Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 620
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 620
Friday, January 29th 1993
(C) Copyright 1992 Paranet Information Service. All Rights Reserved.
Today's Topics:
Linda Report - 7/15
Linda Report - 8/15
Linda Report - 9/15
Linda Report - 10/15
Linda Report - 11/15
Linda Report - 12/15
Linda Report - 13/15
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don.Allen@p1.f81.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Allen)
Subject: Linda Report - 7/15
Date: 12 Jan 93 06:16:21 GMT
* Forwarded from "UFO"
* Originally by Don Allen
* Originally to All
* Originally dated 11 Jan 1993, 23:02
<< cont from last >>
We also visited the site under the FDR drive where Richard and Dan
purportedly parked their car. This was in a direct line of sight and nearly
across the street from the loading dock of the New York Post. We spoke with
an employee of the Post, who told us that the dock was in use through most
of the night. A few days later, we called the New York Post and spoke to
the person who was the loading dock manager in 1989. He told us that the
dock is in use until 5:00 a.m. and that there are many trucks that come and
go frequently during the early morning hours. The manager knew nothing of
the UFO which supposedly appeared only a couple blocks away.
Also in September, a colleague of ours contacted the Downtown Heliport, on
Pier Six on the East River of Manhattan. That is the only heliport on the
east side of Manhattan between Linda's apartment and the lower tip of the
island. Our colleague was informed that the normal hours of operation of the
heliport are from 7:00 a.m to 7:00 p.m. The Senior Airport Operations Agent
researched the records and found that there were no helicopter movements on
November 30, 1989 before normal hours. Our colleague was also told that
about six months previously, the heliport authorities had been approached by
a man in his fifties with white hair who had made a similar inquiry. That
man had asked about a UFO that had crashed into the East River.
The Meeting of October 3
On October 3, 1992, we met with Hopkins and his colleagues at his residence
in Manhattan. Among those in attendance were David Jacobs, Walter H.
Andrus, and Jerome Clark. During our meeting a number of questions were
raised, and some of Hopkins' answers revealed a great deal about his
investigations as well as the attitudes of Jacobs, Andrus, and Clark.
Linda's statements also told us much.
We inquired if Hopkins had asked the guards of the apartment complex whether
they had seen the UFO. He indicated that he had not done so. This is quite
surprising, considering that the UFO was so bright that the woman on the
bridge had to shield her eyes from it even though she was more than a
quarter mile distant. One would have thought that Hopkins would have made
inquiries of the guards considering the spectacular nature of the event.
We noted that Linda had claimed that police canvassing of her apartment
complex was a common occurrence. We asked Hopkins if he had attempted to
verify this with the guards or the building manager. He indicated that he
did not feel it necessary. Although this is a minor point, it is one of the
few directly checkable statements made by Linda, but Hopkins did not attempt
to confirm it.
We asked about the weather on the night of the abduction. Amazingly,
Hopkins told us that he didn't know the weather conditions for that period.
This was perhaps one of the most revealing moments, and it gives great
insight into Hopkins' capabilities as an investigator. If the weather had
been foggy, rainy, or snowing, the visibility could have been greatly
hampered, and the reliability of the testimony of the witnesses would need
to be evaluated accordingly. Even the very first form in the MUFON Field
Investigator's Manual requests information on weather conditions (Fowler,
1983, p. 30). We ourselves did check the weather and knew the conditions
did not impede visibility. But the fact that Hopkins apparently had not
bothered to obtain even this most basic investigatory information was
illuminating. He claims to have much supporting evidence that he has not
revealed to outsiders; however, because of Hopkins' demonstrated failure to
check even the most rudimentary facts, we place absolutely no credence in
his undisclosed "evidence."
During the discussions, Hopkins' partisans made allusions to other world
figures involved in this event, though they did not give names. Hopkins'
supporters, who had been given information denied to us, seemed to believe
that there was a large motorcade that carried Perez de Cuellar and these
other dignitaries in the early morning hours of November 30, 1989. At the
meeting, we presented an outside expert consultant who for many years had
served in dignitary protective services. He described the extensive
preplanning required for moving officials and the massive coordination
during the movements. Many people and networks would be alerted if there
were any problems at all (such as a car stalling, or a delay in passing
checkpoints). His detailed presentation seemed to take Hopkins aback. The
consultant listed several specialized terms used by the dignitary protective
services and suggested that Hopkins ask Richard and Dan the meaning of those
terms as a test of their knowledge, and thus credibility. As far as we
know, Hopkins has failed to contact Richard and Dan about that matter.
