I was binge-reading the subject of UFOs and I eventually got around to the books of Whitley Strieber.
When I binge read, I completely read one book after another. There may have been 15-20 books in the stack, and that’s why I call it a binge. I had grouped Whitley’s books together, so that after Communion I immediately read Transformation, and after Transformation I immediately read Breakthrough.
I mention this because this pattern may be responsible for what I found; a small detail of Communion was still fresh in my mind when I met what should have been the same detail in Breakthrough.
That detail consisted of a single incident described twice, eight years apart. The incident should have been described very much the same. It was not. We should at least expect that the stories do not contradict each other. But they do.
From the 1987 hardback edition of Communion, beginning on page 226, Whitley writes:
Now here is the part you’ll want to pay attention to. Right after the last sentence in the above quote Whitley writes:
The ostensible reason for Whitley to interview Sarbacher was the doctor’s letter to Steinman, the direct implication being that Whitley could not have interviewed Sarbacher because Whitley only became aware of Sarbacher through that letter, and by the time Whitley became aware of that letter, Sarbacher was already dead.
Fortunately, we don’t have to interpret the meaning. Whitley makes any other meaning impossible on the next page, 228:
Clearly, if Sarbacher died in July of 1986, and Whitley first became aware of both him and his letter in August of 1986, there was no way Whitley could have interviewed Sarbacher without the help of a medium.
Now let’s move forward to Breakthrough. From the 1995 hardback edition, page 248, Whitley writes:
Whoah horsey. And further on down the same page:
If Whitley had bothered to reread the relevant sections of Communion, he would have seen that this is not an issue of publishing “only quotes” from a letter, but an issue of later telling a different story that cannot be made consistent with the earlier version of the same story he told. They cannot both be true. One of the stories Whitley told was confabulated.
Does Whitley have notes made at the time to back up the enhanced version of the incident in question? No. The beginning of the last sentence in the above quote leads into this:
And there’s more. The Communion version is mundane. It’s just about Whitley discovering Sarbacher’s letter to Steinman, and Whitley talking to Greenwood about him, but the version told in Breakthrough has the cloak and dagger drama of an X Files episode. Here is a longer clip of the section in which the above quotes appear:
Now that’s a story!
Communion: Whitley discovers the deceased doctor’s letter and is therefore unable to interview him.
Breakthrough: Whitley searches out Sarbacher and speaks to him over the phone. The doctor recounts an amazing story involving fantastic material of implied non-human origin from which reverse engineered technology was making its way into defense contracting. Whitley sends Sarbacher a package. Days after having contacted Sarbacher and having been told this highly classified information, Whitley’s phone rings. It’s UPS with unexpected news. The UPS driver, package in hand for delivery, was told that Sarbacher had fallen out of a boat and drowned.
Coincidence? Or was MIB faster than UPS?
FADE TO BLACK
So which Whitley Strieber to believe?
Even granting that some inexplicable things have happened to Whitley, as it is reasonable and I am willing to do, they have happened to a man who confabulates. And so that I am not accused of charging Whitley with lying, or some other form of outright deception, here is a useful definition of what it means to confabulate:
"(v) confabulate (unconsciously replace fact with fantasy in one’s memory)"
And given that Whitley confabulates, how can anyone reliably sift fact from fantasy in his stories?
I agree there is a bid differnce in what he is saying. He could have mixed up dates of bad editing but I will e-mail him and find out.
Joe Capp
UFO Media Matters Post: “The Day After Stephenville”
None of “them”.
Interesting. Thanks for catching that, and I wonder if Whitley will address it? Have you sent this link to him?
Since Sarbacher is dead, and Strieber has published two diametrically opposed or contradictory stories, it would seem that the remaining source of possibly being able to parse this question would depend on what Barry Greenwood is able to recall of this contact by Strieber with him.
I’ve just sent an email to Greenwood with this informational link. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, Greenwood has to say about this matter. If he gives permission, and has an opinion or recalls the particulars of this contradiction in Strieber’s writings, I will note the details here.
Better yet, it would most appropriate for Greenwood to make his own comment here if he can help sort out this matter.
———————————–
My personal conjecture is that Strieber either confabulated (a form of delusion) or lied (a form of intentional deception) the account in the latter book, “Breakthrough.”
Either way, this is quite significant as an example or case of how accurate or honest Strieber has been with his readers. It does not look good.
