airwaves. One other note to it. The debunkers (not skeptics) have a field day with this subject. It's an easy study when you look at the Roswell slide issue lately. Setting aside whether it was ever plausible to prove anything on those slide, just reading their reactions at the idea of an alien is telling. Why would I care? I care because I want to know where they stand in their research and how they come to their conclusions.

 

[Tyger]

Yes. I don't feel we've made the conclusion that abduction is not real.

In a general sense, I would agree. In a way. In the way that one should always leave the door open a crack. Anything is possible. Probable is another story.

Fact is, I believe - as in speculation, no evidence - that there exists other intelligent life 'like us' elsewhere in the universe. That very thought fills me with awe and wonder. Knowing what I know about the size of the universe - and the true nature of the distances involved - it strikes me as improbable that we are being 'visited' in the way this meme is currently making the rounds.

I believe we have enough evidence that we are being visited by something

This far I cannot go. I don't see 'evidence' of this. I see something else at work and I am reluctant to make the 'imaginings' of a few the basis of my view of the universe.

....so I can't rule out that next step.

What next step?

We have famous cases that still stand untouched by time, Socorro where Zamora see's beings outside a craft, Walton abduction, Betty and Barney Hill. Kathleen Mardens book tells of some other stories, one in which another couple go through something similar to the Hills.

I would debate that. The Betty and Barney Hill case is dated in the technology Betty described imo. To be expected if it was her powerful imagination out of which the experience was brewed.

I see it all as not 'abduction' but something else, into which the iconography of science fiction stories, and the powerful images of science fiction films, flow in a highly suggestive way. Mass psychosis? We see it happen with religious groups. Certain ideas taken up time and again in varied locales creating the same behaviors and even actions.

What's difficult in this field is that there's this other aspect that's embarrassing. Folks that are truly mentally ill and their illness is wrapped up in aliens and abductions. I can only imagine a person like Bud Hopkins standing at a podium trying to speak on this subject and someone in the crowd stands up and says " I was there, I saw her and the reptillians took her to planet Mooshoo."

Yet this very aspect - with 'folks that are truly mentally ill' - is where the answers lie imo. Something is being perceived and mis-identified, in a sense, for a variety of reasons. That's what I think.

Within this field there is high strangeness and for some researchers it becomes obvious they're not comfortable with it.

How 'high strangeness' - what do you mean by that phrase?

Which makes me wonder how they can honestly do credible research if they are not open to the idea there may be more to all this if alien craft are flying our airwaves.

But the idea of 'alien craft' is a leap - and a big one.

One other note to it. The debunkers (not skeptics) have a field day with this subject. It's an easy study when you look at the Roswell slide issue lately.

What I find striking is when I hear that something is causing a stir and I really look into it. Inevitably, it falls apart. What I see is acceptance of very weak 'evidence' because there is a keen wish for it to be true.

Setting aside whether it was ever plausible to prove anything on those slide, just reading their reactions at the idea of an alien is telling. Why would I care? I care because I want to know where they stand in their research and how they come to their conclusions.

Well, this is where we diverge. I find the 'imaginations' rampant about aliens very prosaic and simple-minded. Why allow one's life to be bound up with such tedious constructs I say. I can think of any number of far more interesting possibilities for 'aliens'. The current 'cosmology' of aliens is (I will say it gently) boring. These aliens that are being conjured seem to be thugs. It's not a story I want to live in. The Real World is fine with me. There is so much to do here and discover. Aliens? Boo! Off with them!

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

Well, this is where we diverge. I find the 'imaginations' rampant about aliens very prosaic and simple-minded. Why allow one's life to be bound up with such tedious constructs I say. I can think of any number of far more interesting possibilities for 'aliens'. The current 'cosmology' of aliens is (I will say it gently) boring.

LOL, then why come to a paranormal forum and then join an abduction thread? Boring as a description is odd, and yet here you are! Curious, have you read any books on the subject of ufo's, like maybe Leslie Kean or even something older like Donald Keyhoe? Just curious as to whether your grazing the subject or you've delved in.

 

[Tyger]

LOL, then why come to a paranormal forum and then join an abduction thread? Boring as a description is odd, and yet here you are! Curious, have you read any books on the subject of ufo's, like maybe Leslie Kean or even something older like Donald Keyhoe? Just curious as to whether your grazing the subject or you've delved in.

