is there evidence for alien abductions etc.?

Hi and Welcome....
hah...if it were true that aiens have some kind of galactic communal agreement not to
affect A spcies natrual development, its ironic that at te other end of the spectrum--tyhe powers_that_BE do the exact opposiye. ie., THWARTS deliberately our freedoms!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nighteyes, by Garfield Reeves-Stevens

• Cortile was abducted into a UFO hovering over her high-rise apartment building in New York City, so was Sarah,a character in the book.
• Dan and Richard initially claimed to have been on a stakeout and were involved in a UFO abduction in during early morning hours; so were, Derek and Merril, the two government agents in the book.
• Linda was kidnapped and thrown into a car by Richard and Dan; Wendy in the book was similarly kidnapped by Derek and Merril.
• Linda claimed to have been under surveillance by someone in a van; vans were used for surveillance in the book.
• Dan was hospitalized for emotional trauma as was one of the government agents in the book.
• During the kidnapping Dan took Linda to a safe house on the beach; during the kidnapping Derek took Wendy to a safe house, also on the beach.
• Budd Hopkins is a prominent UFO abduction researcher living in New York City and an author who has written books on the topic; he is mirrored in the book by a character called Charles Edward Starr.
• Before her kidnapping, Linda contacted Budd Hopkins about her abduction; like Wendy in the book.
• Linda and Dan had sometimes been abducted at the same time and communicated with each other during their abduction; Wendy and Derek shared the same experiences in the book.
• Dan expressed a romantic interest in Linda; Derek became romantically involved with Wendy in the book.
• Photographs of Linda were taken on the beach and sent to Hopkins; In the book, photographs taken on a beach played a central role.

the number of similarities rule out coincidence. there are other irregularities.....witnesses coming forward well after the alleged event. even as late as 2003......

In a recent French magazine, La Gazette Forteenne, Issue # 2, 2003, Linda gives an interview that does add some new facts about her case. She mentions a new witness, a New York Post truck driver, who saw the abduction from the Brooklyn Bridge. No name is given

fucking ludicrous. i feel sorry for hopkins. he got played by pros

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

he got griiiifted?...oh myyyygaaaaawd!!




....spoonfeed me a little? what date was the 'abduction', and when was book published?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

you gotta calm the fuck down
trust me
it helps

*Nighteyes (Doubleday Foundation 0-385-24755-9, Apr ’89 [Mar ’89], $18.95, 452pp, hc) Sf/horror novel about UFOs and alien abductions

the book's date of publication

*In April 1989, Hopkins received a letter from Linda Napolitano, a resident of New York City. Linda wrote that she had begun reading his book Intruders and had remembered that 13 years earlier she had detected a bump next to her nose. It was examined by a physician who insisted that she had undergone nasal surgery. Linda claimed that she never had such surgery, and she even checked with her mother, who confirmed that impression. stefula butler hansen

now if she claimed that the the bump was an alien implant that occured during an abduction, that would put an intial contact sometime in 1976

*She recalled some pertinent earlier events in her life but believed that she was no longer directly involved with any abduction phenomena. stefula butler hansen

the wording indicates there was some contact with aliens prior to 1989

*On November 30, 1989, Linda called Hopkins and reported that she had been abducted during the early morning hours of that day, and she provided some details. stefula butler hansen

a subsequent abduction. this is the event that had been investigated by hopkins and to which there are allleged witnesses.

she thus had about 7 months to flesh out her story incorporating aspects from garfield reeves-stevens's book

please realize this is all conjecture on my part.
however i feel it is quite reasonable.
while i cannot dispute that something might have occurred in the alleged 1976 encounter, the rest is an obvious fraud

 

well done!!!....it looks decidedly dodgy. am surprised at Bud's gullibility, but we are all human

on the docu. i have been talkin about i have seen Bud for the first time. he looks harmless enough. he is showing photos of abductees who have 'scoop-out scars'--claiming that skeptics have not even bothered searching these out......

is this T R UE skeptics in the house?

that Linda Napolianto is a no good bitCH...i hate hoaxers

btw, you seem to say you conjecture. is there still some doubt you might be wrong..?

 

the "conjecture" works as a disclaimer
i doubt however if i am mistaken
yet i would like to read first hand, the sources from which stefula butler hansen use for thier analysis

 

i am just giving the guy the benefit of the doubt. he could very well have been a player

 

Gustav,

That was an excellent find, my man. I must say, nice detective work! I had no idea, and never would have thought to look in that medium.

JD

 

i find it fucking absurd that meanwhile deleted his posts.
disrupting the flow of a thread and distorting the historical record is not the done thing

 

excellent
another wannabe player
the presumption is that i am being referenced
so...
what was the nature and circumstance of this alleged insult?

 

pardon, but i did no such thing. i merely followed up on a link, read the contents and reported the findings of stefula, butler and hansen back here.

they deserve the credit
not i

 

I have no idea. I did not report you.

My post was in response to duendy's comments that to report someone was "fukin pathetic". I disagreed.

I'm a 'wannabe player'? Cool.

 

i would like to speak directly with Bud Hopkins about it

 

Supernovae are being repeated all the time. If only a single supernova had been observed it is doubtful any cogent theory would have yet been derived to explain them. We now have detailed examinations of many supernovae across the electromagnetic spectrum and across wide time ranges. I am requiring the same meticulous observations for alien abductions to produce something conistent. What they have produced is a pretty consistent explanation in terms of brain/mental characteristics, with no aliens in sight, or on site; merely, inside.

 

.....so it is YOUR side who must accomadate yourself to suit the existing evidence. not the other way round which is convenient denial through the continuous demand for evidence whic matches your criteria de imPASSE...!

 

the sheer gall of this statement is breathtaking. it is so obvious that you had not even bothered to research the case utilizing material that is easily retrieved from the net. if you had and were honest in your attempt to resolve the discrepancies and present the controversies here, you would have inevitably reached a similar conclusion

i thus cannot give you even the barest modicum of credibilty with regards to your statement. you may have intent but will not take any practical steps to meet up with hopkins. i am quite sure of this.

now
what is your role in the nyc abduction?
are you complicit in an effort to futher perpetuate this hoax
here in sciforums?

what say you?

 

pardon
i stand corrected and feel stupid. perhaps i was insisting the event be reproduced in a lab setting.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

wht say i? i say: Gustav, dont get yer knickers in a twist

you see....i admit it, tough i never contradicted myself actually.....words can be tough. its hrd enoug most times wondering what a person is meaning face to face....
OK, what i mean by wanting to speak directly with Bud is NOT i am questioning yer detective work, but thati would like to observe his reponse to your evidence.....you say you are in two minds. one says he could be gullible regarding that case, and two, he is an actual player himself. have you decided which mind your in, or are yo not sure?

 

i am quite content not to bash my head against a brick wall. remember he has written a book on this. he will toe the line laid out in it. you will never get anything from him that will contradict his crap. screw hopkins. i am thru with him.

next case

 

i feel that a bit harsh. he seems right about the 'scoop marks'.....whatis it about what you have found out that makes you totally reject Bud Hopkins now? after all you also didn't answer myquestion of whether yo think he was duped or a player....?