The Linda Cortile UFO Abduction Website

[Stagger Lee]

Sean, thanks for the response. I believe Hopkins thought this case to possibly be the one to shine a brighter light on the abduction phenom. Your personal feeling towards Linda's family aside, I find it curious your thoughts on Richard or Perez coming forward. They are the two most important witnesses in this case. Such a break in the case, would surely benefit many families out there suffering in silence or ridicule over there own similiar experience.

 

[Burnt State]

When events/cases in Ufology get to the point where people start making accusations about an individual's mental health you know the story has moved from being about fact to being about personality.

 

[Burnt State]

Hi Paracast User Burnt State,

Sean here.

I agree. I'd also like to add that when individuals, who publicly present themselves as heroic, skeptical and objective investigators,
turn out to be irrational, hateful stalkers, that one's personal safety becomes an issue. Especially if the police are required to be
brought into the matter. That being said many people are happy to accept unproven allegations from these individuals as fact.

Thanks

Sean

I wouldn't know anything about that. I try not to get too close to things that are elusive lest they corrupt my own thinking. There's something very wrong with the Abuctee Phenomenon that it draws to itself so many conflicts and so many vulnerable people. That mix, from my p.o.v., appears to be quite volatile and produces just more stress, conflict and fewer answers. I find the stories fascinating; some narratives are even entirely compelling in their tone and distinct lack of concern for public notoriety.

 

[Randall]

Man you put in a lot of work on this. I respect that, but why? I don't see sufficient reason to believe that an alien encounter or abduction ( whatever you want to call it ) actually took place. It's just a big convoluted mess of he or she said this or that, but where's the substance? Is there any verifiable and conclusive material evidence? No. OK so lets forget verifiable material evidence. Are there any verifiable multiple firsthand witnesses who while conscious and unimpaired clearly observed aliens either abducting or performing work on the subject ( Ms. Cortile ), and can recall what they observed without the aid of any assisted recall? No. Or am I wrong? Please refer me to the relevant information if I've missed something.

 

[Randall]

Hi Paracast user ufology,

Sean here.

Thank you for your question.

If it's okay with you I'd like to answer your question in a few days from now. This latest paper, particularly the process of
adding each piece of it online over the last day, really took it out of me and I need to unwind for a while. I think the quality
of my answer would be better with the benefit of some rest and sleep.

I hope this is acceptable for you. You ask good questions so I will get back to you.

Thanks for your patience

Sincerely

Sean F. Meers

Hey no problem. But let's just take it in small steps that focus on these core issues rather than all the minutiae. I want to understand why you believe this case is worth devoting so much time to when I just don't see it. What am I missing?

 

[Randall]

Thanks for bearing with me, I hope you find this information helpful.

Thanks for your reply. It's refreshing that you've admitted that there's isn't straight forward proof of an alien abduction. I have to admit as much regarding UFOs, but that doesn't mean there still isn't sufficient reason to believe they're real. What I'm trying to establish here is whether or not the same can be said for this case. So far that seems unlikely, but I'd like to explore this further if you don't mind.

• Cortiles first alien abduction is reported to have been at around: 3:00 A.M. November 30, 1989.
• When and to whom did Cortile first tell her experiences to prior to contacting Hopkins?
• When did Cortile first contact Hopkins?
• How, did Richard, Dan, Yancy, Robert and Kimball find out about Hopkins in order to contact him?
• According to Hopkins, he first received the letter from Kimball in the fall of 1992. Why does the website say November 1991?
• How much time had elapsed between the abduction event and the other witnesses first contact with Hopkins?
• What verifiable evidence is there that de Cuellar ( the VIP ) witnessed the abduction or anything else unusual that night?
• What evidence do you have to show that the document examiner Rainey used was not the expert he claimed to be? BTW I've seen the report by the one you hired, and let's leave Rainey's personal motivations out of it. Why should we believe the guy you hired rather than the one Rainey used?

 

[Randall]

Thanks for your response. They have given rise to a few more issues below:

To my knowledge she did not share them with anyone prior to Hopkins.

A big brilliantly illuminated flying saucer that according to Hopkins wanted to be seen, hovers directly over Cortile's apartment building and abducts her, but she tells nobody else what happened except a UFO abduction researcher? Sorry, but I find this really hard to believe. Perhaps you should consider interviewing ( or re-interviewing ) Cortiles friends, neighbors, associates at the time.

Cortile wrote Hopkins a letter in April 1989, Hopkins received the letter in May 1989.

If Cortiles first alien abduction was on November 30, 1989, why would she write to Hopkins in May ( some 6 months earlier )?