My history with the ufo phenomenon goes back to the 1950's. I was there - meaning as a reader of all the old books (that continue to be referenced) in present time as they came out (and very pulpy they were, too) - and as someone who read the newspaper articles, like about Betty and Barney Hill, since it happened in the general area where I lived. I am well-acquainted with Donald Keyhoe - I read his work as a young person. I am generally acquainted with most of the high-profile cases. I am well aware of how sensational all this was back then and how thin a soup it was, too - and how crazy people went with it. It really was unhinging people. I am equally aware of how that surprisingly thin soup is being stewed to make a broth with questionable ingredients. Roswell comes to mind - I was actually in the area, as it happens, when someone in Roswell came up with the bright idea in the 1990's to mount the museum to jump-start a stagnant local economy.

I'm a Fortean from way-back, but life does move on. Hopefully we do learn something from our youthful meanderings.

It oft-times feels like Constance requires a resume of 'proof' that one is 'credentialed' to talk about this stuff. It's interesting that you as well are going down that road - or maybe you have always been on that road. This suggests that there is a 'canon' that one must be steeped in - that comes perilously close to being a doctrinal test. Just saying what this could look like, or be experienced like.

Why 'LOL'? What is it that serious questions must be greeted with 'LOL'? Why must one's background be scoured as though there is a 'ticket' for legitimate entry to the discussion? It's a strange world the UFO world has turned into - almost like a religion, with gatekeepers keeping track of language (I recall the UFO versus UAP discussions). Books read. Hmmm.

Are you really suggesting that I need to be a true-believer to be present on this forum? Or this thread? I'm sure you're not.


Look at this video - and see how weak the 'science' is of those making the speculations. What appears in the video is being interpreted in a very narrow way with no logical reason to be going down that path. 'Vortex'? 'Popping into view' near the moon? Sensational statements like this obscure rather than enlighten - and lead the scientifically ill-informed down dubious pathways. If you look at the comments words like 'portal' and 'wormhole' are getting used. Do the users of those words understand the history of such words? Probably not. Do they understand they are playing with unrealities? Not likely.

After the video, I supply another explanation -

Invisible (UFO) Vortex Filmed In Full Spectrum

TEXT: "Published on Apr 28, 2015: This clip shows what looks like a vortex popping into view near the moon. It was filmed with two cameras and is not visible in the visible light spectrum. An auto lighting technique was used with a full spectrum camera to capture this footage."

He says he was viewing "not in the visible spectrum", in infa-red and ultraviolet. A physicist's wild guess: Some type of ionizing cosmic ray impacting the ionosphere, briefly creating a mini-aurora at the impact site, with the assumption that the light emission from an aurora can be anywhere on the EM spectrum, and shouldn't be limited to visible light.

Which 'answer' do you find more stimulating? The sensational suggestion of a vortex 'popping open' near the moon - with the science fiction baggage that the word 'vortex' drags along with it? Or the science-informed suggestion? I find the latter more stimulating. I want to know how the universe works. Part of knowing that, though, is understanding people and how they think.

Anyway, a healthy question and answer seems a reasonable expectation on the forum. I will continue to hope.

 

[kruggutter]

And besides that, there should be 1000s & 1000s of witnesses. Not 23.

Again, I'd like to point out that one cannot gauge the number of witnesses to an event based solely on who came forward
and reported it. It falsely presupposes that everyone who witnessed something (extremely traumatic in Linda's case) would
report it. After witnessing something traumatic some people simply want to forget about it.

It is also unknown if the November 30, 1989 UFO abduction incident was reported to the police or military because such
reports are not immediately made public knowledge without, in some cases, express authorisation and significant red tape.
Therefore it cannot be stated that no reports about this incident were made to the police or military.

Best

Sean

 

[Creepy Green Light]

My history with the ufo phenomenon goes back to the 1950's. I was there - meaning as a reader of all the old books (that continue to be referenced) in present time as they came out (and very pulpy they were, too) - and as someone who read the newspaper articles, like about Betty and Barney Hill, since it happened in the general area where I lived. I am well-acquainted with Donald Keyhoe - I read his work as a young person. I am generally acquainted with most of the high-profile cases. I am well aware of how sensational all this was back then and how thin a soup it was, too - and how crazy people went with it. It really was unhinging people. I am equally aware of how that surprisingly thin soup is being stewed to make a broth with questionable ingredients. Roswell comes to mind - I was actually in the area, as it happens, when someone in Roswell came up with the bright idea in the 1990's to mount the museum to jump-start a stagnant local economy.

I'm a Fortean from way-back, but life does move on. Hopefully we do learn something from our youthful meanderings.

