1293 lines
74 KiB
Plaintext
1293 lines
74 KiB
Plaintext
SUBJECT: CRITIQUE OF HOPKIN'S CASE: LINDA NAPOLITANO ABDUCTION
|
|
|
|
|
|
FILE: UFO2490
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Filename: Linda-N.Rpt
|
|
Type : Report
|
|
Author : Joseph J. Stefula, Richard D. Butler, George P. Hansen
|
|
Date : 01/08/93
|
|
Desc : A critique of Bud Hopkin's case: Linda Napolitano Abduction
|
|
Note : Comments request from readers by author
|
|
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
M E M O
|
|
|
|
|
|
To: Those Interested in the UFO Problem
|
|
|
|
From: Joseph J. Stefula
|
|
7 Michigan Terrace
|
|
Browns Mills, NJ 08015
|
|
|
|
Richard D. Butler
|
|
P.O. Box 65
|
|
Mays Landing, NJ 08330
|
|
|
|
George P. Hansen
|
|
Princeton Arms North 1, Apt. 59
|
|
Cranbury, NJ 08512
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 08 January 1993
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Budd Hopkins' case of the abduction of Linda Napolitano
|
|
|
|
|
|
Enclosed is our report on the much acclaimed case of the UFO abduction
|
|
of Linda Napolitano. We invite your comments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hopkins' claims have generated enormous publicity and have been
|
|
mentioned in the New York Times, Omni, the Wall Street Journal, and
|
|
Paris Match, among others. As such, this case is likely to have a
|
|
substantial impact on the field of ufology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leadership in both the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) and the J. Allen Hynek
|
|
Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS) aggressively opposed our investigation,
|
|
and both previously refused to publish our criticisms. This raises grave
|
|
questions about the scientific and journalistic integrity of MUFON and
|
|
CUFOS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Those organizations have many members, and we are unable to provide more
|
|
than a few copies of this paper to others. We ask you to help us with
|
|
the distribution. Please feel free to make copies of this article, post
|
|
it on electronic bulletin boards, and print it in periodicals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Critique of Budd Hopkins' Case of the UFO Abduction
|
|
|
|
of
|
|
|
|
Linda Napolitano
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Joseph J. Stefula, Richard D. Butler, and George P. Hansen
|
|
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
ABSTRACT: Budd Hopkins has made a number of public presentations of a
|
|
purported UFO abduction case with multiple witnesses. The primary
|
|
abductee is Linda Napolitano, who lives in an apartment building on the
|
|
lower east side of Manhattan (New York City). She claims to have been
|
|
abducted by extraterrestrial aliens from her 12th floor apartment in
|
|
November 1989. It is claimed that three witnesses in a car two blocks
|
|
away observed Linda and alien beings float out of a window and ascend
|
|
into a craft. One alleged witness was United Nations Secretary General
|
|
Javier Perez de Cuellar. It is also claimed that a woman on the Brooklyn
|
|
Bridge observed the abduction. Linda has reported nose bleeds, and one
|
|
X-ray displays an implant in her nose.
|
|
|
|
To date, Hopkins has provided no full, detailed written report, but he
|
|
did publish a couple five page articles in the September and December
|
|
1992 issues of the Mufon UFO Journal and made a presentation at the 1992
|
|
MUFON symposium. We have made use of that information as well as records
|
|
from other presentations, and we have interviewed the abductee. A number
|
|
of serious questions arose from our examination. The case has many
|
|
exotic aspects, and we have identified a science fiction novel that may
|
|
have served as the basis for elements of the story.
|
|
|
|
Several prominent leaders in ufology have become involved, and their
|
|
behavior and statements have been quite curious. Some have aggressively
|
|
attempted to suppress evidence of a purported attempted murder. The
|
|
implications for the understanding of ufology are discussed.
|
|
|
|
Budd Hopkins is the person most responsible for drawing attention to the
|
|
problem of the extraterrestrial (ET) abduction experience. His efforts
|
|
have been instrumental in stimulating both media attention and
|
|
scientific research devoted to the problem. He has written two popular
|
|
books (Missing Time, 1981, and Intruders, 1987), established the
|
|
Intruders Foundation, and has made innumerable appearances at
|
|
conferences and in the media.
|
|
|
|
Although Hopkins is neither a trained therapist, an academic, nor a
|
|
scientist, he has involved such people in his work. John E. Mack, M.D.,
|
|
a Pulitzer Prize winner and former head of the psychiatry department at
|
|
Harvard Medical School, has praised Hopkins' work and acknowledged his
|
|
indebtedness to him (Mack, 1992a, 1992b). Hopkins has collaborated with
|
|
university professors in co-authoring an article in the book Unusual
|
|
Personal Experiences (1992), which was sent to 100,000 mental health
|
|
professionals. He has testified as an expert witness at a hearing
|
|
regarding the medical competence of a physician who claims to have been
|
|
abducted (McKenna, 1992). Because of such strong endorsements and
|
|
impressive affiliations, and because of his untiring work on behalf of
|
|
abductees, Hopkins has become the single most visible figure in the UFO
|
|
abduction field. His contributions, positive or negative, will be
|
|
quickly noticed by those inside and outside ufology.
|
|
|
|
Last year, Hopkins made a number of public presentations about a
|
|
spectacular UFO abduction case occurring in November 1989 and having
|
|
multiple witnesses. The primary abductee was Linda Napolitano, a woman
|
|
living on the 12th floor of a high-rise apartment building in lower
|
|
Manhattan (New York City) [Hopkins has previously used the pseudonym
|
|
"Linda Cortile" in this case]. It is claimed that three witnesses in a
|
|
car two blocks away observed Linda and three ET aliens emerge from a
|
|
window and ascend into a craft. Further it is claimed that a woman who
|
|
was driving across the Brooklyn Bridge also saw the event.
|
|
|
|
The case has generated enormous interest and drawn international
|
|
attention. It has been discussed in the Wall Street Journal (Jefferson,
|
|
1992), Omni (Baskin, 1992), Paris Match (De Brosses, 1992), the New York
|
|
Times (Sontag, 1992), and Hopkins and Napolitano have appeared on the
|
|
television show Inside Edition. The Mufon UFO Journal labeled it "The
|
|
Abduction Case of the Century" (Stacy, 1992, p. 9). Even the technical
|
|
magazine ADVANCE for Radiologic Science Professionals carried a
|
|
discussion of Linda's nasal implant (Hatfield, 1992). We should expect
|
|
continuing coverage of the affair not only in the UFO press but also in
|
|
the major media.
|
|
|
|
In a short article previewing his 1992 MUFON symposium presentation, he
|
|
wrote: "I will be presenting what I believe to be the most important
|
|
case for establishing the objective reality of UFO abductions that I
|
|
have yet encountered" (Hopkins, 1992, p. 20). During his lecture at the
|
|
symposium he stated: "This is probably the most important case I've ever
|
|
run into in my life" (tape recorded, July 1992). In his abstract for the
|
|
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Abduction Study Conference held in
|
|
June 1992 he wrote: "The importance of this case is virtually
|
|
immeasurable, as it powerfully supports both the objective reality of
|
|
UFO abductions and the accuracy of regressive hypnosis as employed with
|
|
this abductee." Because of Hopkins' renown, and because of his
|
|
evaluation, this case warrants our careful scrutiny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE AUTHORS' INVOLVEMENT
|
|
|
|
|
|
The first two authors had learned of the case before Hopkins had spoken
|
|
publicly of it, and they decided to monitor its progress. They regularly
|
|
briefed the third author as their investigation progressed. As the
|
|
affair became publicized, all three became concerned about the long term
|
|
effect it might have on abduction research.
|
|
|
|
For several years Richard Butler attended Hopkins' informal meetings
|
|
organized for abductees and abduction researchers. Butler became
|
|
familiar with the case during those meetings, and he invited Stefula to
|
|
a gathering in early October 1991. At the meeting, Hopkins outlined the
|
|
case, and afterward, Stefula had a chance to chat with Linda about her
|
|
experiences. Butler and Stefula gave Linda their telephone numbers. She
|
|
was advised that if she needed any assistance she could contact them.
|
|
Stefula told her that he had numerous contacts in federal and state law
|
|
enforcement agencies that could be of aid to her. The same information
|
|
was provided to Hopkins.
