I hope readers will bear with me as I make my first trip into
the alien abduction "debate". I do so for a number of
reasons. Firstly the following report gives a very different
perspective to the claims being made by Hopkins and his
supporters, and to my knowledge has not yet been published in
Britain. Secondly there is much to be learnt from this case about
the way UFOlogists repeatedly make critical errors by not asking
the right questions. Thirdly this case demonstrates the serious
problems of accepting the literal reality of highly exotic claims
and then refusing to continually reappraise the case as new
evidence emerges. And lastly because if the allegations in this
paper are true then some proponents of this case have gone down
that dark dingy lane of suppressing negative evidence - the same
lane that certain crop circle researchers disappeared down
several years ago.
This article first appeared on the MUFON BBS system in
June. It immediately sparked something of an argument between the
system operator - John Komar - and Sheldon Wernikoff - remember
him ? Wernikoff features in Meaden's Circles From The Sky
(page 200). It appears that John Komar decided to restrict
circulation of this material because of its controversial attack
on Budd Hopkins, Jerry Clark and MUFON's Walt Andrus -
arguably the three most influential US UFOlogists. Wernikoff
argued that despite its controversial nature and stinging attacks
the paper had a right to be posted as it contained important new
evidence that was relevant to the debate. John Komar disagreed
but eventually backed down. Komar recently resigned as the System
Operator for the MUFONET BBS claiming that it was for
business reasons. I won't bore readers with all the details of
this apparent censorship. Instead, here is one of the world's
most notorious UFO articles of recent years:
To: Those Interested in the UFO Problem
From: Joseph J. Stefula, Richard D. Butler and George P. Hansen.
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.
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 behaviour 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 labelled
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 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.
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.
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 over-burdening 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
surprised 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.
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 cassette
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 dishevelled, had sand in
her hair, and was traumatized by the experience.
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.
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."
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 travelled
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.
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.
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.
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 neighbours, 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.
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 travelled 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.
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
counselled 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.
In concluding his Mufon UFO Journal paper, Hopkins
wrote: "if rumours 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 off-hand 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).
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 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 [as they do in the "Washburn" case
described on pages 10-11, PF].
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.
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 co-investigator, 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 behaviour 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 endeavours 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 examining the behaviours 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 behaviour 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 behaviour, and Jerome Clark's (1992a)
"Torquemada" article is perhaps the single best example
of that. In fact, his emotional attack labelling Hansen as
"Torquemada" (director of the Spanish Inquisition)
resurrects 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."
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).
Surprisingly, 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 endeavour, those trying to be helpful can be vulnerable to
deception.
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.
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.