It oft-times feels like Constance requires a resume of 'proof' that one is 'credentialed' to talk about this stuff. It's interesting that you as well are going down that road - or maybe you have always been on that road. This suggests that there is a 'canon' that one must be steeped in - that comes perilously close to being a doctrinal test. Just saying what this could look like, or be experienced like.

Why 'LOL'? What is it that serious questions must be greeted with 'LOL'? Why must one's background be scoured as though there is a 'ticket' for legitimate entry to the discussion? It's a strange world the UFO world has turned into - almost like a religion, with gatekeepers keeping track of language (I recall the UFO versus UAP discussions). Books read. Hmmm.

Are you really suggesting that I need to be a true-believer to be present on this forum? Or this thread? I'm sure you're not.


Look at this video - and see how weak the 'science' is of those making the speculations. What appears in the video is being interpreted in a very narrow way with no logical reason to be going down that path. Vortex? Popping into view near the moon? Sensational statements like this obscure rather than enlighten - and lead the scientifically ill-informed down dubious pathways. If you look at the comments words like 'portal' and 'wormhole' are getting used. Do the users of those words understand the history of such words? Probably not. Do they understand they are playing with unrealities? Not likely.

After the video, I supply another explanation -

Invisible (UFO) Vortex Filmed In Full Spectrum

TEXT: "Published on Apr 28, 2015: This clip shows what looks like a vortex popping into view near the moon. It was filmed with two cameras and is not visible in the visible light spectrum. An auto lighting technique was used with a full spectrum camera to capture this footage."

He says he was viewing "not in the visible spectrum", in infa-red and ultraviolet. A physicist's wild guess: Some type of ionizing cosmic ray impacting the ionosphere, briefly creating a mini-aurora at the impact site, with the assumption that the light emission from an aurora can be anywhere on the EM spectrum, and shouldn't be limited to visible light.

Which 'answer' do you find more stimulating? The sensational suggestion of a vortex 'popping open' near the moon - with the science fiction baggage that the word 'vortex' drags along with it? Or the science-informed suggestion? I find the latter more stimulating. I want to know how the universe works. Part of knowing that, though, is understanding people and how they think.

Anyway, a healthy question and answer seems a reasonable expectation on the forum. I will continue to hope.

Tyger, something that always bothered me with the Hill case is this; in the documentary "UFOs Are Real", they thoroughly go through the case. But when they show the artists renditions of the aliens, they have ball caps on. I assume the Hills provided this info. That falls under the umbrella of dated technology for me. So wait. The aliens wear different colored ball caps? Kinda like our military? For some reason, I seem to doubt ball caps were a required article of clothing for aliens from Zeta Reiculi. Reminded me of Leslie Nielsens crew in Forbidden Planet.

 

[Burnt State]

It is also unknown if the November 30, 1989 UFO abduction incident was reported to the police or military because such
reports are not immediately made public knowledge without, in some cases, express authorisation and significant red tape.
Therefore it cannot be stated that no reports about this incident were made to the police or military.

Best

Sean

My understanding is both Linda and Budd repeatedly stated that the police were never involved as per the debate/hearing with Hansen, Clark, Hopkins and company. The charge was human abduction and attempted murder to which Jerry Clark even said, no the boat should not be rocked, as there could be international consequences etc. a low point to be certain in his career as critical ufologist despite his well worded Torquemada retort. He does support his friends which is admirable I suppose. but at least with Jacobs he is clearly on the record (previous Paracast episode) as believing that the alien hybrid breeding program is a ridiculous premise.

So has Linda ever told you that she went to the police, as in all materials written and presented on video or in UFO updates emails I have never seen mention of the police being involved once in the many crimes described or any reference to the notion that a report was made to police following the many supposed crimes described by Linda or Budd? Certainly a major phase of the investigation at various points would have been to explore what law enforcement could gather about Richard and Dan, attempted human abductions, attempted murder and creepy old guys going after your kid. The details and progress of police investigation to such serious crimes should be a part of the narrative, no, to demonstrate that all practical avenues were followed?

Strangely these incidents are described but the vital evidentiary parts regarding their actual identities and locations have no real confirmation beyond word of mouth and whoever Hopkins said or believed he met. Cases with so much anonymity attached to them yet such spectacular claims make them very hard to take seriously. Many abduction claims break down on these fundamental levels.

