top of page
Writer's picturevisions13

A Critique of Budd Hopkins' Case of the UFO Abduction of Linda Napolitano by Joseph J. Stefula, Richard D. Butler and George Hansen

Their investigation of the case was in 1992 - three years after the alleged abduction

-----------------------------------------------------------------

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.

2

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.

3

THE AUTHORS’ INVOLVEMENT

The first two authors had learned of the case before Hopkins

had spoken publicly of it, and they decided to monitor its

progress. They regularly briefed the third author as their

investigation progressed. As the affair became publicized, all

three became concerned about the long term effect it might have on

abduction research.

For several years Richard Butler attended Hopkins’ informal

meetings organized for abductees and abduction researchers.

Butler became familiar with the case during those meetings, and he

invited Stefula to a gathering in early October 1991. At the

meeting, Hopkins outlined the case, and afterward, Stefula had a

chance to chat with Linda about her experiences. Butler and

Stefula gave Linda their telephone numbers. She was advised that

if she needed any assistance she could contact them. Stefula told

her that he had numerous contacts in federal and state law

enforcement agencies that could be of aid to her. The same

information was provided to Hopkins.

On January 28, 1992, Linda requested a meeting with Richard

Butler, and on February 1, 1992, Linda, Stefula and Butler met in

New York City, and Linda provided additional details about her

experiences (described below). During that meeting, she asked

them not to inform Hopkins of their discussions. At the 1992

MUFON convention in Albuquerque, New Mexico in July, both Hopkins

and Linda appeared on the podium and presented the case. Stefula

attended the convention and heard the talk, and disturbing

questions arose. Some of the statements directly contradicted

what Linda had earlier told Stefula and Butler. We contacted

Hopkins in an attempt to resolve these matters, but he declined to

meet with us, saying that he didn’t want to discuss the case until

his book manuscript was submitted. Despite his initial

reluctance, eventually a meeting was arranged on October 3, 1992

at Hopkins’ home, and a few more details then emerged.

SUMMARY OF CASE

In order to compile this summary of alleged events, we have

relied upon Hopkins’ and Linda’s talks from the podium of the 1992

MUFON symposium, on our interviews with Linda, on Hopkins’ talk at

the Portsmouth, New Hampshire UFO conference, September 13, 1992,

and Hopkins’ two five-page articles in the September and December

issues of the Mufon UFO Journal.

In April 1989 Hopkins received a letter from Linda Napolitano,

a resident of New York City. Linda wrote that she had begun

reading his book Intruders and had remembered that 13 years

earlier she had detected a bump next to her nose. It was examined

by a physician who insisted that she had undergone nasal surgery.

Linda claimed that she never had such surgery, and she even

checked with her mother, who confirmed that impression.

4

Hopkins took an interest in the case because there was a

potential for medical evidence and because Linda lived relatively

close to Hopkins, which facilitated their meeting. Linda visited

Hopkins and discussed her past experiences with him. She recalled

some pertinent earlier events in her life but believed that she

was no longer directly involved with any abduction phenomena.

Linda then began attending meetings of Hopkins’ support group for

abductees.

On November 30, 1989, Linda called Hopkins and reported that

she had been abducted during the early morning hours of that day,

and she provided some details. A few days later, she underwent

regressive hypnosis, and Linda remembered floating out of her

apartment window, 12 stories above the ground. She recalled

ascending in a bluish-white beam of light into a craft which was

hovering over the building.

Richard and Dan

Over a year later (February 1991), Hopkins received a letter

signed with the first names, Richard and Dan. (We have no hard

evidence that "Richard" and "Dan" actually exist. In order to

avoid overburdening the reader, we will typically omit the word

"alleged" when mentioning them.) The letter claimed that the two

were police officers who were under cover in a car beneath the

elevated FDR Drive between 3:00 and 3:30 a.m. in late November

1989. Above a high-rise apartment building, they observed a

large, bright reddish-orange object with green lights around its

side. They wrote that they saw a woman and several strange

figures float out a window and up into the object. Richard and

Dan said that they had come across Hopkins’ name and decided to

write to him. They went on to say that they were extremely

concerned about her well being, wanted to locate the woman, talk

to her, and be assured that she was alive and safe. The two also

mentioned that they could identify the building and window from

which she emerged.