|
|
|
|
On January 28, 1992, Linda requested a meeting with Richard Butler, and
|
|
on February 1, 1992, Linda, Stefula and Butler met in New York City, and
|
|
Linda provided additional details about her experiences (described
|
|
below). During that meeting, she asked them not to inform Hopkins of
|
|
their discussions. At the 1992 MUFON convention in Albuquerque, New
|
|
Mexico in July, both Hopkins and Linda appeared on the podium and
|
|
presented the case. Stefula attended the convention and heard the talk,
|
|
and disturbing questions arose. Some of the statements directly
|
|
contradicted what Linda had earlier told Stefula and Butler. We
|
|
contacted Hopkins in an attempt to resolve these matters, but he
|
|
declined to meet with us, saying that he didn't want to discuss the case
|
|
until his book manuscript was submitted. Despite his initial reluctance,
|
|
eventually a meeting was arranged on October 3, 1992 at Hopkins' home,
|
|
and a few more details then emerged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUMMARY OF CASE
|
|
|
|
In order to compile this summary of alleged events, we have relied upon
|
|
Hopkins' and Linda's talks from the podium of the 1992 MUFON symposium,
|
|
on our interviews with Linda, on Hopkins' talk at the Portsmouth, New
|
|
Hampshire UFO conference, September 13, 1992, and Hopkins' two five-page
|
|
articles in the September and December issues of the Mufon UFO Journal.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Hopkins took an interest in the case because there was a potential for
|
|
medical evidence and because Linda lived relatively close to Hopkins,
|
|
which facilitated their meeting. Linda visited Hopkins and discussed her
|
|
past experiences with him. She recalled some pertinent earlier events in
|
|
her life but believed that she was no longer directly involved with any
|
|
abduction phenomena. Linda then began attending meetings of Hopkins'
|
|
support group for abductees.
|
|
|
|
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. A few days later, she underwent regressive
|
|
hypnosis, and Linda remembered floating out of her apartment window, 12
|
|
stories above the ground. She recalled ascending in a bluish-white beam
|
|
of light into a craft which was hovering over the building.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Richard and Dan
|
|
|
|
Over a year later (February 1991), Hopkins received a letter signed with
|
|
the first names, Richard and Dan. (We have no hard evidence that
|
|
"Richard" and "Dan" actually exist. In order to avoid overburdening the
|
|
reader, we will typically omit the word "alleged" when mentioning them.)
|
|
The letter claimed that the two were police officers who were under
|
|
cover in a car beneath the elevated FDR Drive between 3:00 and 3:30 a.m.
|
|
in late November 1989. Above a high-rise apartment building, they
|
|
observed a large, bright reddish-orange object with green lights around
|
|
its side. They wrote that they saw a woman and several strange figures
|
|
float out a window and up into the object. Richard and Dan said that
|
|
they had come across Hopkins' name and decided to write to him. They
|
|
went on to say that they were extremely concerned about her well being,
|
|
wanted to locate the woman, talk to her, and be assured that she was
|
|
alive and safe. The two also mentioned that they could identify the
|
|
building and window from which she emerged.
|
|
|
|
After receiving the letter, Hopkins promptly called Linda and told her
|
|
that she might expect a visit from two policemen. A few days later,
|
|
Linda telephoned Hopkins to tell him that she had been visited by
|
|
Richard and Dan. When they had knocked on her door, introducing
|
|
themselves as police officers, she was not too surprized because she
|
|
reports that police frequently canvass her apartment complex looking for
|
|
witnesses to crimes. Even with Hopkins' prior call, she did not expect
|
|
Richard and Dan to actually appear. After they arrived and entered her
|
|
home, there was an emotional greeting, and they expressed relief that
|
|
she was alive. However, Richard and Dan were disinclined to meet with or
|
|
talk to Hopkins, despite the fact that they had written him earlier and
|
|
despite Linda's entreaties to do so. Richard asked Linda if it was
|
|
acceptable for them to write out an account of their experience and then
|
|
read it into a tape recorder. She agreed, and a couple weeks later
|
|
Hopkins received a tape recording from Richard describing their
|
|
experience.
|
|
|
|
Some time thereafter, Hopkins received a letter from Dan giving a bit
|
|
more information. The letter reported that Richard had taken a leave of
|
|
absence because the close encounter had been so emotionally traumatic.
|
|
Dan also mentioned that Richard secretly watched Linda. (This
|
|
information is from Hopkins' oral presentation at the 1992 MUFON
|
|
symposium in Albuquerque. At the Portsmouth, New Hampshire conference,
|
|
Hopkins said that he had received a letter from Richard saying that Dan
|
|
was forced to take of leave of absence. It is not clear if Hopkins
|
|
misspoke at some point, or whether both individuals took leaves of
|
|
absence.)
|
|
|
|
Hopkins received another letter from Dan which said that he and Richard
|
|
were not really police officers but actually security officers who had
|
|
been driving a very important person (VIP) to a helicopter pad in lower
|
|
Manhattan when the sighting occurred. The letter claimed that their car
|
|
stalled, and Richard had pushed it, parking it beneath the FDR Drive.
|
|
According to Dan, the VIP had also witnessed the abduction event and had
|
|
become hysterical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Kidnappings
|
|
|
|
Linda claimed that in April of 1991 she encountered Richard on the
|
|
street near her apartment. She was asked to get into a car that Dan was
|
|
driving, but she refused. Richard picked her up and, with some struggle,
|
|
forced her into the vehicle. Linda reported that she was driven around
|
|
for 3 1/2 hours, interrogated about the aliens, and asked whether she
|
|
worked for the government. She also said that she was forced to remove
|
|
her shoes so they could examine her feet to determine whether she was an
|
|
ET alien (they later claimed that aliens lack toes). Linda did remember
|
|
another car being involved with the kidnapping, and under hypnotic
|
|
regression she recalled the license plate number of that car, as well as
|
|
part of the number of the car in which she rode. Hopkins reports that
|
|
the numbers have been traced to particular "agencies" (he gave no
|
|
further details).
|
|
|
|
At the MUFON symposium, Linda was asked if she had reported the
|
|
kidnapping to the police. She said that she had not and went on to say
|
|
that the kidnapping was legal because it had to do with national
|
|
security.
|
|
|
|
In conversations with Butler in early 1992, Linda had expressed concerns
|
|
about her personal safety. A meeting was arranged with Stefula because
|
|
of his background in law enforcement. During the afternoon and early
|
|
evening of February 1, the three met in New York City, and Linda
|
|
described further details of the kidnappings.
|
|
|
|
She reported that on the morning of October 15, 1991, Dan accosted her
|
|
on the street and pulled her into a red Jaguar sports car. Linda
|
|
happened to be carrying a tape recorder and was able to surreptitiously
|
|
record a few minutes of Dan's questioning, but he soon discovered and
|
|
confiscated it. Dan drove to a beach house on the shore of Long Island.
|
|
There he demanded that Linda remove her clothes and put on a white
|
|
nightgown, similar to the one she wore the night of the abduction. He
|
|
said he wanted to have sex with her. She refused but then agreed to put
|
|
on the nightgown over her clothes. Once she did, Dan dropped to his
|
|
knees and started to talk incoherently about her being the "Lady of the
|
|
Sands." She fled the beach house, but Dan caught her on the beach and
|
|
bent her arm behind her. He placed two fingers on the back of her neck,
|
|
leading Linda to believe that it was a gun. He then forced her into the
|
|
water and pushed her head under twice. He continued to rave
|
|
incoherently, and as her head was being pushed under for the third time,
|
|
she believed that she would not come up again. Then, a "force" hit Dan
|
|
and knocked him back onto the beach. She started to run but heard a
|
|
sound like a gun being cocked. She looked back and saw Dan taking a
|
|
picture of her (Linda mentioned that pictures from the beach were
|
|
eventually sent to Hopkins). She continued running, but Richard appeared
|
|
beside her, seemingly out of nowhere. He stopped her and convinced her
|
|
to return to the beach house and told her that he would control Dan by
|
|
giving him a Mickey Finn. She agreed. Once inside, Richard put Dan in
|
|
the shower to wash off the mud and sand from the beach. This gave Linda
|
|
a chance to search the premises; she recovered her casette tape and
|
|
discovered stationery bearing a Central Intelligence Agency letterhead.
|
|
|
|
In a brief conversation on October 3, 1992, Hopkins told Hansen that
|
|
Linda came to him shortly after she arrived back in Manhattan after the
|
|
kidnapping. She was disheveled, had sand in her hair, and was
|
|
traumatized by the experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Further Contacts with Richard and Dan
|
|
|
|
During the February 1 meeting with Butler and Stefula, Linda reported
|
|
that she had met Richard outside a Manhattan bank on November 21, 1991.
