In a reply to the Alibi article “The Definitive KiMo Ghost” [Feature, Oct. 23-29] New Mexico Paranormal Investigators (NMPI) would like the opportunity to refute certain misleading and disparaging claims.
Yes, NMPI “really” investigated the KiMo Theatre in 2007.
Yes, NMPI has faith in its tactics; including member intuition (“intuition” being a starting point from where many of our clients seek us out).
And, yes, NMPI “felt” compelled enough to suggest that one or two spirits meander in the KiMo's midst ... and not just in the suspect form of an orb in a photograph we know is not the site of young Mr. Darnell's demise. NMPI does not hold the belief that all orbs are ghosts.
As with all our other investigations, NMPI maintains a professional, cooperative agenda; and we use methods germane to the given environment and situation. In the KiMo's case, among many other things, we did utilize child-specific tools and noted member sensations, but we also used many other thorough investigative techniques that were appropriate.
At all times, NMPI upheld standards of care and consideration to both the venue and the staff, something the article authors might have taken into account. While NMPI appreciates Mr. Radford's curious nature, and skepticism has a place on the supernatural stage, we also hope he would have heeded the handful of claims of paranormal activity at the theatre and been forthright about the article's aim.
The Radford/Smith article also assumes the position that the time NMPI devoted to the KiMo case was happenstance and self-serving. In fact, NMPI left the theatre with both a heavy heart and solid readings that imply that the KiMo's mystique would ... and should ... be sustained for Albuquerque audiences.
Give Me More
I found your 2008 Election Guide [Feature, Oct. 30-Nov. 5] well-reasoned but incomplete.
While you covered the three biggies—president, Senate and First Congressional District elections—you did not offer reasoning on why you were endorsing candidates from your "Clip-n-Save Voters' Guide" for such races as the County Clerk, County Treasurer, District Attorney and AMAFCA, just questionnaire responses from some on your website. You also left out features on the candidates from the Second and Third Congressional Districts whom you endorsed. Furthermore, not a single judicial race was analyzed.
If any time reminds us that all levels of government are relevant and contribute (or do not) to the well-being of our citizens, it is an election season. In the future, please offer your readers arguments as to why we should vote for each of the candidates you endorse.
Yes on Five
[Re: Feature, 2008 Election Guide, Oct. 30-Nov. 5] While I generally agree with most of your “politics” this time of the election season, I was surprised at the way you suggested Constitutional Amendment 5 was not a good thing for New Mexicans. The replacement of a lieutenant governor in midterm is currently undefined by our constitution, which could leave our state without one for up to nearly four years in some circumstances. Your staff incorrectly stated that the amendment calls for one person (the governor) to pick a replacement when in fact the governor's choice must be approved by the full New Mexico Senate. This allows for a careful vetting of the proposed official in full public view and input from the major political parties of the state. The proposal would work well regardless of whether the appointee is of the same political party as that which is in control of the state Senate due to its openness.
So far I have passed on two shows in the Downtown business district. I am afraid to go down there, and it's not because of the criminals. It's because of the police threat.
While I understand the need to barricade the heavy crowd areas that flow onto Central, I discovered that the whole area has been set up to entrap people as they try to leave. If you park early enough on Gold Street or the far end of Central by Sixth Street, you can find yourself barricaded in. If a cop sees you crossing the barricade to get out, you are busted.
I experienced the overwhelming force used to confront me as I attempted to leave the area. I thought I was far enough south, then headed west and north only to run into an ambush zone. My choice was to make an illegal U-turn or go around a barricade. I was well away from the masses of revelers, yet three cop cars came from nowhere. It was such an intimidating situation, I waived my right to a hearing and signed the ticket just to get out of there, fearing for my safety.
The officier tried twice to provoke me into saying things that would have led to an arrest. He did not succeed as I had not been drinking. Sadly, the officer could have been an ambassador and represented the city in a positive manner, but he chose to show the belly of the beast. I am still wondering why 30 percent of the patrol cars in the immediate area were used to deal with my situation, thus abandoning the real areas of concern. The only conclusion is that I had entered a "kill zone." I suspect the barricades were moved around so as to confuse patrons in the hope that they will be herded into this area, and the city will reap a bonanza from the violations.
They fail to see the bigger picture, which is why I will never go down there again, which I use to do every weekend, spending my money. I would rather go to Santa Fe or Phoenix or Denver. I can also take my valuable job skills to one of those cities. I know for a fact others do not go down there for the same reason. I lived in New Orleans for many years and never saw just aggressive behavior from the authorities, even during Mardi Gras.
Letters should be sent with the writer’s name, address and daytime phone number via e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org. They can also be faxed to (505) 256-9651. Letters may be edited for length and clarity, and may be published in any medium; we regret that owing to the volume of correspondence we cannot reply to every letter. Word count limit for letters is 300 words.