This page hosted by
Get your own Free Home Page
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 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 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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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).
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. |
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 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."
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.
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.
08 January 1993
Skeptic page
Get your own Free Home Page