It's not "according to Hopkins", the information you cited is from a video by Carol Rainey, so it's "according to Rainey".

The clip is of Bud Hopkins himself telling the date in his own words. So simply because Rainey made the video is irrelevant. It's possible that Hopkins himself was in error, in which case, to substantiate your alternate date, you would need to produce the original dated and signed letter. Is that available to inspect on your website? It doesn't appear in your link.

There is private evidence from an independent source regarding de Cuellar being the third man ...

None of that answers the question. The question was: What verifiable evidence is there that de Cuellar ( the VIP ) witnessed the abduction or anything else unusual that night? Not whether or not he is the "third man".

Roger Rubin is a Graphologist, not a forensic document examiner. Graphology is a pseudoscience that involves alleging personality traits based on handwriting. Forensic document examination is a legitimate universally acknowledged science about the study, comparison and potential matching of handwriting ...

Fair points. How many times has the lesser experienced but better credentialed Dubedat been proven right or wrong compared to Rubin on these particular kinds of tasks? Who knows? That's probably too much to ask. Personally, I can see the similarities in the video and why it roused suspicion. Under the circumstances, another opinion from an unquestionably neutral third party would be helpful, someone with no knowledge of the case or the previous results.

• Has Cortile ever taken a polygraph test?

 

[Randall]

I appreciate your curiosity and I'll make a few more points below your points to address what you've raised. I would like to encourage you
to examine the information at Linda's website, and if its possible for you I would really recommend getting a second hand copy of the book
Witnessed by Budd Hopkins, I think it would help answer some of your questions ...

First of all, I don't claim one way or another that case is either true or a hoax. I do accept that some aspects of the case are at least partly true, and that there is insufficient information to form a reasonably certain conclusion favoring alien abduction. This is because, I have looked at this case on and off over the years, including through your site and others and videos, and Hopkins' book, and given your feedback so far, there is still no substantial evidence. So I'm still wondering why you take this case so seriously? Let me ask you this: How much of a believer are you in this case? How much do you actually believe is true regardless of the lack of definitive evidence? Why? Are you acting on behalf of Cortile as her agent? What is your motivation?

You appear to be doing your best to keep the facts straight, but there also appears to be some bias ( e.g. offhandedly dismissing the video clip ). Also, I've seen several videos now with Cortile in them, so her refusal to take a polygraph based on your answer is a poor excuse. If she has had the time to attend public book signings and appear in front of cameras, then a polygraph is by comparison far less stressful, I know because I've taken a polygraph myself. The only stress I can imagine is her fear of it coming back not in her favor. Additionally, Walton's polygraph tests aren't relevant to this case, so using Walton as another excuse doesn't work ( not that his case appears any more convincing anyway ). Also your answer regarding the handwriting analysis is dismissive. The psychological aspects of graphology are indeed pseudoscientific, but the handwriting comparison aspect is a separate issue, and given the obvious similarities, it's not reasonable to think a third opinion wouldn't be more definitive. For that matter, an opinion on the similarities between the diagrams should also be obtained. If you were more objective, you'd see that these are entirely reasonable observations and suggestions, so why the angst over them?

 

[Randall]

Hi Paracast user ufology,
I'm not going to argue with you. If you don't care for the case that is fine, it's not my place to try and change your mind.
If you want to know why I do not place any credence in Carol Rainey's videos or her claims it is because, unfortunately,
I know her better than you. I have documented her past lies about the case, I have documented her vulgar and irrational
behaviour towards Budd Hopkins, Linda and myself, and I was witness to her despicable actions against Budd Hopkins in
his final days.
Take care of yourself.
Sincerely
Sean F. Meers

I might even feel the same way myself if I were you, but that doesn't give us license to ignore or change evidence or dismiss valid points. Also, you can't come here and simply expect people to take everything you post at face value. This is a discussion forum, not simply a place for everyone to deliver their accolades. Therefore you should be prepared to back up your statements rather than simply saying, "I'm not going to argue with you". That's not a reasonable response. So please, gather your wits and let's try this again:

What I want to know is why you take this case so seriously? Let me ask you this: How much of a believer are you in this case? In other words, how many of the claims that lack definitive evidence, including the alien abduction do you actually believe is true? Are you acting on behalf of Cortile as her agent? What is your motivation? Perhaps if I understood that better, I would understand this case better because you've made it your specialty.

 

[Randall]

Hmm ... nearly a week and no further response. Curious.

 

[flipper]

Somewhere in this discussion I thought I read something about the death of Budd Hopkins, but I cannot find it. Could someone help ?