|
|
He told her of Dan's deteriorating mental condition. During the
|
|
Christmas season, Linda received a card and a three page letter from Dan
|
|
(dated 12/14/91). The letter bore a United Nations stamp and postmark
|
|
(the UN building in New York has a post office which anyone can use).
|
|
Dan wrote that he was in a mental institution and was kept sedated. He
|
|
expressed a strong romantic interest in Linda. Some of his remarks
|
|
suggested that he wanted to kidnap her, take her out of the country, and
|
|
marry her; Linda seemed alarmed by this (she gave a copy of the letter
|
|
to Stefula and Butler).
|
|
|
|
Linda also asserted that on December 15 and December 16, 1991, one of
|
|
the men had tried to make contact with her near the shopping area of the
|
|
South Street Seaport. He was driving a large black sedan with Saudi
|
|
Arabian United Nations license plates. During the first incident, to
|
|
avoid him, Linda reported that she went into a shop. The second day a
|
|
similar thing happened, and she stood next to some businessmen until he
|
|
left the area.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Third Man
|
|
|
|
At the February 1 meeting, Linda mentioned that Hopkins had received a
|
|
letter from "the third man" (the VIP), and she was able to repeat entire
|
|
sentences from this letter, seemingly verbatim. It discussed ecological
|
|
danger to the planet, and Linda indicated that aliens were involved in
|
|
ending the Cold War. The letter ended with a warning to Hopkins to stop
|
|
searching for "the third man" because it could potentially do harm to
|
|
world peace.
|
|
|
|
Linda also related a few more details of her November 1989 abduction.
|
|
She said that the men in the car had felt a strong vibration at the time
|
|
of the sighting. Linda also claimed that in subsequent hypnotic
|
|
regressions she recalled being on a beach with Dan, Richard, and the
|
|
third man, and she thought somehow she was being used by the aliens to
|
|
control the men. She communicated with the men telepathically and said
|
|
that she felt that she had known Richard prior to the November 1989
|
|
abduction, and she suggested that they possibly had been abducted
|
|
together previously. We also learned that the third man was actually
|
|
Javier Perez de Cuellar, at that time Secretary General of the United
|
|
Nations. Linda claimed that the various vehicles used in her kidnappings
|
|
had been traced to several countries' missions at the UN.
|
|
|
|
At the Portsmouth, New Hampshire conference, Hopkins spoke of the third
|
|
man saying: "I am trying to do what I can to shame this person to come
|
|
forward."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Witness on the Brooklyn Bridge
|
|
|
|
In the summer of 1991, a year and a half after the UFO abduction,
|
|
Hopkins received a letter from a woman who is a retired telephone
|
|
operator from Putnam County, New York (Hopkins has given this woman the
|
|
pseudonym of Janet Kimble). Hopkins did not bother to open the letter,
|
|
and in November 1991, he received another one from her marked on the
|
|
outside "CONFIDENTIAL, RE: BROOKLYN BRIDGE." The odd outside marking and
|
|
the fact that she had written two letters, seem to have raised no
|
|
suspicions in Hopkins' mind. The woman, a widow of about sixty, claimed
|
|
to have been driving on the Brooklyn Bridge at 3:16 a.m., November 30,
|
|
1989. She reported that her car stopped and the lights went out. She too
|
|
saw a large, brightly lit object over a building; in fact, the light was
|
|
so bright that she was forced to shield her eyes, though she was over a
|
|
quarter mile away. Nevertheless, she claimed to have observed four
|
|
figures in fetal positions emerge from a window. The figures
|
|
simultaneously uncurled and then moved up into the craft. Ms. Kimble was
|
|
quite frightened by the event, and people in cars behind her were
|
|
"running all around their cars with theirs (sic) hands on their heads,
|
|
screaming from horror and disbelief" (quoted in Hopkins, 1992d, p. 7).
|
|
She wrote: "I have never traveled back to New York City after what I saw
|
|
and I never will again, for any reason" (Hopkins, 1992d, p. 5). Despite
|
|
her intense fear and all the commotion, she had the presence of mind to
|
|
rummage through her purse to find her cigarette lighter to illuminate
|
|
her watch in order to determine the time.
|
|
|
|
Hopkins has interviewed this woman in person and over the phone. The
|
|
woman claimed to have obtained his name in a bookstore; she called the
|
|
Manhattan directory assistance for his telephone number and then looked
|
|
up his address in the Manhattan White Pages. She alleges that she was
|
|
reticent about speaking of the incident and had only told her son,
|
|
daughter, sister, and brother-in-law about the event.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Nasal X-ray
|
|
|
|
In November 1991 a doctor, whom Hopkins describes as "closely connected
|
|
with Linda," took an X-ray of Linda's head because she knew about the
|
|
story of the nasal implant and because Linda frequently spoke of the
|
|
problem with her nose. The X-ray was not developed immediately. A few
|
|
days later the doctor brought it to Linda but was very nervous and
|
|
unwilling to discuss it. Linda took it to Hopkins, who showed it to a
|
|
neurosurgeon friend of his. The neurosurgeon was astounded; a sizeable,
|
|
clearly non-natural object could be seen in the nasal area. Hopkins has
|
|
shown a slide of the X-ray during his presentations, and the implant is
|
|
strikingly apparent, even to a lay audience. The object has a shaft
|
|
approximately 1/4 inch long with a curly-cue wire structure on each end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Unusual Aspects of the Case
|
|
|
|
During our meeting with Linda on February 1, she gave us additional
|
|
miscellaneous details that might be pertinent. We were told that she
|
|
believed that she was under surveillance and described a light silver-
|
|
gray van that had parked near her apartment. She also claimed that she
|
|
had once been a professional singer and the lead on a hit record, but
|
|
she had lost her singing voice one day while in the shower. Linda
|
|
mentioned that she was given to understand that her blood was quite
|
|
unusual. A doctor had informed her that her red blood cells did not die,
|
|
but instead they rejuvenated. She wondered whether this might be due to
|
|
an alien influence; some time later she attempted to locate the doctor
|
|
but was unable to do so. Linda seemed to imply that she now believed
|
|
that she was part alien or somehow worked with the aliens.
|
|
|
|
Linda also told us that she had an agreement with Budd Hopkins to split
|
|
equally any profits from a book on the case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
INITIAL PROBLEMS WITH THE CASE
|
|
|
|
There are a number of obvious but unanswered questions that raise
|
|
immediate doubts about the credibility of the case.
|
|
|
|
The most serious problem is that the three alleged principal
|
|
corroborating witnesses (Richard, Dan, and Perez de Cuellar) have not
|
|
been interviewed face- to-face by Hopkins, although it has been over a
|
|
year and a half since initial contact with Hopkins and over three years
|
|
since the abduction.
|
|
|
|
Richard and Dan allegedly met with Linda and have written letters to
|
|
Hopkins. Linda has a picture of Dan. Yet Dan and Richard refuse to speak
|
|
directly with Hopkins. No hard evidence confirms that Richard and Dan
|
|
even exist.
|
|
|
|
Though they initially expressed extreme concern over the well being of
|
|
Linda, the alleged "Dan" and "Richard" waited more than a year before
|
|
contacting Linda and Hopkins. Why? Furthermore, they contacted Hopkins
|
|
before they visited Linda. How did this come about? After all, they knew
|
|
the location of Linda's apartment, so it would seem that they would have
|
|
had no reason to contact Hopkins. Why did they bother with him at all?
|
|
|
|
The woman on the bridge said that before contacting Hopkins she only
|
|
discussed the matter with her son, daughter, sister and brother-in-law.
|
|
Why didn't she contact other UFO investigators? Why only Hopkins? If
|
|
there is some unclear reporting on this point and she did actually
|
|
contact others, can such be verified? Has there been any investigation
|
|
of this woman such as checking with her neighbors, friends, family, or
|
|
previous employers? What is her background? Has she had any previous
|
|
relationship with Linda? These questions have not been addressed, and
|
|
thus the credibility of the only directly interviewed, corroborating,
|
|
first-hand witness remains in doubt.
|
|
|
|
Dan has spent time in a mental institution. Richard suffered extreme
|
|
emotional distress, forcing him to take a leave of absence from his job.