Which Whitley Strieber to believe?
Check out page 652. That’s the Whitley Strieber who dodged bullets in Bosnia while touring with first lady, Hillary Clinton.
I did send Whitley the link.
If I were to venture a hypothesis, it would be this: Whitley is co-opting the experiences of others and then remembering them as his own, sketching in a detail here and there to make the fit complete.
The fantasy element then is not the little goldmine of information Dr. Sarbacher provided, which remains a powerful piece of independent testimony to me, but Whitley’s integration of the Sarbacher data‚Äî‚Äîwhether it is from Sarbacher’s letter or Whitley’s interview with Greenwood about Sarbacher‚Äî‚Äîinto what I think are false memories about events he believes really happened to him, but which did not.
The question is, how many times has Whitley done this without leaving behind contradictory evidence that tells people this is being done?
If you read a lot of Whitley, and I have read all of his books, I think, you find quite a few inconsistencies in his overall vision. That is, it’s very hard to put it all together and get a cohesive whole out of it, without some glaring contradictions. The unfortunate conclusion I’ve come to, as much as I’d like to literally believe the stuff he’s written, is that he’s still writing fiction.
I just wrote a long piece on WS that may be of interest to you called “Will the Real Whitley Strieber Stand Up?” regarding the troubling inconsistency of his work
it’s at: http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=16642
also this, “Carlos Castaneda, Whitley Strieber, and the Perils of the Literary Shaman”
http://dreamsend2.freeforums.org/carlos-castaneda-the-pitfalls-of-power-or-what-is-truth-t304.html
I’ve just posted a quite lengthy comment on Mac Tonnies’ www.posthumanblues.blogspot.com site, and if you’re interested in Barry Greenwood’s input, the Sarbacher-Steinman letter, and other granular details of this little controvery, you might want to check it out. It’s way too long to post here as a comment, so if you want to see my take on the matter, go
take a look. Comment 7.
When Whitley wrote in Breakthrough that he published “only quotes” from Sarbacher’s letter, that is factually untrue.
He did more than publish “only quotes,” he voluntarily said he did not know of Sarbacher or of Sarbacher’s letter to Greenwood before Sarbacher died.
If the Breakthrough version is true, he knew this at the time he was writing Communion, which makes the version he told in Communion a lie.
Now note the cover art of Communion; it says: Communion, A True Story, by Whitley Strieber. It does not say A Mostly True Story, or A Story With Some Truth In It——it says A True Story.
But there’s still a problem with this scenario. Why would a lie be necessary?
It has been suggested that concern for Sarbacher’s safety motivated the lie. A good noble reason to lie, that is.
But that doesn’t make sense either.
Sarbacher died before Communion was published. Indeed, since it would have been impossible for Whitley to have written factually about Sarbacher’s death before Sarbacher was dead, then Sarbacher died even before Whitley wrote or finished the chapter of Communion in which he writes about Sarbacher, Sarbacher’s letter, and Sarbacher’s death.
So whose life would that hypothetical lie have been written to protect? The deceased Sarbacher’s life?
In addition, it seems to me from the Breakthrough version that Whitley is misremembering what he wrote in Communion. He seems to think he published ‚Äúonly quotes‚Äù from Sarbacher‚Äôs letter. As we have already seen, that is not true. He said much more than that. But if he really thinks that’s all he wrote, then he is misremembering.
For these reasons, I think the Communion version is the true version, and that the Breakthrough version is a confabulation. If he didn’t confabulate the later story, then he lied about the earlier one. But I think the confabulation theory is the more coherent of the two, for the reasons given.
Communion was the very first book I ever read on the subject of UFO/ETIs. While far from an enthralling read, i have this book in part to thank which sent my life in a downward spiral of awareness. The concepts put forth helped jumpstart the rest of my life down the rabbit hole and the ongoing horrible addiction to the red pill which places one into an overwhelming state of hyper awareness. Of course at this point, one finds in their quest for the truth, that the TRUTH is elusive as ever. THUS, this situation with the 2 books should come as no suprise to anyone who’s been interested in the subject for some time.