During the beginning part of the October 3 meeting, Linda's husband answered
a few questions (in a very quiet voice). He seemed to have difficulty with
some of them, and Linda spoke up to "correct" his memory. He left the
meeting very early, even though Linda was under considerable stress, and
despite the fact that she was overheard asking him to stay by her side. His
leaving raised many questions in our minds.
<< cont >>
--
Don Allen - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Allen@p1.f81.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don.Allen@p1.f81.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Allen)
Subject: Linda Report - 8/15
Date: 12 Jan 93 06:17:22 GMT
* Forwarded from "UFO"
* Originally by Don Allen
* Originally to All
* Originally dated 11 Jan 1993, 23:02
<< cont from last >>
Linda also responded to questions during the meeting. Early in the
discussion, Hansen asked Linda's husband whether he was born and raised in
the U.S. He replied that he had come to this country when he was 17. Linda
promptly interjected that she knew why Hansen had asked that question.
During a prior telephone conversation between Linda and Hansen, Linda had
asserted that her husband was born and raised in New York. She acknowledged
that she had previously deliberately misled Hansen.
Later in the meeting the question arose about a financial agreement between
Linda and Hopkins. Stefula noted that Linda had told him that she and
Hopkins had an agreement to split profits from a book. Hopkins denied that
there was any such arrangement, and Linda then claimed that she had
deliberately planted disinformation.
During the meeting, reports were heard from two psychologists. They
concluded that Linda's intelligence was in the "average" range. One
suggested that Linda would need the mind of a Bobby Fischer to plan and
execute any hoax that could explain this case and that she was not capable
of orchestrating such a massive, complex operation. Although these were
supposedly professional opinions, we were not given the names of these
psychologists.
Ms. Penelope Franklin also attended the meeting. She is a close colleague
of Hopkins and the editor of IF--The Bulletin of the Intruders Foundation.
Hopkins had previously informed us in writing that Ms. Franklin was a
coinvestigator on the Napolitano case. In a conversation during a break in
the meeting, Franklin asserted to Hansen that Linda was absolutely justified
in lying about the case. This remarkable statement was also witnessed by
Vincent Creevy, who happened to be standing between Franklin and Hansen.
Franklin's statement raises very troubling questions, especially given her
prominence within Hopkins' circle of colleagues. Her statement appears to
violate all norms of scientific integrity. We can only wonder whether Linda
has been counseled to lie by Hopkins or his colleagues. Have other
abductees been given similar advice? What kind of a social and ethical
environment are Hopkins and Franklin creating for abductees? We also cannot
help but wonder whether Hopkins and Franklin believe it appropriate for
themselves to lie about the case. They owe the UFO research community an
explanation for Franklin's statement. If such is not forthcoming, we simply
cannot accept them as credible investigators.
HOPKINS' REACTION TO OUR INVESTIGATION
In concluding his Mufon UFO Journal paper, Hopkins wrote: "if rumors are
true and there are officially sanctioned intelligence agents within the
various UFO investigative networks, these people will also be mobilized to
subvert the case from the inside, even before its full dimensions are made
known to the public at large" (Hopkins, 1992c, p. 16). Hopkins apparently
takes this idea quite seriously. After he learned of our investigation, he
warned Butler that he suspected Butler and Stefula of being government
agents and that he planned to inform others of his suspicions. A few weeks
after our October 3 meeting, he told people that he suspected Hansen of
being a CIA agent. This was not an offhand remark made to a friend in an
informal setting; rather this was asserted to a woman whom he did not know
and who had happened to attend one of his lectures (member of MUFON in New
Jersey who feared future repercussions if her name was mentioned, personal
communication, November 7, 1992).
A POSSIBLE LITERARY BASIS FOR ELEMENTS OF THE STORY
This case is quite exotic, even for a UFO abduction. Government agents are
involved, the UN Secretary General is a key witness, Linda was kidnapped in
the interests of national security, concerns are expressed about world
peace, the CIA is attempting to discredit the case, and the ETs helped end
the Cold War. The story is truly marvellous, and one might wonder about its
origin. We wish to draw the readers' attention to the science fiction
novel, Nighteyes, by Garfield Reeves-Stevens. This work was first published
in April 1989, a few months before Linda claimed to have been abducted from
her apartment.