|
|
Assuming that these two people actually exist, one must now be careful
|
|
in accepting their claims (even if offered in good faith). Despite their
|
|
debilitating mental problems, at least one of them was allowed to drive
|
|
a car with UN license plates. Are we really to believe that they
|
|
returned to active duty in a sensitive position (presumably carrying
|
|
firearms) and were given use of an official car?
|
|
|
|
Who was the doctor who took the X-rays? We are only told that this
|
|
person is closely connected with Linda. Why isn't a formal report
|
|
available? Given the alarming nature of the outcome, why wasn't there an
|
|
immediate examination? Linda said that the doctor was "nervous" and
|
|
didn't want to talk about the X- ray. It is not clear whether Hopkins
|
|
has ever met this alleged doctor. Instead, Hopkins showed the X-ray to a
|
|
friend of his. Some have speculated that Linda may have simply put some
|
|
small object in her nose and had a friendly X-ray technician assist. We
|
|
have seen no evidence to exclude this possibility.
|
|
|
|
Linda claims that she was kidnapped twice, nearly drowned, and further
|
|
harassed. Yet she refuses to contact the police, even after Hopkins'
|
|
urging. During the February 1, 1992 meeting with Stefula and Butler,
|
|
Linda asked if she had legal grounds to "shoot" Dan if he attempted
|
|
another abduction of her by force. Stefula advised against it and
|
|
recommended that she go to the police and make an official complaint.
|
|
She declined.
|
|
|
|
If she was afraid, why didn't her husband contact authorities? The most
|
|
plausible reason is that if a report was filed, and her story proved
|
|
false, she could be subject to criminal charges. Linda's failure here
|
|
raises enormous questions of credibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
OUR INVESTIGATION
|
|
|
|
Despite the numerous problems outlined above, we believed it worthwhile
|
|
to gain additional information because so many people had contacted us
|
|
with questions. On September 19, 1992, Stefula, Butler, and Hansen
|
|
traveled to New York City in order to visit the site of the alleged
|
|
abduction. We found that Linda's apartment complex has a large courtyard
|
|
with guard house manned 24 hours a day. We talked with the security
|
|
guard and his supervisor and asked if they had ever heard about a UFO
|
|
encounter near the complex. They reported hearing nothing about one. We
|
|
also asked if the police routinely enter the complex and undertake door-
|
|
to-door canvassing in order to find witnesses to crimes. They said that
|
|
this was a very rare practice.
|
|
|
|
We obtained the name and phone number of the apartment manager and
|
|
called him a few days later. He reported knowing nothing about the UFO
|
|
sighting, nor had he heard anything about it from any of the
|
|
approximately 1600 residents in the complex.
|
|
|
|
We also visited the site under the FDR drive where Richard and Dan
|
|
purportedly parked their car. This was in a direct line of sight and
|
|
nearly across the street from the loading dock of the New York Post. We
|
|
spoke with an employee of the Post, who told us that the dock was in use
|
|
through most of the night. A few days later, we called the New York Post
|
|
and spoke to the person who was the loading dock manager in 1989. He
|
|
told us that the dock is in use until 5:00 a.m. and that there are many
|
|
trucks that come and go frequently during the early morning hours. The
|
|
manager knew nothing of the UFO which supposedly appeared only a couple
|
|
blocks away.
|
|
|
|
Also in September, a colleague of ours contacted the Downtown Heliport,
|
|
on Pier Six on the East River of Manhattan. That is the only heliport on
|
|
the east side of Manhattan between Linda's apartment and the lower tip
|
|
of the island. Our colleague was informed that the normal hours of
|
|
operation of the heliport are from 7:00 a.m to 7:00 p.m. The Senior
|
|
Airport Operations Agent researched the records and found that there
|
|
were no helicopter movements on November 30, 1989 before normal hours.
|
|
Our colleague was also told that about six months previously, the
|
|
heliport authorities had been approached by a man in his fifties with
|
|
white hair who had made a similar inquiry. That man had asked about a
|
|
UFO that had crashed into the East River.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Meeting of October 3
|
|
|
|
On October 3, 1992, we met with Hopkins and his colleagues at his
|
|
residence in Manhattan. Among those in attendance were David Jacobs,
|
|
Walter H. Andrus, and Jerome Clark. During our meeting a number of
|
|
questions were raised, and some of Hopkins' answers revealed a great
|
|
deal about his investigations as well as the attitudes of Jacobs,
|
|
Andrus, and Clark. Linda's statements also told us much.
|
|
|
|
We inquired if Hopkins had asked the guards of the apartment complex
|
|
whether they had seen the UFO. He indicated that he had not done so.
|
|
This is quite surprising, considering that the UFO was so bright that
|
|
the woman on the bridge had to shield her eyes from it even though she
|
|
was more than a quarter mile distant. One would have thought that
|
|
Hopkins would have made inquiries of the guards considering the
|
|
spectacular nature of the event.
|
|
|
|
We noted that Linda had claimed that police canvassing of her apartment
|
|
complex was a common occurrence. We asked Hopkins if he had attempted to
|
|
verify this with the guards or the building manager. He indicated that
|
|
he did not feel it necessary. Although this is a minor point, it is one
|
|
of the few directly checkable statements made by Linda, but Hopkins did
|
|
not attempt to confirm it.
|
|
|
|
We asked about the weather on the night of the abduction. Amazingly,
|
|
Hopkins told us that he didn't know the weather conditions for that
|
|
period. This was perhaps one of the most revealing moments, and it gives
|
|
great insight into Hopkins' capabilities as an investigator. If the
|
|
weather had been foggy, rainy, or snowing, the visibility could have
|
|
been greatly hampered, and the reliability of the testimony of the
|
|
witnesses would need to be evaluated accordingly. Even the very first
|
|
form in the MUFON Field Investigator's Manual requests information on
|
|
weather conditions (Fowler, 1983, p. 30). We ourselves did check the
|
|
weather and knew the conditions did not impede visibility. But the fact
|
|
that Hopkins apparently had not bothered to obtain even this most basic
|
|
investigatory information was illuminating. He claims to have much
|
|
supporting evidence that he has not revealed to outsiders; however,
|
|
because of Hopkins' demonstrated failure to check even the most
|
|
rudimentary facts, we place absolutely no credence in his undisclosed
|
|
"evidence."
|
|
|
|
During the discussions, Hopkins' partisans made allusions to other world
|
|
figures involved in this event, though they did not give names. Hopkins'
|
|
supporters, who had been given information denied to us, seemed to
|
|
believe that there was a large motorcade that carried Perez de Cuellar
|
|
and these other dignitaries in the early morning hours of November 30,
|
|
1989. At the meeting, we presented an outside expert consultant who for
|
|
many years had served in dignitary protective services. He described the
|
|
extensive preplanning required for moving officials and the massive
|
|
coordination during the movements. Many people and networks would be
|
|
alerted if there were any problems at all (such as a car stalling, or a
|
|
delay in passing checkpoints). His detailed presentation seemed to take
|
|
Hopkins aback. The consultant listed several specialized terms used by
|
|
the dignitary protective services and suggested that Hopkins ask Richard
|
|
and Dan the meaning of those terms as a test of their knowledge, and
|
|
thus credibility. As far as we know, Hopkins has failed to contact
|
|
Richard and Dan about that matter.
|
|
|
|
During the beginning part of the October 3 meeting, Linda's husband
|
|
answered a few questions (in a very quiet voice). He seemed to have
|
|
difficulty with some of them, and Linda spoke up to "correct" his
|
|
memory. He left the meeting very early, even though Linda was under
|
|
considerable stress, and despite the fact that she was overheard asking
|
|
him to stay by her side. His leaving raised many questions in our minds.
|
|
|
|
Linda also responded to questions during the meeting. Early in the
|
|
discussion, Hansen asked Linda's husband whether he was born and raised
|
|
in the U.S. He replied that he had come to this country when he was 17.
|
|
Linda promptly interjected that she knew why Hansen had asked that
|
|
question. During a prior telephone conversation between Linda and
|
|
Hansen, Linda had asserted that her husband was born and raised in New
|
|
York. She acknowledged that she had previously deliberately misled
|
|
Hansen.
|
|
|
|
Later in the meeting the question arose about a financial agreement
|
|
between Linda and Hopkins. Stefula noted that Linda had told him that
|
|
she and Hopkins had an agreement to split profits from a book. Hopkins
|
|
denied that there was any such arrangement, and Linda then claimed that
|
|
she had deliberately planted disinformation.