It’s rather worthless to debate or conclude anything at this point, but two things to consider and not to let him off the hook but so people psee a bit deeper and have compassion or at least consider a bit more outside the box than even a nuts and bolts UFO buff might:
1. Whitley Strieber is a LIKELY victim of black mail and/or mind control, a whole confusion unto itself. Mind control at the hands of our gov/CIA or even the illuminati AND/OR those pesky “grey’s” as are so many other people whoa hold positions of influence. The general public are completely obvlivious to this fact. Yes I boldly say fact (if you doubt this, start researching MK-Ultra and view Clintons public admission to thousands of covert Mind Control experimentations). Thus, with that in MIND, as a theory, the contradiction in the 2 books could have been introduced unconciously/wittingly via a “mind control” mechanism which would involve utilizing a programmed “ALT” personality (Whitley has always appeared/sounded to be as if in a trance to me). As a result we now have more reason for plausible denial for his info.
2. Ever since 911 and the world entered into the twisted new reality I disaffectionately refer to as “Bushzarrow World.” The timeline we now exist in FEELS to me like an altered one, bear with me, from our ORIGINAL line. Compared to the hopeful years of the 80s and 90s up to just a year prior to Bush’s 1st year in office. But because the time manipulation was a rushed and of course, compartmentalized, job/ploy, obviously, it didn’t go quite as smoothly as was “hoped”, so bits and pieces of the original timeline find their way into this new wacki modern mystickal corporate quasi-neo-fascism. I hate to say it but that’s not as toungue in cheek as I wish it were. Whether it applies here or not, I suggest everyone strongly consider that timelines have been manipulated via technology that the government has had for decades combined with the dark motivations and use of sorcery (Start with the Montaulk Project/Project Phoenix for some insight into time manipulation, and Bohemian Grove for a jumpstart into the occult reality of our ruling elite).
Again, that doesn’t mean what happened in this case is a result of any of what I’m putting forth. But hey! It’s food for thought. For those addicted to occamz’s razor (sp?), I say this… at this point in history, that rule can’t apply when everything is overcomplicated by the massively teetering tower of babel of LIES.
Streiber has had his critics from the beginning (Similarly, Art Bell who’s featured him for years on his show,
has questionable ties with freemasonry). I remember 93/94 ish on the alt/alien/visitors newsgroups he was facing credibility issues. In fact, I could swear this specific issue was addressed years ago on those newsgroups, but of course, that was before 911 and the ushering in of Bushzarrow World, thus, the timeline, it’s fockered.
I’ve just added a couple new comments and details at www.posthumanblues.blogspot.com about the controversy
noted here. I would also add that Aeolus Kephas insights and quality of written expression in the two
pieces of his noted above are really quite excellent. Congrats, Aeolus! Do you live in Afghanistan?
DMD–As I noted in an appended note to my most recent lengthy comments, if you want to cross-post here
any of my comments at PHB on the Strieber-Sarbacher / Communion vs. Breakthrough matter you initiated,
either in full or relevant excerpts, please feel free to do so. See my comments 11 and 12 from PHB.
Since DM Duncan here said it would be OK, I’m cross-posting further datum on the Strieber-Sarbacher issues here;
I’ve included a little feeback by Justin and Carol Maltby in addition, which I hope is OK with you, DMD, and them.
If not, delete it–this further, newer stuff comes from www.posthumanblues.blogspot.com comment section on the
topic noted here, and which Mac Tonnies had posted a link from on his blog to DMD’s initial breaking of this story.
Anyone heard anything from Whitley Strieber, as yet, DMD? I’m betting he will not “lower” himself to enter the “fray”
here. Too bad, for him and us. There should be a genuine dialogue about this kind of stuff between the creator(s) of it,
and the people interested in and subjected to it, especially when such data is found to be both wanting and poorly documented in a normal, second-sourced, manner–just good investigatory, forensic, and journalistic practices and
priniciples, IMHO. —Rorschach… [Oh, and DMD, et al–Just who WERE (are?) the Boskops? Interesting discussion there…
From the comments section on the Strieber-Sarbacher/ Communion vs Breakthrough descriptions, I found the following two articles noted and written by Aeolus Kephas, from Afghanistan, of all places, about Whitley Strieber that are of relevant interest:
http://tinyurl.com/3956og
http://tinyurl.com/2jj878
Aeolus, in the second article noted above, has some very intriguing, sophisticated insights into the both Strieber, the topic of the first link primarily, and in the second, also discusses Carlos Castaneda, who for years claimed don Juan was a real, living shaman, but later finally admitted he was an amalgam of brujos he had met and talked to, not a real person at all.