The experiences reported by Linda seem to be a composite of those of two
characters in Nighteyes: Sarah and Wendy. The parallels are striking; some
are listed in Table 1. We have not bothered to include the similarities
commonly reported in abduction experiences (e.g., implants, bodily
examinations, probes, etc.). The parallels are sufficiently numerous to
lead us to suspect that the novel served as the basis for Linda's story. We
want to emphasize that the parallels are with discrete elements of the case
and not with the story line itself.
<< cont >>
--
Don Allen - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Allen@p1.f81.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don.Allen@p1.f81.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Allen)
Subject: Linda Report - 9/15
Date: 12 Jan 93 06:17:23 GMT
* Forwarded from "UFO"
* Originally by Don Allen
* Originally to All
* Originally dated 11 Jan 1993, 23:04
<< cont from last >>
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.
<< cont >>
--
Don Allen - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Allen@p1.f81.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don.Allen@p1.f81.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Allen)
Subject: Linda Report - 10/15
Date: 12 Jan 93 06:18:24 GMT
* Forwarded from "UFO"
* Originally by Don Allen
* Originally to All
* Originally dated 11 Jan 1993, 23:04
<< cont from last >>
* Dan and Richard felt considerable vibration during the close encounter.
During the UFO landing in Nighteyes there was much vibration.
* Photographs of Linda were taken on the beach and sent to Hopkins.
In Nighteyes, photographs taken on a beach played a central role.
THE REACTION OF THE UFOLOGY'S LEADERSHIP
One of the most curious features of our investigation has been the reaction
of several prominent leaders in ufology. Indeed, in the long run, this may
turn out to be the most important part of the entire affair.
After the MUFON symposium in July, Stefula had several conversations with
Walter Andrus, International Director of MUFON. Andrus told him that MUFON
had no interest in publishing any material critical of this case even though
they had published an article describing it as "The Abduction Case of the
Century." This is a most surprising statement from a leader of an
organization which purports to be scientific. Andrus' statements should
raise questions about the legitimacy of MUFON's claims to use objective,
scientific methods.
On September 14, 1992, Hopkins faxed Butler a letter saying that as a
long-standing member of MUFON, he was issuing an "order" (his word). He
"ordered" Stefula and Butler to stop their investigation of the case. We
found this very curious, and we wondered how Hopkins, as a member of MUFON,
could believe that it was in his power to issue such an "order." His letter
seemed to reflect the mindset of a leader of a cult rather than that of an
investigator searching for the truth.
For the meeting on October 3 in New York City, Hopkins flew in his close
friend Jerome Clark from Minnesota. Under the sway of Hopkins, Clark
strenuously urged that outsiders cease investigations, thus seemingly trying
to reinforce Hopkins' earlier "order" (despite the fact that the case
already had been reported in the Wall Street Journal, Omni, Paris Match and
the television show Inside Edition). Clark (1992a) later committed his
position to writing, saying that this case may indeed involve a world
political figure and have international consequences.
Andrus and Clark are arguably the two most influential figures in U.S.
ufology. Andrus is International Director of the Mutual UFO Network
(MUFON), and he organizes the largest annual conference on UFOs in the
country and regularly writes for MUFON's monthly magazine. Clark is a
columnist for Fate magazine, editor of International UFO Reporter,
vice-president of the J. Allen Hynek Center for UFO Studies, and author of
books and even an encyclopedia on UFOs. Because of their eminence, their
statements should be of special concern to the UFO research community.
At the meeting on October 3, the kidnapping and attempted murder of Linda
were discussed. We informed Hopkins and the other participants that we were
prepared to make a formal request for a federal investigation of the
government agents responsible for the alleged felonies. Hopkins, Andrus,
and Clark appeared to literally panic at the suggestion. They vigorously
argued against making such a request. We could only conclude that they
wanted to suppress evidence of attempted murder. We wondered why.
This situation seemed so outrageous that a few days later Hansen called
Andrus, Clark, John Mack, and David Jacobs and asked them if they really
believed Linda's story about the kidnappings and attempted murder. All of
these individuals said that they accepted her account. We were forced to
seriously consider their opinions because they had been given secret
information not revealed to us. During the telephone conversations, Andrus
and Clark again strongly objected to requesting an investigation by law
enforcement authorities.
A PSYCHO-SOCIAL PERSPECTIVE
The Napolitano case brings into stark relief symptoms of deep problems
within ufology: major figures in the UFO community aggressively sought to
suppress evidence of a purported attempted murder; Hopkins failed to obtain
and verify even the most basic investigatory information; his
coinvestigator, Penelope Franklin, approved of lying by the principal
witness; and leaders in the field have willingly accepted and promoted the
case despite its exotic features and lack of supporting evidence. This
state of affairs raises perplexing questions and cries out for a plausible
explanation. The thinking and motivations of ufology's leaders deserve at
least as much attention as the abduction claims themselves.