|
|
|
|
During the meeting, reports were heard from two psychologists. They
|
|
concluded that Linda's intelligence was in the "average" range. One
|
|
suggested that Linda would need the mind of a Bobby Fischer to plan and
|
|
execute any hoax that could explain this case and that she was not
|
|
capable of orchestrating such a massive, complex operation. Although
|
|
these were supposedly professional opinions, we were not given the names
|
|
of these psychologists.
|
|
|
|
Ms. Penelope Franklin also attended the meeting. She is a close
|
|
colleague of Hopkins and the editor of IF--The Bulletin of the Intruders
|
|
Foundation. Hopkins had previously informed us in writing that Ms.
|
|
Franklin was a coinvestigator on the Napolitano case. In a conversation
|
|
during a break in the meeting, Franklin asserted to Hansen that Linda
|
|
was absolutely justified in lying about the case. This remarkable
|
|
statement was also witnessed by Vincent Creevy, who happened to be
|
|
standing between Franklin and Hansen.
|
|
|
|
Franklin's statement raises very troubling questions, especially given
|
|
her prominence within Hopkins' circle of colleagues. Her statement
|
|
appears to violate all norms of scientific integrity. We can only wonder
|
|
whether Linda has been counseled to lie by Hopkins or his colleagues.
|
|
Have other abductees been given similar advice? What kind of a social
|
|
and ethical environment are Hopkins and Franklin creating for abductees?
|
|
We also cannot help but wonder whether Hopkins and Franklin believe it
|
|
appropriate for themselves to lie about the case. They owe the UFO
|
|
research community an explanation for Franklin's statement. If such is
|
|
not forthcoming, we simply cannot accept them as credible investigators.
|
|
|
|
|
|
HOPKINS' REACTION TO OUR INVESTIGATION
|
|
|
|
In concluding his Mufon UFO Journal paper, Hopkins wrote: "if rumors are
|
|
true and there are officially sanctioned intelligence agents within the
|
|
various UFO investigative networks, these people will also be mobilized
|
|
to subvert the case from the inside, even before its full dimensions are
|
|
made known to the public at large" (Hopkins, 1992c, p. 16). Hopkins
|
|
apparently takes this idea quite seriously. After he learned of our
|
|
investigation, he warned Butler that he suspected Butler and Stefula of
|
|
being government agents and that he planned to inform others of his
|
|
suspicions. A few weeks after our October 3 meeting, he told people that
|
|
he suspected Hansen of being a CIA agent. This was not an offhand remark
|
|
made to a friend in an informal setting; rather this was asserted to a
|
|
woman whom he did not know and who had happened to attend one of his
|
|
lectures (member of MUFON in New Jersey who feared future repercussions
|
|
if her name was mentioned, personal communication, November 7, 1992).
|
|
|
|
|
|
A POSSIBLE LITERARY BASIS FOR ELEMENTS OF THE STORY
|
|
|
|
This case is quite exotic, even for a UFO abduction. Government agents
|
|
are involved, the UN Secretary General is a key witness, Linda was
|
|
kidnapped in the interests of national security, concerns are expressed
|
|
about world peace, the CIA is attempting to discredit the case, and the
|
|
ETs helped end the Cold War. The story is truly marvellous, and one
|
|
might wonder about its origin. We wish to draw the readers' attention to
|
|
the science fiction novel, Nighteyes, by Garfield Reeves-Stevens. This
|
|
work was first published in April 1989, a few months before Linda
|
|
claimed to have been abducted from her apartment.
|
|
|
|
The experiences reported by Linda seem to be a composite of those of two
|
|
characters in Nighteyes: Sarah and Wendy. The parallels are striking;
|
|
some are listed in Table 1. We have not bothered to include the
|
|
similarities commonly reported in abduction experiences (e.g., implants,
|
|
bodily examinations, probes, etc.). The parallels are sufficiently
|
|
numerous to lead us to suspect that the novel served as the basis for
|
|
Linda's story. We want to emphasize that the parallels are with discrete
|
|
elements of the case and not with the story line itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 1 - Similarities Between the Linda Napolitano Case and the Science
|
|
Fiction Novel Nighteyes
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Linda was abducted into a UFO hovering over her high-rise apartment
|
|
building in New York City.
|
|
|
|
Sarah was abducted into a UFO hovering over her high-rise apartment
|
|
building in New York City.
|
|
|
|
* Dan and Richard initially claimed to have been on a stakeout and were
|
|
involved in a UFO abduction in during early morning hours.
|
|
|
|
Early in Nighteyes two government agents were on a stakeout and became
|
|
involved in a UFO abduction during early morning hours.
|
|
|
|
* Linda was kidnapped and thrown into a car by Richard and Dan.
|
|
|
|
Wendy was kidnapped and thrown into a van by Derek and Merril.
|
|
|
|
* Linda claimed to have been under surveillance by someone in a van.
|
|
|
|
Vans were used for surveillance in Nighteyes.
|
|
|
|
* Dan is a security and intelligence agent.
|
|
|
|
Derek was an FBI agent.
|
|
|
|
* Dan was hospitalized for emotional trauma.
|
|
|
|
One of the government agents in Nighteyes was hospitalized for
|
|
emotional trauma.
|
|
|
|
* During the kidnapping Dan took Linda to a safe house.
|
|
|
|
During the kidnapping Derek took Wendy to a safe house.
|
|
|
|
* The safe house Linda visited was on the beach.
|
|
|
|
In Nighteyes, one safe house was on the beach.
|
|
|
|
* Before her kidnapping, Linda contacted Budd Hopkins about her
|
|
abduction.
|
|
|
|
Before her kidnapping, Wendy contacted Charles Edward Starr about her
|
|
abduction.
|
|
|
|
* Budd Hopkins is a prominent UFO abduction researcher living in New
|
|
York City and an author who has written books on the topic.
|
|
|
|
Charles Edward Starr was a prominent UFO abduction researcher living
|
|
in New York City and an author who had written books on the topic.
|
|
|
|
* Linda and Dan were abducted at the same time and communicated with
|
|
each other during their abductions.
|
|
|
|
Wendy and Derek were abducted at the same time and communicated with
|
|
each other during their abductions.
|
|
|
|
* Linda thought she "knew" Richard previously.
|
|
|
|
Wendy "knew" Derek previously.
|
|
|
|
* Dan expressed a romantic interest in Linda.
|
|
|
|
Derek became romantically involved with Wendy.
|
|
|
|
* Dan and Richard felt considerable vibration during the close
|
|
encounter.
|
|
|
|
During the UFO landing in Nighteyes there was much vibration.
|
|
|
|
* Photographs of Linda were taken on the beach and sent to Hopkins.
|
|
|
|
In Nighteyes, photographs taken on a beach played a central role.
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE REACTION OF THE UFOLOGY'S LEADERSHIP
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the most curious features of our investigation has been the
|
|
reaction of several prominent leaders in ufology. Indeed, in the long
|
|
run, this may turn out to be the most important part of the entire
|
|
affair.
|
|
|
|
After the MUFON symposium in July, Stefula had several conversations
|
|
with Walter Andrus, International Director of MUFON. Andrus told him
|
|
that MUFON had no interest in publishing any material critical of this
|
|
case even though they had published an article describing it as "The
|
|
Abduction Case of the Century." This is a most surprising statement from
|
|
a leader of an organization which purports to be scientific. Andrus'
|
|
statements should raise questions about the legitimacy of MUFON's claims
|
|
to use objective, scientific methods.
|
|
|
|
On September 14, 1992, Hopkins faxed Butler a letter saying that as a
|
|
long-standing member of MUFON, he was issuing an "order" (his word). He
|
|
"ordered" Stefula and Butler to stop their investigation of the case. We
|
|
found this very curious, and we wondered how Hopkins, as a member of
|
|
MUFON, could believe that it was in his power to issue such an "order."
|
|
His letter seemed to reflect the mindset of a leader of a cult rather
|
|
than that of an investigator searching for the truth.
|
|
|
|
For the meeting on October 3 in New York City, Hopkins flew in his close
|
|
friend Jerome Clark from Minnesota. Under the sway of Hopkins, Clark
|
|
strenuously urged that outsiders cease investigations, thus seemingly
|
|
trying to reinforce Hopkins' earlier "order" (despite the fact that the
|
|
case already had been reported in the Wall Street Journal, Omni, Paris
|
|
Match and the television show Inside Edition). Clark (1992a) later
|
|
committed his position to writing, saying that this case may indeed
|
|
involve a world political figure and have international consequences.