Aeolus discusses the portrayal and presentation by these authors of their work as fact, and the issues raised when they are found to be confabulation, fabrication, hoax, and/or just false in that they are fictions, not non-fiction.
Check it out; he touches on issues in ways I don’t think I ever considered as deeply or could write about nearly as well. Really well expressed stuff–good writing.
6:08 AM
rorschach said…
In lieu of a response from Whitley, since DMD sent him the link to the relevant page on his site a few days ago, and has yet to hear from him, I just thought I’d note the following:
“I will not stand for being called a charlatan when I have striven so hard over these long, hard years to tell the truth no matter what. And I don’t think a single other witness will sit still, either.”
–Whitley Strieber, March 2, 2008
(from his most recent journal entry;
see: www.unknowncountry.com/journal/)
This was from a journal entry he had written in regard to the alleged recent meeting at the UN about UFOs, which Strieber now acknowledges did not occur, after all. He has now prefaced this recent journal entry with the following interesting explanation:
“The journal below was written when I still believed Michael Salla and Gilles Lorant. Lorant had claimed that he was a member of the prestigious French Institute of Higher Defense Studies, and had attended the meeting in that capacity. Salla’s elaborate story had been spun out of his claims. However, Lorant has now admitted to the French UFO research organization that he was never a member of the institute, and the president of the French UFO organization is saying that the meeting was a fiction. To see the Unknowncountry.com story, click here.
“Nevertheless, I am leaving the journal up, because it can stand as a warning, if disclosure ever does proceed, of the danger of leaving the people in the front lines, the close encounter witnesses and abductees, out of the picture.”
6:52 AM
Anonymous said…
What does that have to do with anything?
2:35 PM
rorschach said…
It suggests just how “gullible” Whitley is or at least become, ostensibly, and how he tends not to vet or research or wait for further confirmatory data, in his own case for example, before he jumps into the public venues provided and shown by his writings and statements on the net, TV, and his “factional” books. IMHO.
The particulars and nature of the UN thing should have been obvious, or at least highly suspect, even by those serious about these matters, and I don’t mean just “researchers and scholars.”
Your mileage may vary, at least from mine (YMMV).
5:14 PM
Carol Maltby said…
Whitley sends Sarbacher a package. Days after having contacted Sarbacher and having been told this highly classified information, Whitley’s phone rings. It’s UPS with unexpected news. The UPS driver, package in hand for delivery, was told that Sarbacher had fallen out of a boat and drowned.
While that is paraphrased, and I can’t find a copy of Breakthrough at the moment to confirm, I can tell you standard operating procedure as experienced by someone who has been primarily shipping through UPS for over 25 years.
UPS has never initiated a call just to tell us a package was coming back undeliverable. They just put a sticker on it saying it was being returned. The employee doing that kind of call would not be given personal details about the customer, and at any rate would not be at liberty to release any other information other than to say the customer was deceased.
Never mind the spooky UFO stuff, if Whitley’s story was described accurately, his UPS anecdote is bullshit.
6:06 PM
rorschach (pentacled white storkling boyo…) said…
One clue might be for someone, like with Lexis/Nexus accout service to check the DOD (ummm…I meant date of death), and more particularly, exactly how did he die? Was it from a boat, where he died from drowning, and/or heart attack, or what. If it’s completely different (or whatever, partial), I’d say it depends on the degree of confirmable specifics can be found and noted here, if possible. I don’t have or can afford the level of record access, but someone here might.
This “clue” or “easily determinable” pair of factors, date of death and more particularly, the manner/cause of Sarbacher’s death are things so basic that if Whitley got those kinds of things wrong, when he wrote either Communion, within months of his alleged contact with Sarbacher (when WS 2x said he was dead in the original publication, I think in ‘85 or more likely ‘86, as opposed to the singular claims noted here about what Sarbacher is supposed to have said or told Strieber about handling and studying, etc., the crash debris, even noting the curious comment that the strange plasticy, thin metallic shell materials were even only studied deeply (when was electron microscopy available, for example? Before the early ’60’s or not and just when such scientific analysis (and classified records?)this amazingly sturdy “crash debris and fragments” of the “craft” at Roswell, etc., (Aztec? Borneo?) were being “held in close secrecy,” (my italics, not anyone else’s) and that such advanced 1960’s imagery and atomic level imagery capacity was developed than, again according to the statements the Strieber claimed Sarbacher told him about, published in Breakthrough, and since, than even was able to detect the pattern of “molecular welds” on the debris, and then applied it to early “stealth” air craft. Interestingly, in this little puzzle palace we have discussed here, and at The Keyhoe Report, I don’t think stealh aircraft even have or currently do use metallic materials of this kind to sheath the stealh planoform, nor any need for what is vaguely described as “molecular welds” or metal processing stealth related body part manufacturing.