<< cont >>
--
Don Allen - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Allen@p1.f81.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don.Allen@p1.f81.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Allen)
Subject: Linda Report - 11/15
Date: 12 Jan 93 06:18:25 GMT
* Forwarded from "UFO"
* Originally by Don Allen
* Originally to All
* Originally dated 11 Jan 1993, 23:05
<< cont from last >>
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.
<< cont >>
--
Don Allen - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Allen@p1.f81.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don.Allen@p1.f81.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Allen)
Subject: Linda Report - 12/15
Date: 12 Jan 93 06:19:26 GMT
* Forwarded from "UFO"
* Originally by Don Allen
* Originally to All
* Originally dated 11 Jan 1993, 23:07
<< cont from last >>
The above discussion derives from a psycho-social perspective, and we would
like to encourage U.S. researchers to become more familiar the ideas
generated from that approach. We admit that the psycho-social theorists
have failed to address many aspects of the abduction experience generally.
Exclusive use of that perspective can lead to positing simplistic and
scientifically sterile explanations. On the other hand, those that shun the
psycho-social perspective typically fail to recognize the explanatory power
it possesses and its ability to illuminate risks faced by investigators.
Those wanting more information about the psycho-social perspective may wish
to read the book Angels and Aliens by Keith Thompson (1991) and the British
magazine Magonia; almost without saying, the works of John Keel are also
recommended.
We are not denigrating ufology by such comparisons as those made above, nor
are we attacking the existence of "other-world" entities. Regardless
whether entities or ET aliens exist, the comparisons are useful and the
consequences and insights are applicable. Such a comparative analysis
should not be limited to only D & D players and ufologists; similar
comparisons could be made for virtually everyone in the "real world." They
can help serve as warnings about becoming too complacent regarding beliefs
in our own "rationality."
DISCUSSION
The Napolitano case appears beset by an overwhelming number of problems. It
was with some misgivings that we first embarked on this investigation
because we did not wish to see UFO abduction research discredited. In fact,
one of us, Butler, has had abduction experiences himself. It was our
judgement that if we did not raise these issues for public discussion, there
was a much greater risk for the field. The case was garnering considerable
attention, and if it became widely regarded as evidential, it would reflect
very badly on the field as a whole if it was eventually shown to be false.
We were quite unprepared for the reaction to our work from leaders of the
field. Walter Andrus and Jerome Clark aggressively tried to dissuade us
from continuing our investigation, and so far they have failed to publish
any material critical of the case. We were unaware that such belligerently
antiscientific attitudes were so prevalent at the highest levels of ufology.
When these same individuals attempted to suppress evidence of an alleged
attempted murder, we concluded that their beliefs and actions were
incompatible with "real world" events. However, we do not consider the
label "deluded" appropriate here, and we remind the reader that these
individuals are backed by people such as Harvard psychiatrist John Mack and
David Jacobs, professor of history at Temple University.
Despite our disappointment, we strongly support scientific research into the
abduction phenomena and would like to call attention to high quality studies
in the field (e.g., Ring & Rosing, 1990; Rodeghier, Goodpaster &
Blatterbauer, 1992). We also believe that the core abduction experience has
not been adequately explained within normal scientific frameworks. We
commend the work of Hufford (1982) in exploring similar issues.
The present case has significant implications for assessing the true nature
of the abduction phenomena. The idea that actual extraterrestrial physical
creatures are abducting people has been vigorously promoted in the
scientific literature and in the media. Jacobs has promoted that view in
the New York Times (Hinds, 1992) as well as in the Journal of UFO Studies
(Jacobs, 1992). He suggests that the ET aliens are visiting earth in order
to obtain human sperm and eggs. In his JUFOS article, Jacobs was bitterly
critical of Ring and Rosing, saying that they ignored "cases of witnesses
seeing others being abducted while not being abducted themselves" (p. 162).
Surprizingly, Jacobs gave no citations for any of these cases. Hansen wrote
to Jacobs requesting such citations but received no reply. Jacobs' article
was lavish in its praise for Hopkins' work, and we suspect that Jacobs had
in mind the Napolitano case when he wrote his article. We would like to
remind the reader that it was Hopkins (1992a) who wrote: "The importance of
this case is virtually immeasurable, as it powerfully supports both the
objective reality of UFO abductions and the accuracy of regressive
hypnosis." Because the argument for the "objective reality of UFO
abductions" relies heavily on Hopkins' work, our findings call into question
this entire theoretical perspective.