|
|
|
|
Andrus and Clark are arguably the two most influential figures in U.S.
|
|
ufology. Andrus is International Director of the Mutual UFO Network
|
|
(MUFON), and he organizes the largest annual conference on UFOs in the
|
|
country and regularly writes for MUFON's monthly magazine. Clark is a
|
|
columnist for Fate magazine, editor of International UFO Reporter, vice-
|
|
president of the J. Allen Hynek Center for UFO Studies, and author of
|
|
books and even an encyclopedia on UFOs. Because of their eminence, their
|
|
statements should be of special concern to the UFO research community.
|
|
|
|
At the meeting on October 3, the kidnapping and attempted murder of
|
|
Linda were discussed. We informed Hopkins and the other participants
|
|
that we were prepared to make a formal request for a federal
|
|
investigation of the government agents responsible for the alleged
|
|
felonies. Hopkins, Andrus, and Clark appeared to literally panic at the
|
|
suggestion. They vigorously argued against making such a request. We
|
|
could only conclude that they wanted to suppress evidence of attempted
|
|
murder. We wondered why.
|
|
|
|
This situation seemed so outrageous that a few days later Hansen called
|
|
Andrus, Clark, John Mack, and David Jacobs and asked them if they really
|
|
believed Linda's story about the kidnappings and attempted murder. All
|
|
of these individuals said that they accepted her account. We were forced
|
|
to seriously consider their opinions because they had been given secret
|
|
information not revealed to us. During the telephone conversations,
|
|
Andrus and Clark again strongly objected to requesting an investigation
|
|
by law enforcement authorities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
A PSYCHO-SOCIAL PERSPECTIVE
|
|
|
|
The Napolitano case brings into stark relief symptoms of deep problems
|
|
within ufology: major figures in the UFO community aggressively sought
|
|
to suppress evidence of a purported attempted murder; Hopkins failed to
|
|
obtain and verify even the most basic investigatory information; his
|
|
coinvestigator, Penelope Franklin, approved of lying by the principal
|
|
witness; and leaders in the field have willingly accepted and promoted
|
|
the case despite its exotic features and lack of supporting evidence.
|
|
This state of affairs raises perplexing questions and cries out for a
|
|
plausible explanation. The thinking and motivations of ufology's leaders
|
|
deserve at least as much attention as the abduction claims themselves.
|
|
|
|
Did these leaders really believe, as they said, that they accepted the
|
|
report of attempted murder? If so, they seem not to have acted as
|
|
responsible citizens. However, these people do not appear to us to be
|
|
delusional, in any usual sense of that word. They are highly functional
|
|
members of society. They also do not appear to be perpetrators of a hoax
|
|
or even "yellow journalists" with a "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" attitude
|
|
who knowingly want to capitalize on it for their own temporary glory or
|
|
financial gain.
|
|
|
|
We believe that other motivating factors and concepts provide a better
|
|
explanation and framework for understanding these seemingly bizarre
|
|
actions. We would suggest that perhaps, at some semiconscious level,
|
|
these individuals do not really believe their UFO investigations to be
|
|
fully engaged with the "real world." Rather, their behavior and
|
|
statements seem more consistent with something like fantasy role
|
|
playing, perhaps akin to the game Dungeons and Dragons (D & D).
|
|
|
|
Both ufology and D & D allow direct, immediate involvement with powerful
|
|
"other-world" beings and mythological motifs. Both endeavors have been
|
|
known to overtake (possess?) the participants, though only occasionally
|
|
to their detriment. Most "players" are able to successfully detach
|
|
themselves from involvement, but occasionally the "game" becomes
|
|
obsessive and interferes with "real-world" pursuits. This "role playing"
|
|
taps archetypal images that hold great psychological power. The
|
|
archetypes can become immensely attractive, even addictive, to those
|
|
playing the game. The notions and images of powerful "other-world"
|
|
figures are part of the human condition. Accounts of them are found in
|
|
all cultures throughout history, this being one of the traditional
|
|
domains of religion. Even atheists and those who deny the existence of
|
|
such beings must still grapple with the ideas on some level, though this
|
|
might not be consciously recognized by an individual.
|
|
|
|
In the Napolitano case, the "other-world" figures include not only the
|
|
ET aliens, but also the pantheon of agents of an unreachable, evil
|
|
government conspiracy determined to prevent humankind's knowledge of the
|
|
ETs. Intermediaries between flesh and blood humans and the powerful
|
|
masters of the mystical higher orders are ubiquitous in the realm of
|
|
religion.
|
|
|
|
Angels and devils serve the centers of ultimate good and evil. So here
|
|
we see the largely invisible minions "Dan" and "Richard" and the
|
|
mysterious witness on the bridge furthering the cause of "Truth."
|
|
Likewise, Hopkins discerns the skeptical investigators as agents of a
|
|
secular satan.
|
|
|
|
Thus the interactions of Hopkins, et al., with these players are seen to
|
|
conform to the rules that historically control the interactions between
|
|
humans and gods. Humans question and provoke the gods only at the
|
|
greatest peril. The proper approach is to appease, mollify and
|
|
supplicate these "entities." It should be no surprise that the simplest
|
|
reality tests of the Napolitano story were not made in this case.
|
|
Hopkins' failure to check the weather conditions during the abduction
|
|
actually makes sense in the context of this cult-like thought process.
|
|
Just as lice were called "pearls of heaven" by medieval religious
|
|
devotees, the physical event-reality issues in the Linda story are
|
|
transmuted by her supporters.
|
|
|
|
The roles of high priest and acolytes are only too obvious when
|
|
examaning the behaviors of personages Hopkins, Clark, Jacobs, and
|
|
Andrus. These aging white males patronizingly refer to Linda's "average"
|
|
intellect, perhaps to reassure themselves that they are indeed in
|
|
control. Yet the high priestess has, in effect, achieved the godhead
|
|
(metaphorically speaking, of course).
|
|
|
|
There are some differences between D & D and ufological pursuits. D & D
|
|
has more restrictive and structured rules. The boundaries of appropriate
|
|
behavior are rather clearly defined. Ufology is more "unstructured,"
|
|
there are fewer "rules" about what is and is not possible, and the
|
|
powers of the "other- world" figures are almost unbounded. This relative
|
|
lack of structure makes the UFO game somewhat more "dangerous." In order
|
|
to grapple with the phenomena, the paradigms adopted by many ufologists
|
|
have "concretized" (i.e., structured) the beings as ET humanoids.
|
|
|
|
In fantasy role playing, the rules are not questioned; they are accepted
|
|
by the players at the beginning. Similarly in the Linda case, the basic
|
|
evidence is not to be questioned. Andrus, Clark, and Hopkins have all
|
|
urged that outsiders cease investigation (despite the massive publicity
|
|
given to the case). Such challenging of "rules" leads to disruptions of
|
|
the "game," and the dungeon masters need to keep order.
|
|
|
|
Direct interfacing of the "fantasy role" with the "real-world" (i.e.,
|
|
direct allegations of attempted murder, verification of details of
|
|
testimony), usually does not cause problems, except when the players do
|
|
not act in accordance with consequential "real-world" concerns. Hopkins,
|
|
Andrus, Clark, Mack, and Jacobs seem to have accepted a system of
|
|
beliefs and assumptions that have led to a collision with the "real
|
|
world." They have been unable to rationally defend their behavior, and
|
|
Jerome Clark's (1992a) "Torquemada" article is perhaps the single best
|
|
example of that. In fact, his emotional attack labeling Hansen as
|
|
"Torquemada" (director of the Spanish Inquisition) ressurects and
|
|
reinforces religious themes, and it perhaps betrays his unconscious
|
|
feelings of religious persecution.
|
|
|
|
The above discussion derives from a psycho-social perspective, and we
|
|
would like to encourage U.S. researchers to become more familiar the
|
|
ideas generated from that approach. We admit that the psycho-social
|
|
theorists have failed to address many aspects of the abduction
|
|
experience generally. Exclusive use of that perspective can lead to
|
|
positing simplistic and scientifically sterile explanations. On the
|
|
other hand, those that shun the psycho-social perspective typically fail
|
|
to recognize the explanatory power it possesses and its ability to
|
|
illuminate risks faced by investigators. Those wanting more information
|
|
about the psycho-social perspective may wish to read the book Angels and
|
|
Aliens by Keith Thompson (1991) and the British magazine Magonia; almost
|
|
without saying, the works of John Keel are also recommended.