 

[kruggutter]

My understanding is both Linda and Budd repeatedly stated that the police were never involved as per the debate/hearing with Hansen, Clark, Hopkins and company. The charge was human abduction and attempted murder to which Jerry Clark even said, no the boat should not be rocked, as there could be international consequences etc. a low point to be certain in his career as critical ufologist despite his well worded Torquemada retort.

With respect, as someone who's actually seen and got an uncut video copy of the October 3, 1992 "showdown" meeting at Budd Hopkins' apartment,
which runs in at 3 hours 18 minutes and 59 seconds, what Hansen claimed took place at that meeting is a complete lie.

Hansen claimed that at that meeting everyone urged him, Stefula and Butler to cease their investigation of Linda's case. What in fact occurred was that
Hansen, Stefula and Butler were urged to wait six months before making reports to the authorities about the case. The reason given was because the case
was still actively developing at that time and Hopkins and co. did not want potential future witnesses to be discouraged from coming forward.

Despite Hansen claiming that he, Stefula and Butler were asked to cease their investigation, he later contradicted himself and admitted they were indeed
asked to wait six months before reporting the incident.

Jerry Clark did nothing wrong at that meeting. He did not do as Hansen claimed and attempt to cover up evidence of an attempted murder. Hansen has been
making up lies, and getting away with making up lies about Linda's case for over two decades.

If you wish more information about Hansen, his lies, antics and his tactics regarding the Cortile case, and others, I recommend the following documents.

New Lies and Old Lies from George Hansen about the Linda Cortile Case - The Linda Cortile UFO Abduction Case Website

The October 3, 1992 "Showdown" Meeting at Budd Hopkins' Apartment - The Linda Cortile UFO Abduction Case Website

Five Rebuttals to George Hansen Contained in the Journal of Parapsychology - The Linda Cortile UFO Abduction Case Website

Two Rebuttals to George Hansen's Claims from Jerome Clark - The Linda Cortile UFO Abduction Case Website

Inaccuracies from George Hansen's Post Critique Documents - The Linda Cortile UFO Abduction Case Website

Inaccuracies from George Hansen's Chapter on the Linda Cortile Case - The Linda Cortile UFO Abduction Case Website

Critique Rejected - The Linda Cortile UFO Abduction Case Website

http://www.lindacortilecase.com/uploads/2/9/1/0/2910920/critique_rejected.pdf

So has Linda ever told you that she went to the police, as in all materials written and presented on video or in UFO updates emails I have never seen mention of the police being involved once in the many crimes described or any reference to the notion that a report was made to police following the many supposed crimes described by Linda or Budd? Certainly a major phase of the investigation at various points would have been to explore what law enforcement could gather about Richard and Dan, attempted human abductions, attempted murder and creepy old guys going after your kid. The details and progress of police investigation to such serious crimes should be a part of the narrative, no, to demonstrate that all practical avenues were followed?

After Hansen, Stefula and Butler filed formal complaints to the Treasury department, the Secret Service, and a handful of other federal agencies, Budd and Linda were contacted by the
Secret Service to discuss the matter in person. Budd and Linda laid out the whole case to them and the Secret Service were very helpful and courteous to them in every respect. Budd and
Linda were told that if any other agencies contacted them about the matter for them to just refer them to the Secret Service. At that the matter was closed. Hansen, Stefula and Butler's
letters were readily recognised by the Secret Service as crackpot letters, and Linda came away with a real respect for the Secret Service.

In regards to how the police would respond to Linda going forward to them to report what happened to her I refer you to Former Chief of Police Richard P. Rosenthal who was interviewed
about the matter and how Linda would be perceived and treated should she have gone forward.

Former Chief of Police Richard P. Rosenthal - The Linda Cortile UFO Abduction Case Website

Other federal agencies in the past became involved in providing security for Linda while Dan was at large in 1991 and early 1992. One such individual witnessed the surveillance being
conducted on Linda.

It was and still is Linda's decision whether she wishes to further report her case, in all of its intricacies and complexities, to the authorities.

Hope the information helps.

Peace

Sean

 

[Bob Watson]

May we see the 3 hour uncut video?

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Interesting & makes sense
Greg Sandow -- Examination of the "Linda" case

 

[kruggutter]

Interesting & makes sense
Greg Sandow -- Examination of the "Linda" case

I've got a copy of Sandow's article as it originally appeared in the International UFO Reporter.

Greg Sandow - The Linda Cortile Case - The Linda Cortile UFO Abduction Case Website

http://www.lindacortilecase.com/uploads/2/9/1/0/2910920/gstlcc.pdf

Best

Sean