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 *
**********************************************