|
|
|
|
We are not denigrating ufology by such comparisons as those made above,
|
|
nor are we attacking the existence of "other-world" entities. Regardless
|
|
whether entities or ET aliens exist, the comparisons are useful and the
|
|
consequences and insights are applicable. Such a comparative analysis
|
|
should not be limited to only D & D players and ufologists; similar
|
|
comparisons could be made for virtually everyone in the "real world."
|
|
They can help serve as warnings about becoming too complacent regarding
|
|
beliefs in our own "rationality."
|
|
|
|
|
|
DISCUSSION
|
|
|
|
The Napolitano case appears beset by an overwhelming number of problems.
|
|
It was with some misgivings that we first embarked on this investigation
|
|
because we did not wish to see UFO abduction research discredited. In
|
|
fact, one of us, Butler, has had abduction experiences himself. It was
|
|
our judgement that if we did not raise these issues for public
|
|
discussion, there was a much greater risk for the field. The case was
|
|
garnering considerable attention, and if it became widely regarded as
|
|
evidential, it would reflect very badly on the field as a whole if it
|
|
was eventually shown to be false.
|
|
|
|
We were quite unprepared for the reaction to our work from leaders of
|
|
the field. Walter Andrus and Jerome Clark aggressively tried to dissuade
|
|
us from continuing our investigation, and so far they have failed to
|
|
publish any material critical of the case. We were unaware that such
|
|
belligerently antiscientific attitudes were so prevalent at the highest
|
|
levels of ufology. When these same individuals attempted to suppress
|
|
evidence of an alleged attempted murder, we concluded that their beliefs
|
|
and actions were incompatible with "real world" events. However, we do
|
|
not consider the label "deluded" appropriate here, and we remind the
|
|
reader that these individuals are backed by people such as Harvard
|
|
psychiatrist John Mack and David Jacobs, professor of history at Temple
|
|
University.
|
|
|
|
Despite our disappointment, we strongly support scientific research into
|
|
the abduction phenomena and would like to call attention to high quality
|
|
studies in the field (e.g., Ring & Rosing, 1990; Rodeghier, Goodpaster &
|
|
Blatterbauer, 1992). We also believe that the core abduction experience
|
|
has not been adequately explained within normal scientific frameworks.
|
|
We commend the work of Hufford (1982) in exploring similar issues.
|
|
|
|
The present case has significant implications for assessing the true
|
|
nature of the abduction phenomena. The idea that actual extraterrestrial
|
|
physical creatures are abducting people has been vigorously promoted in
|
|
the scientific literature and in the media. Jacobs has promoted that
|
|
view in the New York Times (Hinds, 1992) as well as in the Journal of
|
|
UFO Studies (Jacobs, 1992). He suggests that the ET aliens are visiting
|
|
earth in order to obtain human sperm and eggs. In his JUFOS article,
|
|
Jacobs was bitterly critical of Ring and Rosing, saying that they
|
|
ignored "cases of witnesses seeing others being abducted while not being
|
|
abducted themselves" (p. 162). Surprizingly, Jacobs gave no citations
|
|
for any of these cases. Hansen wrote to Jacobs requesting such citations
|
|
but received no reply. Jacobs' article was lavish in its praise for
|
|
Hopkins' work, and we suspect that Jacobs had in mind the Napolitano
|
|
case when he wrote his article. We would like to remind the reader that
|
|
it was Hopkins (1992a) who wrote: "The importance of this case is
|
|
virtually immeasurable, as it powerfully supports both the objective
|
|
reality of UFO abductions and the accuracy of regressive hypnosis."
|
|
Because the argument for the "objective reality of UFO abductions"
|
|
relies heavily on Hopkins' work, our findings call into question this
|
|
entire theoretical perspective.
|
|
|
|
In our judgment, conscious hoaxes are rare in the abduction field. The
|
|
vast majority of those claiming to be abducted have had some kind of
|
|
intense personal experience, whatever the ultimate cause. Nevertheless,
|
|
the problems of fraud and hoaxing have long been a problem in ufology,
|
|
especially for cases with high visibility. This will continue.
|
|
Researchers must become more open minded to the potential for hoaxing,
|
|
yet not be blinded to the genuine phenomena. This is a difficult
|
|
balance.
|
|
|
|
Some have questioned possible motives in this case; it is impossible to
|
|
obtain certain knowledge here. Perhaps Linda really had some kind of an
|
|
abduction experience (Butler believes this is likely to be the case). As
|
|
she became acquainted with Hopkins and other abductees, she may have
|
|
wanted to vindicate them--to save them from ridicule and derision.
|
|
Perhaps money was the only motivation. Possibly there was a combination
|
|
of factors. It does appear that if this was a hoax, it was not
|
|
perpetrated by a lone individual. Collaborators would include the woman
|
|
on the bridge, an X-ray operator, and a man (or men) preparing the tape
|
|
recordings. However, we want to emphasize that we have no direct
|
|
evidence to implicate Hopkins in attempted deception.
|
|
|
|
Cynics might criticize Hopkins saying that he ignored the obvious
|
|
problems because he was motivated by money that might accrue from books
|
|
and movie rights. While this might possibly be an unconscious factor,
|
|
critics rarely acknowledge that Hopkins does not charge abductees for
|
|
his services (unlike some "professionals"). Hopkins has spent an
|
|
enormous amount of his own time and money investigating the phenomena.
|
|
Furthermore, he does not have an academic position subsidized by the tax
|
|
payers. One should not begrudge him the profits from his books. Hopkins
|
|
has been involved in considerable controversy, and some have disputed
|
|
his methods. Nevertheless, he has done much to bring the abduction
|
|
problem to the attention of scientists and the mental health community,
|
|
and his efforts have made it much more acceptable to discuss such
|
|
strange encounters. Abduction experiences are often emotional and
|
|
traumatic, and the abductees need considerable support. Hopkins has
|
|
attempted to provide much needed aid.
|
|
|
|
The outside critic who is not directly involved in such activities
|
|
almost never recognizes how difficult it is to serve as both a therapist
|
|
and as a scientist. Those persons trying to help abductees emotionally
|
|
need to provide warmth, acceptance, and trust. The scientist, however,
|
|
needs to be critically open minded and somewhat detached and analytical.
|
|
The two functions are not altogether compatible. We cannot realistically
|
|
expect one individual to be 100% effective in both roles. By the nature
|
|
of the endeavor, those trying to be helpful can be vulnerable to
|
|
deception.
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPENDIX
|
|
|
|
A Note on the Hansen-Clark Communications
|
|
|
|
One of the more entertaining aspects of this case has been the resulting
|
|
missives by Hansen (1992a, 1992b) and Clark (1992a, 1992b) which have
|
|
been widely circulated and posted on electronic bulletin boards. We
|
|
encourage those interested to obtain copies.
|
|
|
|
Clark's (1992b) most recent piece deserves comment. He now says that he
|
|
now does not accept Linda's claims about the kidnapping and attempted
|
|
murder by government agents. However, in a telephone conversation with
|
|
him on October 6, 1992, he told Hansen that he accepted those claims.
|
|
Hansen did not tape-record the conversation, but he is willing to
|
|
provide a sworn statement to that effect. Hansen also talked with
|
|
Marcello Truzzi who had spoken to Clark near the same time. Truzzi
|
|
understood that Clark believed that Linda was sincere in her claims and
|
|
was telling the truth to the best of her ability.
|
|
|
|
The salient points are summarized as follows:
|
|
|
|
1. At the 1992 MUFON symposium, Linda Napolitano spoke in front of
|
|
hundreds of people and claimed that she was kidnapped by government
|
|
agents.
|
|
|
|
2. Clark told both Hansen and Truzzi that he accepted Linda's story
|
|
(i.e., that she was telling the truth to the best of her ability).
|
|
|
|
3. Hopkins claims to have much evidence that could be used to identify
|
|
the culprits.
|
|
|
|
4. Hopkins flew Clark to New York, whereupon Clark aggressively injected
|
|
himself into matters and vigorously opposed continuing an outside
|
|
investigation and reporting the alleged felonies to law enforcement
|
|
authorities. He defended this position, in writing, saying: "if this
|
|
story is true, it is not just a UFO case but a `politically
|
|
sensitive' event because it supposedly involves a political figure of
|
|
international stature...banging on the wrong doors could alert the
|
|
relevant agency that two of its agents were leaking a huge secret."