 

[Rizla]

Flipper: Shortly after his autobiography appeared, I believe?
USI Calgary: As usual, good questions. And we must indeed be allowed to ask good questions. If the Linda case is physically 100% physical reality, it would have to be the biggest abduction in the history of Ufology, and I can't see it coming down to disputes over these bits of evidence, or Rainey's personal peccadilloes. I found Rainey's film hard to ignore. I don't know any of these people personally, but Rainey seemed to be someone who went along for the ride of a very odd experience and was trying to figure it out. No axe to grind here but like you said, putting energy into this case is a hard sell for many recovering ufologists these days.

 

[Rizla]

A big brilliantly illuminated flying saucer that according to Hopkins wanted to be seen, hovers directly over Cortile's apartment building and abducts her, but she tells nobody else what happened except a UFO abduction researcher? Sorry, but I find this really hard to believe. Perhaps you should consider interviewing ( or re-interviewing ) Cortiles friends, neighbors, associates at the time.

You know, somebody apparently looked into this back in the day. Sorry if someone already posted this:

A Critique of Budd Hopkins' Case of the UFO Abduction of Linda...

" We found that Linda's apartment complex has a large courtyard with guard house manned 24 hours a day. We talked with the security guard and his supervisor and asked if they had ever heard about a UFO encounter near the complex. They reported hearing nothing about one. We also asked if the police routinely enter the complex and undertake door-to-door canvassing in order to find witnesses to crimes. They said that this was a very rare practice. We obtained the name and phone number of the apartment manager and called him a few days later. He reported knowing nothing about the UFO sighting, nor had he heard anything about it from any of the approximately 1600 residents in the complex.
[....]
We inquired if Hopkins had asked the guards of the apartment complex whether they had seen the UFO. He indicated that he had not done so. This is quite surprising, considering that the UFO was so bright that the woman on the bridge had to shield her eyes from it even though she was more than a quarter mile distant. One would have thought that Hopkins would have made inquiries of the guards considering the spectacular nature of the event."

Interesting article I missed at the time.

 

[Randall]

Hello forum,

Sean here.

Before I begin I would like to say thank you to Gene Steinberg for the opportunity to present the updates to Linda's website here over the years. It's been very interesting for me to see how people interpret and react to the evidence and data, and the support has been heartwarming for both Linda and myself.

One of the most curious claims I've ever heard, and I've heard the claim before, is that documented, fully referenced, Prima facie facts mean nothing unless a researcher spends time arguing, ad nauseum, with individuals unable to acknowledge what is clearly evidenced by the data ...

Since Sean says he's not going to be posting here anymore, I guess I'll have to refer to him indirectly. Too bad. I really wanted to understand why he so invested in this particular case. Now it seems that after only a few probing questions he's running off calling anyone who does that someone who is "arguing ad nauseum" and "unable to acknowledge what is clearly evidenced by the data." I guess the fact that I pointed out that Hopkins had given a completely different date than Sean had, thereby showing a discrepancy in the so-called "data", and pointed out that his refusal to accept it simply because it was in Rainey's video seemed biased, didn't go over well with him. Certainly no-thanks there for pointing out that it was either his data or Hopkins who either didn't remember things clearly, or were just plain wrong. Sean decided it must be Hopkins who was wrong, but never provided the evidence "data" that was asked for to back that up.

I'm not Linda's agent. I believe in the evidence of her case. My motivations are to research her case and better understand it, as well as to defend her from demonstrably false claims attacking her and her case. The case is my specialty because it is important and next to no one else on this earth has lifted a finger to get to the bottom of it.

OK so Meers isn't Linda's agent. Exactly what arrangement does he have with her I wonder? He seems to be able to contact her in person. I wonder if any informal arrangements have been made to share in any residual profits from future books or movies? Maybe he's more of a business partner than an agent. I guess we'll never find out. Also simply stating that he believes in her case doesn't explain why he's so enamored with it. The motivation to protect Cortile from false claims seems noble, but also less to do with alien abduction and more to do with something personal. And how is "getting to the bottom of it" going to happen by running away from people who are helping him look at the case more objectively and analytically. I've certainly not attacked him here, I just made clear that this is a discussion forum and not just a place of worship for the Cortile case. So off he goes. How does that help add any credibility to his case?

Definitive evidence and definitive proof are two different things. Is an alien abduction definitively proven to have occurred in regards to Linda's case, absolutely not.

OK.

Is there enough definitive evidence to pay it credence as something that probably occurred, yes there is.