I’d like others here who may be interested in the questions of confirmable details told in Breakthrough, and go find out, and then, please, report your findings and source links here. This is an interesting little mystery in a way, and a way of doing a little airchair, net-based investigatory research. I’d like to know more about the devil in those details that may or may not be uncovered, and I could posit a guess, but let’s all try to find out what’s at the heart, and to be determined, of this case: just what, as best as we can find out, is the truth of these matters and data included in Breakthrough, but only 10 years after Communion–does anyone know, for example, if Whitley referenced Sarbacher data in the new, 20 anniversary edition of Communion that came out last year, or not? I know the book has a new forward, but is the lucrative (Communion has made Strieber at least a million or two so far…) reissue an unchanged reprint, in a sense contradicting Breakthrough, or does anyone remember, from the forward, if Strieber made any further, BT confirming statements or added mods/edits to the reissue? He should do edition three, for even more accuracy with a “corrected, updated addtion” in a revised edition of Communion next year, or maybe by 2012, so we can see how honest and true, or if not, why not, and just what kind of determination by evidence from WS (who has yet to acknowledge DMD’s original findings, for several days now, and compare what WS may eventually say, in a public statement or at least an archived journal entry on his subscription site soon, hopefully, that clears the air, and for comparison to whatever additional data, like I noted above, etc., can then lead us all to a more honest, accurate, and somewhat more evidencial provenance and origins, so if I keep looking around the net, or at some college library, or data access resource like Lexis/N, I’ll post it here, with the identified source and origin of any new data here. Velllllly interesting, as Artie on Laugh-In, used to say (urg–showing my age, again. Hey, I was a kid! I swear! Ahem. More later. Arrividerci…).
Can we put together a digital and historical investigatory posse? That might be intriguing–Here they come to save the day! The Fact Checkers! …hey, get your cape outta my face…) 8^}
[Andre the Giant is said to have had one, according to Giant, the street graphic creator, but most probably somewhat different in scope and aims…(<)!!]
hmmmm…I better walk away from this for now–post your findings here, if you would be so kind, either way–it’s important for those concerned, or who think I was harsh in my personal opinions noted above, to know that I’m ready to accept info and evidence either way, in terms of Strieber’s C vs BT Sarbacher comments (letter and/or verbally)–this should not be a matter of falsehoods, or conflict, but simply what the known and knowable/documentable facts of this matter are–fiction, faction, delusion, dishonesty, or, possibly the whole truth, the full truth, so help Whitley and his gods, so help them (and us, too).
Which and what is it, and why? Journalistic and scientific, investigatory processes only applied if possible to dig up the truth and the related facts. I could use some help in this regard.
Because, as we all know, in protecting truth, justice, and the real American way, we Fact Checkers must engage in the search for same!! (…hey, that’s _my_ mask! And gimme back my cape, dammit!). sheesh…I’ll go now…
(slinking off into the NorCali sunset….hey, is that a drone?!)
Watch the skies! Verify and _then_ trust you can believe, and just that is my objective objective here. ‘Bye now….rorschach (testing…1, 2, 3….Number 9 client? I’m also the President of the new hair for old hair biogen club…!)?
9:41 PM
Justin said…
Ror: At this point I’m thinking you should start a blog, which you hinted at as a possibility the first time I encountered you.
12:28 AM
dmduncan said…
Carol: Even if you don’t find a copy of Breakthrough, please note that the excerpts I’ve posted in my story are actual page scans from both books. There is ZERO danger that I mistyped or misquoted something because of that.