|
|
(Clark, 1992a, p. 1).
|
|
|
|
We will let the readers decide whether Clark's initial position was
|
|
compatible with "real-world" considerations.
|
|
|
|
We are gratified that Clark has taken the time to comment, at length, on
|
|
these issues, and in a style so typical of his level of dispassionate
|
|
commentary. We caution readers that Clark perhaps may be currently
|
|
acutely embarrassed by his statement quoted in point 4 and may feel the
|
|
need to obscure this central issue. Nevertheless, we are pleased that he
|
|
now seems to have made a cathartic conversion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
REFERENCES
|
|
|
|
Baskin, Anita. (1992). Antimatter: High-rise abductions: Alien
|
|
abductions routinely occur in big cities and high-rise buildings around
|
|
the world. Omni. April. Vol. 14, No. 7, p. 75.
|
|
|
|
Clark, Jerome. (1992a). The Politics of Torquemada; or, Earth Calling
|
|
Hansen's Planet. 612 North Oscar Avenue, Canby, Minnesota 56220. October
|
|
24, 1992. [This paper has been circulated and posted on electronic
|
|
bulletin boards].
|
|
|
|
Clark, Jerome. (1992b). Wasting Away in Torquemadaville. November 30,
|
|
1992. [This paper has been circulated].
|
|
|
|
De Brosses, Marie-Therese. (1992). Enleves par les E.T.! Paris Match. 17
|
|
Sept., pp. 13, 14, 18, 96, 98.
|
|
|
|
Drano the Sewerian [pseudonym]. (1992). SETI and military personnel
|
|
monitor secret UFO abduction conference at MIT. Third Eyes Only. July-
|
|
August, No. 4, pp. 42-44.
|
|
|
|
Fowler, Raymond E. (Editor). (1983). MUFON Field Investigator's Manual.
|
|
Seguin, TX: Mutual UFO Network.
|
|
|
|
Hansen, George P. (1992a). Attempted Murder vs. The Politics of Ufology:
|
|
A Question of Priorities in the Linda Napolitano Case. 20 October 1992.
|
|
[This paper has been circulated and posted on a number of electronic
|
|
bulletin boards and published in several periodicals including The New
|
|
Jersey Chronicle, Vol. 3, Nos. 1/2, September-December, 1992; MUFON of
|
|
Ohio Newsletter, No. 3, Second November 1992 Issue; Third Eyes Only, No.
|
|
6, November 1992; UFO Spotters Newsletter, No. 16, 1992; Minnesota MUFON
|
|
Newsletter, No. 37, October 1992]
|
|
|
|
Hansen, George P. (1992b). "Torquemada" Responds to Jerome Clark. 23
|
|
November 1992. [This paper has been circulated and posted on a
|
|
number of
|
|
electronic bulletin boards.]
|
|
|
|
Hatfield, Scott. (1992). X-Ray Said to Show Alien Implant. ADVANCE for
|
|
Radiologic Science Professionals. October 26, p. 11.
|
|
|
|
Hinds, Michael deCourcy. (1992). Taking U.F.O.'s for Credit, and for
|
|
Real. New York Times, 28 October, p. B9.
|
|
|
|
Hopkins, Budd. (1981). Missing Time: A Documented Study of UFO
|
|
Abductions. New York: Richard Marek.
|
|
|
|
Hopkins, Budd. (1987). Intruders: The Incredible Visitations at Copley
|
|
Woods. New York: Random House.
|
|
|
|
Hopkins, Budd. (1991). Innocent bystanders. IF-The Bulletin of the
|
|
Intruders Foundation. Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 1-4.
|
|
|
|
Hopkins, [Budd]. (1992a). A doubly witnessed abduction. Abstracts:
|
|
Abduction Study Conference at Massachusetts Institute of Technology
|
|
prepared by Andrea Pritchard. June 13-17, p. III-B.
|
|
|
|
Hopkins, Budd. (1992b). An Open Letter From Budd Hopkins. Mufon UFO
|
|
Journal, June, p. 20.
|
|
|
|
Hopkins, Budd. (1992c). The Linda Cortile [Napolitano] Abduction Case.
|
|
Mufon UFO Journal, September, pp. 12-16.
|
|
|
|
Hopkins, Budd. (1992d). The Linda Cortile [Napolitano] Abduction Case:
|
|
Part II "The Woman on the Bridge (sic). Mufon UFO Journal, December, pp.
|
|
5-9.
|
|
|
|
Hufford, David J. (1982). The Terror That Comes in the Night: An
|
|
Experience- Centered Study of Supernatural Assault Traditions.
|
|
Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
|
|
|
|
Jacobs, David M. (1992). On Studying the Abduction Phenomenon Without
|
|
Knowing What It Is. Journal of UFO Studies, New Series Vol. 3, 153-163.
|
|
|
|
Jefferson, David J. (1992). A Harvard doctor offers trauma relief for
|
|
UFO `abductees.' Wall Street Journal, May 14, pp. A1, A10.
|
|
|
|
Mack, John E. (1992a). Helping Abductees. International UFO Reporter.
|
|
July/ August, pp. 10-15, 20.
|
|
|
|
Mack, John E. (1992b). Other Realities: The "Alien Abduction"
|
|
Phenomenon. Noetic Sciences Review. Autumn, pp. 5-11.
|
|
|
|
McKenna, Chris. (1992). Doc `Abducted by Aliens' Ruled Fit to Work. New
|
|
York Post, November 21, pp. 5, 13.
|
|
|
|
Reeves-Stevens, Garfield. (1989). Nighteyes. New York: Doubleday.
|
|
|
|
Ring, Kenneth; & Rosing, Christopher J. (1990). The Omega Project: A
|
|
Psychological Survey of Persons Reporting Abductions and Other UFO
|
|
Encounters. Journal of UFO Studies, New Series Vol. 2, 59-98.
|
|
|
|
Rodeghier, Mark; Goodpaster, Jeff; & Blatterbauer, Sandra. (1992).
|
|
Psychosocial Characteristics of Abductees: Results From the CUFOS
|
|
Abduction Project. Journal of UFO Studies, New Series Vol. 3, 59-90.
|
|
|
|
Sontag, Deborah. (1992). Reverence and Rigidity in the New Age: At the
|
|
Whole Life Expo the Spirits are Willing So Long as the Wallet is Not
|
|
Weak. New York Times, October 5, pp. B1, B2.
|
|
|
|
Stacy, Dennis. (1992). The 1992 MUFON Symposium. Mufon UFO Journal,
|
|
August, pp. 3-10.
|
|
|
|
Thompson, Keith. (1991). Angels and Aliens: UFOs and the Mythic
|
|
Imagination. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
|
|
|
|
Unusual Personal Experiences: An Analysis of the Data from Three
|
|
National Surveys Conducted by the Roper Organization. (1992). Las Vegas,
|
|
NV: Bigelow Holding Corporation.
|
|
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Acknowledgements: We would like to thank Philip J. Klass for assistance.
|
|
We would also like to thank Vincent Creevy for providing materials and
|
|
bringing the novel Nighteyes to our attention. Thanks are also due to
|
|
several who provided help but do not want their names associated with
|
|
the field of ufology.
|
|
|
|
Joseph Stefula is a former Special Agent for the U.S. Army Criminal
|
|
Investigations Command and is a former MUFON State Director for New
|
|
Jersey. He resigned his directorship shortly after finishing this
|
|
investigation.
|
|
|
|
Richard Butler is a former law enforcement and security police
|
|
specialist for the U.S. Air Force and now a UFO investigator researching
|
|
abductions and government cover-ups.
|
|
|
|
George Hansen has conducted parapsychological research and is author of
|
|
the article "CSICOP and the Skeptics: An Overview" which appeared in the
|
|
January 1992 Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joseph Stefula
|
|
7 Michigan Terrace
|
|
Browns Mills, NJ 08015
|
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Butler
|
|
P.O. Box 65
|
|
Mays Landing, NJ 08330
|
|
|
|
|
|
George Hansen
|
|
Princeton Arms North 1, Apt. 59
|
|
Cranbury, NJ 08512
|
|
|
|
|
|
08 January 1993
|
|
**********************************************
|
|
* THE U.F.O. BBS - http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo *
|
|
********************************************** |