In our judgment, conscious hoaxes are rare in the abduction field. The vast
majority of those claiming to be abducted have had some kind of intense
personal experience, whatever the ultimate cause. Nevertheless, the
problems of fraud and hoaxing have long been a problem in ufology,
especially for cases with high visibility. This will continue. Researchers
must become more open minded to the potential for hoaxing, yet not be
blinded to the genuine phenomena. This is a difficult balance.
<< cont >>
--
Don Allen - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Allen@p1.f81.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don.Allen@p1.f81.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Allen)
Subject: Linda Report - 13/15
Date: 12 Jan 93 06:19:27 GMT
* Forwarded from "UFO"
* Originally by Don Allen
* Originally to All
* Originally dated 11 Jan 1993, 23:08
<< cont from last >>
Some have questioned possible motives in this case; it is impossible to
obtain certain knowledge here. Perhaps Linda really had some kind of an
abduction experience (Butler believes this is likely to be the case). As
she became acquainted with Hopkins and other abductees, she may have wanted
to vindicate them--to save them from ridicule and derision. Perhaps money
was the only motivation. Possibly there was a combination of factors. It
does appear that if this was a hoax, it was not perpetrated by a lone
individual. Collaborators would include the woman on the bridge, an X-ray
operator, and a man (or men) preparing the tape recordings. However, we
want to emphasize that we have no direct evidence to implicate Hopkins in
attempted deception.
Cynics might criticize Hopkins saying that he ignored the obvious problems
because he was motivated by money that might accrue from books and movie
rights. While this might possibly be an unconscious factor, critics rarely
acknowledge that Hopkins does not charge abductees for his services (unlike
some "professionals"). Hopkins has spent an enormous amount of his own time
and money investigating the phenomena. Furthermore, he does not have an
academic position subsidized by the tax payers. One should not begrudge him
the profits from his books. Hopkins has been involved in considerable
controversy, and some have disputed his methods. Nevertheless, he has done
much to bring the abduction problem to the attention of scientists and the
mental health community, and his efforts have made it much more acceptable
to discuss such strange encounters. Abduction experiences are often
emotional and traumatic, and the abductees need considerable support.
Hopkins has attempted to provide much needed aid.
The outside critic who is not directly involved in such activities almost
never recognizes how difficult it is to serve as both a therapist and as a
scientist. Those persons trying to help abductees emotionally need to
provide warmth, acceptance, and trust. The scientist, however, needs to be
critically open minded and somewhat detached and analytical. The two
functions are not altogether compatible. We cannot realistically expect one
individual to be 100% effective in both roles. By the nature of the
endeavor, those trying to be helpful can be vulnerable to deception.
APPENDIX
A Note on the Hansen-Clark Communications
One of the more entertaining aspects of this case has been the resulting
missives by Hansen (1992a, 1992b) and Clark (1992a, 1992b) which have been
widely circulated and posted on electronic bulletin boards. We encourage
those interested to obtain copies.
Clark's (1992b) most recent piece deserves comment. He now says that he now
does not accept Linda's claims about the kidnapping and attempted murder by
government agents. However, in a telephone conversation with him on October
6, 1992, he told Hansen that he accepted those claims. Hansen did not
tape-record the conversation, but he is willing to provide a sworn statement
to that effect. Hansen also talked with Marcello Truzzi who had spoken to
Clark near the same time. Truzzi understood that Clark believed that Linda
was sincere in her claims and was telling the truth to the best of her
ability.
The salient points are summarized as follows:
1. At the 1992 MUFON symposium, Linda Napolitano spoke in front of hundreds
of people and claimed that she was kidnapped by government agents.
2. Clark told both Hansen and Truzzi that he accepted Linda's story (i.e.,
that she was telling the truth to the best of her ability).
3. Hopkins claims to have much evidence that could be used to identify the
culprits.
<< cont >>
--
Don Allen - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Allen@p1.f81.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
*******************************************************************************
Submissions infopara@scicom.alphacdc.com
Administrative requests infopara-request@scicom.alphacdc.com
FTP archive grind.isca.uiowa.edu:/info/paranet/infopara
Permission to distribute Michael.Corbin@paranet.org
Private mail to Paranet/Fidonet users firstname.lastname@paranet.org
UUCP gateway {ncar,isis,csn}!scicom
*********************End**of**the**InfoPara**Newsletter************************