Something may have occurred. The question is what? I've read the book, been through Meers' website, watched videos, and considered all points of view, and alien abduction isn't on the list of "definitive evidence", yet Meers doesn't want to take any more time to explain exactly why he thinks it is despite the facts to the contrary. He just reiterates all the same stuff we've already been through as if it somehow reinforces his position.

I want to say that I wish everyone here at the Paracast forum, pro, con, on the fence, the very best for each and every one of their futures.

It has been a pleasure.

Signing off for the last time.

Sean F. Meers

Ya sure, sayonara. Good luck on your quest ( not that Meers is actually reading this ). So ends ( it seems ) one long promo for the Linda Cortile website.

 

[Rikki]

I wish you luck sir I will continue to email you privately and continue the fellowship I begain with Linda.
take care
Victoria Watson
Rikki

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Since Sean says he's not going to be posting here anymore, I guess I'll have to refer to him indirectly. Too bad. I really wanted to understand why he so invested in this particular case. Now it seems that after only a few probing questions he's running off calling anyone who does that someone who is "arguing ad nauseum" and "unable to acknowledge what is clearly evidenced by the data." I guess the fact that I pointed out that Hopkins had given a completely different date than Sean had, thereby showing a discrepancy in the so-called "data", and pointed out that his refusal to accept it simply because it was in Rainey's video seemed biased, didn't go over well with him. Certainly no-thanks there for pointing out that it was either his data or Hopkins who either didn't remember things clearly, or were just plain wrong. Sean decided it must be Hopkins who was wrong, but never provided the evidence "data" that was asked for to back that up.

OK so Meers isn't Linda's agent. Exactly what arrangement does he have with her I wonder? He seems to be able to contact her in person. I wonder if any informal arrangements have been made to share in any residual profits from future books or movies? Maybe he's more of a business partner than an agent. I guess we'll never find out. Also simply stating that he believes in her case doesn't explain why he's so enamored with it. The motivation to protect Cortile from false claims seems noble, but also less to do with alien abduction and more to do with something personal. And how is "getting to the bottom of it" going to happen by running away from people who are helping him look at the case more objectively and analytically. I've certainly not attacked him here, I just made clear that this is a discussion forum and not just a place of worship for the Cortile case. So off he goes. How does that help add any credibility to his case?

OK.

Something may have occurred. The question is what? I've read the book, been through Meers' website, watched videos, and considered all points of view, and alien abduction isn't on the list of "definitive evidence", yet Meers doesn't want to take any more time to explain exactly why he thinks it is despite the facts to the contrary. He just reiterates all the same stuff we've already been through as if it somehow reinforces his position.

Ya sure, sayonara. Good luck on your quest ( not that Meers is actually reading this ). So ends ( it seems ) one long promo for the Linda Cortile website.

So we don't get too far afield here, I do not think Meers is doing this for any reason other than his own personal belief in the case, and his desire to help get the information out. Period.

 

[flipper]

Flipper: Shortly after his autobiography appeared, I believe?
USI Calgary: As usual, good questions. And we must indeed be allowed to ask good questions. If the Linda case is physically 100% physical reality, it would have to be the biggest abduction in the history of Ufology, and I can't see it coming down to disputes over these bits of evidence, or Rainey's personal peccadilloes. I found Rainey's film hard to ignore. I don't know any of these people personally, but Rainey seemed to be someone who went along for the ride of a very odd experience and was trying to figure it out. No axe to grind here but like you said, putting energy into this case is a hard sell for many recovering ufologists these days.

Thank you for the reply

 

[Randall]

So we don't get too far afield here, I do not think Meers is doing this for any reason other than his own personal belief in the case, and his desire to help get the information out. Period.

So what are you saying? We're supposed to take everything he says here at face value? Besides, if what you're saying is true, what happened to "separating the signal from the noise"? That process is supposed to give us reasons to believe ... correct? But it seems Meers prefers a forum full of blind followers. And what's this "Signing off for the last time" bit? Are we really supposed to believe it's because he's just so busy now he'll never have time to come back? Please . This was an obvious reaction to being asked for some clarification on some key points that he just doesn't want to discuss or provide evidence for.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Feel free to question the evidence. But his motives seem pure.

 

[Randall]

Feel free to question the evidence. But his motives seem pure.

I tend to agree, which is why I was so interested in knowing what his motivation is. Presumably, someone who is as polite, well spoken, and seemingly sincere as Meers, should also have good reasons for believing in and pursuing this case to extent that he has. But like I said, I don't see the depth of evidence needed to substantiate that belief, so I was simply trying to get to the bottom of that. Perhaps if he had been able to explain that, then it would help the rest of us understand as well.