Messages

[kevin]

Perhaps people transmute after been given MESSAGES by the visitors into similer looking beings?
Maybe thats why I first thought of Elizabeth Rauscher when seeing Linda?
Kevin

[DavidG]

One in the same, Kevin? Similarities are there.....Hollywood has a way of making Billy Bob Thornton look like a retarded man or a cool character....one might never see the similarities in the two...the CIA has a way of using similar appearing shills for multiple purposes as well Id guess.

Is Linda Spiderman?

[Fruitbat]

Little Enki, that's a very important question.
But it's not just Linda who should be the subject really is it?

Couldn't any or all of us have a bit of webbiness about us?
Don't you ever feel just a bit a bit scuttly from time to time?
I know I sometimes feel the urge to shoot my wad into the darkness..

FB!

[wags]

Little Enki, that's a very important question.
But it's not just Linda who should be the subject really is it?

Couldn't any or all of us have a bit of webbiness about us?
Don't you ever feel just a bit a bit scuttly from time to time?
I know I sometimes feel the urge to shoot my wad into the darkness..

FB!

Little Enki has not posed a question on this thread or am I missing something?

[DavidG]

Yes Wags, Steve left it off of his quote of my last reply though...the posit was...Is Linda Spiderman?, which has a multitude of meanings in the metaphoric arena.

Mysterious, multiple personas, spinning of a complex web, and able to draw in folks, for a while, and then watch the strong ones escape that web after some expulsion of energy.

I once thought she wanted to help, but as a spider does, she lures you with a shiny bait, then traps you....and while youre trapped, you still feel there is a chance you might get to see that elusive shiny "volume of information" she dangles so precipitously out of reach of those who wish to do good with it.

Nowadays, I just meditate on TT Brown, his work, his love for water and swimming and the things which that approach to he and I's unusual friendship bring to heart and mind..it has been uber fulfilling in the grand scheme of things, no daughter needed to sustain that friendship.

Sounds corny, but thats OK...

[wags]

Thanks DavidG,

Curiously I did not think that Linda was likely to have provided anymore information than had already been disclosed. I suppose this was because her relationship was not a professional one with her Dad. I grew up with a relation who is a leading researcher into Lancaster Bombers and I know bits but nothing of any use to an aircraft / social history enthusiast

[DavidG]

Indeed so true..my father retired from industrial insulation contracting and I had no interest in achieving the level of expertise he has..as it meant great heaps of itchiness as a side effect to get to that point..we are content discussing fish and boat motors!

Cheers!

[wags]

Okay this deserves a reply:-

Postby Linda Brown » Mon Jul 28, 2014 11:33 am

Said recently on the HUT

"Curiously I did not think that Linda was likely to have provided anymore information than had already been disclosed. I suppose this was because her relationship was not a professional one with her Dad. I grew up with a relation who is a leading researcher into Lancaster Bombers and I know bits but nothing of any use to an aircraft / social history enthusiast.

Yes, it is curious that now.... after being on the HUT for a particular length of time ... you have decided that there is nothing of real value that Linda Brown has to offer the public.

Well I think you may be attempting to read more into this:

Just because I do not believe you had additional scientific information does not translate as meaning you have nothing to offer the public. You are you and your dad is your dad. they are separate minds.

Your sense of history is waning I think, replaced by anothers poisonous agenda.

You discount all of the information that has flowed from me to the outside public... for years. All the archival material that most of those on the Internet have seen during that time has flowed directly from my Dads files, through my hands... to all of those who have written countless books...( and that includes Paul Schatzkins rather feeble attempt to finish what could have been a fine piece of work... if he had stuck with it.) I have been instrumental in providing quality,detailed ( and verifiable) information.

No I have taken that into account, I believe that given how long you have been promoting your father that all papers would have been released. My statement does not invalidate your input into the public square.

In relation to 'Biographers', editorial matters are the preserve of the author and the concept of checking facts is the responsibility of the author as they are legally and professionally accountable. It is my understanding that this was where the project foundered. This is of course only an opinion based upon the information available to me. Saying you were ready to provide verifiable information but that is your perception, the author's perception is more important as he has to satisfy him/herself that the book contains no errors.

[wags]

Linda has just misunderstood the concept of editorial control. It is up to the author/editor to define what constitutes 'validation' and 'verification'. You and the author perception of adequate checking differs.

Why he would publish a 'unfinished' manuscript is not a question I can possibly speculate on as I do not know him or have read why. It is an irrelevant question as far as I am concerned as I have no need to clutter my mind with trivia.

[DavidG]

I think theres many here who could sympathize with why Paul didnt finish his book...why he published it...thats another story only he can answer.

How can an author do due diligence and gain credibility if he is not afforded the entire story, and kept from certain bits of information to shore up specific parts of the book which could have been made better and more accurate if fully divulged?

Was Paul to write his book without the whole story?

Was he to make himself look a pee poor author by releasing a book, that if Linda later released more info which could clash with what he wrote, he would look even more a fool?

Should he have kept back the enormous amount of effort he did put in, and lose all those days of work for naught?

In my opinion, he did the right thing, by releasing it as unfinished, exposing the apathy towards his complete and full goal of telling the entire story about Brown for all to see......Paul, if you ever read this, you were 100% correct in your decision sir.

I have learned after reading the book he released that this entire charade by Linda is for her own egomaniacal furtherment, and nothing more.

I have also learned, there are those who will be ensnared in the web without escape and will always stand by her side, so she will always have a following of those who wait and hope for more to surface regarding Browns legacy and work......but as I said before....I have a special connection with him, although it sounds strange, which enables me to see the forest through the webs of deception....and I heartily thank who or whatever it is that affords me that treasure of friendship with someone who I never got to meet.

Ok, enough ethereal babble....Cheers to all....

Dave