posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 12:09 AM
Hello, Isaac and thanks for your help. I will try to answer your comments/questions in brief.
No, this gentleman has never told his story before. Further, he actually has not yet addressed his rationale beyond unwanted criticism and his belief
that it wasn't important enough to him personally to invite the attention. Personally, I will likely question this particular motive as I know very
few teenagers the age he was when this event occurred who would not revel in a spotlight.
The "exclusive rights" also is somewhat mystifying to me as well. I most certainly am no one special, famous, and haven't been published since my
college years (we were still using cave drawings back then). The closest I can come to understanding this concern myself is this: the gentleman rides
a wheelchair to and from the merchants in town and I was just the closest, quickest, and easiest to get to. I admit it sounds beyond fortuitous, but
if true I definitely won't complain about a bit of good luck.
In my professional career (hospice), I am accustomed to extremely thorough reports and documentation. I have always thought my wife could write 10
books a day just by recording all of the talking she does, and the truth is that with complete and appropriate research multiple volumes could be
written on one witness. Of course, what sets this apart is the potential that he could be one-of-a-kind, and any documentation would have to address
his background, his reputation, his family, viability of his assertions, verification of same, transcripts, and much more. The trick, thus the reason
for my initial inquiry about the possibility of writing a book, is how to keep it interesting and if the public would have a deep enough appetite for
his story. I do have answers for some of your questions, and I would most certainly want to see if they can be substantiated.
Sort of good news is that I would expect to come out quite well when others begin to look into my own background and personal reputation. I have spent
many years working in the public for hospice as both a business owner and a patient advocate. The statement I made regarding "discernment" is based
on a successful career in hiring, firing, advocacy (as mentioned above), the necessity to be politically involved, the tendency for the politicians I
had to work with to not tell the entire truth, a great deal of moderating between the minimum of two sides to every story whenever hard decisions had
to be made, and more. I have been accused of everything from a saint to any type of sinner you can imagine, but con man would be new. There are many
individuals of high character in my community whom I am more than certain would readily vouch for my intentions, morals, and ethics. One more
thought: as a businessman in the hospice industry, I must also concern myself with how much I have to lose. Credibility is crucial for my work, and we
all know that a large portion of the public has a pretty negative viewpoint of those involved in this type of research.
I agree that caution is extremely important. You are absolutely correct in advising that audio and video recording would be mandatory. This approach
would also help others in making their own determinations regarding what they choose to believe and not believe. You mentioned that many will not
believe him, and truthfully he would be an easy target for naysayers and skeptics. Frankly, I have not yet decided whether or not I believe him
entirely myself. What I am prepared to say, is I believe he believes it. If done correctly, any documentation would by necessity have to be completely
objective. On that front, I think I would be a very good candidate for authoring his story as I worry that those who have too much invested in their
reputation, either yea or nay, could quickly skew the record irrevocably in one direction or another. It would be my intention to offer facts as
related, a substantive due diligence, and if I have any opinions, they will be expressly described as such.It would be a shame to see the gentleman
"roasted", and this seems to lend additional credibility to his claims. At his age, he says he only wants to tell his story before it is too late,
and his health is overtly failing. In other words, it would seem he would be much safer and probably better off if he did not invite the onslaught of
scrutiny upon himself and his family at his age and position in life.
As for his "existence", this is quickly and undeniably established. Again, if anything, I fear for the intense scrutiny he will be inviting on
himself. This does lead to a new consideration, however. In good conscience, would you agree that it would be important that I make absolutely certain
he understands exactly what that means? There is always the chance no one would notice, I turn out to be such a poor writer or researcher his story
never gets published, no one is interested for various and sundry reasons and he lives his life out as before. But if he does garner a great deal of
attention, would I not have a moral imperative to try and establish some support mechanism for him and/or his family in advance? At least aggressively
warn them of the potential for all the negative attention?
Incredible claims, incredible evidence. That's the thing in a nutshell. If there is nothing to report, I definitely cannot invest in presenting it.
If it appears he has enough to say and something to support it, I would also hate to sit on that information. Wouldn't you?
Thank you for the stimulating notes. I will do my best to remember your input and do us all at ATS proud if there is something to it.
Best Regards to You And Yours,
---Sam