2:28 PM
In 1996 I was on maui for the winter season and was privalaged to attend a UFO conference with Whitley and a scientist who had broken ranks with NASA.(I do not recall his name.)The whole thing was billed as offering exciting new revelations.The scientist was very excited to show us the now famous face on mars in a slide show, claiming that the photos he had were not the ones being shown to the public at large and that his photos removed the doubt that this could be a random rock formation. After he finished his slide show Whitely got up to the microphone to sell us his new book and to take questions.At that point the energy of the whole evening shifted and he began denying things people were quoting him as saying or writing in the past.He answered every question with an “I don’t know” or “I never wrote/said that” statement and would change the subject back to his great new book.I was sooo disapointed. He seemed to be very stiff and nervous about something though otherwise I might have been angry that it was just a big show to sell his new book. Since that time I have discounted Whitely as someone who possibly has too much to lose to tell the whole truth or even his own true opinion.
In sum, I now think all of the above, which is also discussed in much more detail at
Mac Tonnies Posthuman Blues blog, noted above, is that credibility and honesty, on
Whitley Strieber’s part, now requires an answer, and from the source, Mr. Strieber.
What say you, Whitley? At least please clarify the C vs BT discrepencies to clear the
air and engage in some kind of comment/dialogue to state what needs to be said about
this developing controversy. Otherwise, it will most likely continue on some level,
which may imply, if you wait to say anything, it will be considered a little too belated
to be taken seriously. The ball’s now in your cosmic court. We await your participation
and at least a simple statement of the facts; don’t you owe your readers at least that?
There is no new information on the Sarbacher incident in the new foreword to the latest paperback edition of Communion. I will be posting some information on Sarbacher some of you sleuths may want, if you haven’t found it already.
W.S. has also been one of the very few to come forward with his story of having seen one of the Drones. Either he is very, very lucky, or he made it up.
Increase Mather: I noticed that too. And I’m leaning at a 45 degree angle towards “made it up.” With the exception of WS and Linda Moulton Howe, I think few others consider the drones as anything more than another hoax. But that Whitley claims to have seen one isn’t surprising if he really does appropriate stories, that may or may not be true, into his life story as personally experienced fact.
Good news: Whitley Strieber has posted a reply to The Sarbacher Incident raised by this story on Unknown Country. Here is the totality of his reply:
“I talked to him on the phone, alright. I got his number from Stanton Friedman and had a conversation with him, during which he described some of the materials he had studied, and asked me to send him a description of my experiences.
I did this in the summer of 1986, and sent it to him via UPS overnight. The next morning, the UPS driver called to say that Dr. Sarbacher had died after falling off his yacht.
I was terrified, frankly, because I was beginning to realize that there was a lot of sinister stuff involved in the UFO/close encounter subject, and perhaps somebody had not wanted me and Sarbacher to remain in contact. So I was rather vague about the matter in Communion.
Later, there came to be some confusion about the dates, and that has been exploited to make me look bad.
No matter the dates, I definitely talked to somebody claiming to be Dr. Sarbacher, who answered the phone number given to me by Stanton Friedman, and definitely sent him the document, which was the first thing I wrote about the Communion experience. No question.
The UPS man said that the document would be returned to me, but it never happened.
I think that Dr. Sarbacher lost his life because he came into contact with me. I’m sorry about the confusion about dates in my books.”
Unfortunately it does not answer the question of the contradictory accounts. It would be easier to believe that Whitley merely mixed up the dates if he hadn’t also denied ever having known about and spoken to Sarbacher before Sarbacher died.
Here’s the link. http://www.unknowncountry.com/board/index.phtml?winmain=main
Apparently the above link doesn’t go directly to Whitley’s post. You’ll have to click on WHITLEY’S BOOKS and then on the post titled DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMMUNION AND BREAKTHROUGH.
“The UPS man said that the document would be returned to me, but it never happened”
Awww, that’s too bad that they “lost” it. Especially since it was important enough to send UPS Next Day Air, which always has tracking numbers. And the MIB (Men in Brown) agents thought it was important enough that drivers 1300 miles apart should communicate with each other and make sure a novelist got phoned to say his package didn’t arrive, and tell him why the recipient’s estate was refusing deliveries.
“I think that Dr. Sarbacher lost his life because he came into contact with me.”
If Sarbacher had been told a lot of details about Whitley’s experiences (”the first thing I wrote about the Communion experience”), Whitley wouldn’t have had to write them up and sent them to Sarbacher via UPS, which he didn’t get to read anyway because he was dead. Might it have been a tad more likely that Sarbacher was killed for analyzing Roswell debris and speaking of it?
Whitley, this makes you look bad because if you appear to be unable to construct a coherent and plausible narrative about your _UPS_ experiences, it hardly makes what you have to say about anything stranger credible.