After receiving the letter, Hopkins promptly called Linda and

told her that she might expect a visit from two policemen. A few

days later, Linda telephoned Hopkins to tell him that she had been

visited by Richard and Dan. When they had knocked on her door,

introducing themselves as police officers, she was not too

surprized because she reports that police frequently canvass her

apartment complex looking for witnesses to crimes. Even with

Hopkins’ prior call, she did not expect Richard and Dan to

actually appear. After they arrived and entered her home, there

was an emotional greeting, and they expressed relief that she was

alive. However, Richard and Dan were disinclined to meet with or

talk to Hopkins, despite the fact that they had written him

earlier and despite Linda’s entreaties to do so. Richard asked

Linda if it was acceptable for them to write out an account of

their experience and then read it into a tape recorder. She

agreed, and a couple weeks later Hopkins received a tape

5

recording from Richard describing their experience.

Some time thereafter, Hopkins received a letter from Dan

giving a bit more information. The letter reported that Richard

had taken a leave of absence because the close encounter had been

so emotionally traumatic. Dan also mentioned that Richard

secretly watched Linda. (This information is from Hopkins’ oral

presentation at the 1992 MUFON symposium in Albuquerque. At the

Portsmouth, New Hampshire conference, Hopkins said that he had

received a letter from Richard saying that Dan was forced to take

of leave of absence. It is not clear if Hopkins misspoke at some

point, or whether both individuals took leaves of absence.)

Hopkins received another letter from Dan which said that he

and Richard were not really police officers but actually security

officers who had been driving a very important person (VIP) to a

helicopter pad in lower Manhattan when the sighting occurred. The

letter claimed that their car stalled, and Richard had pushed it,

parking it beneath the FDR Drive. According to Dan, the VIP had

also witnessed the abduction event and had become hysterical.

The Kidnappings

Linda claimed that in April of 1991 she encountered Richard on

the street near her apartment. She was asked to get into a car

that Dan was driving, but she refused. Richard picked her up and,

with some struggle, forced her into the vehicle. Linda reported

that she was driven around for 3 1/2 hours, interrogated about the

aliens, and asked whether she worked for the government. She also

said that she was forced to remove her shoes so they could examine

her feet to determine whether she was an ET alien (they later

claimed that aliens lack toes). Linda did remember another car

being involved with the kidnapping, and under hypnotic regression

she recalled the license plate number of that car, as well as part

of the number of the car in which she rode. Hopkins reports that

the numbers have been traced to particular "agencies" (he gave no

further details).

At the MUFON symposium, Linda was asked if she had reported

the kidnapping to the police. She said that she had not and went

on to say that the kidnapping was legal because it had to do with

national security.

In conversations with Butler in early 1992, Linda had

expressed concerns about her personal safety. A meeting was

arranged with Stefula because of his background in law

enforcement. During the afternoon and early evening of February

1, the three met in New York City, and Linda described further

details of the kidnappings.

She reported that on the morning of October 15, 1991, Dan

accosted her on the street and pulled her into a red Jaguar sports

car. Linda happened to be carrying a tape recorder and was able

to surreptitiously record a few minutes of Dan’s

6

questioning, but he soon discovered and confiscated it. Dan drove

to a beach house on the shore of Long Island. There he demanded

that Linda remove her clothes and put on a white nightgown,

similar to the one she wore the night of the abduction. He said

he wanted to have sex with her. She refused but then agreed to

put on the nightgown over her clothes. Once she did, Dan dropped

to his knees and started to talk incoherently about her being the

"Lady of the Sands." She fled the beach house, but Dan caught her

on the beach and bent her arm behind her. He placed two fingers

on the back of her neck, leading Linda to believe that it was a

gun. He then forced her into the water and pushed her head under

twice. He continued to rave incoherently, and as her head was

being pushed under for the third time, she believed that she would

not come up again. Then, a "force" hit Dan and knocked him back

onto the beach. She started to run but heard a sound like a gun

being cocked. She looked back and saw Dan taking a picture of her

(Linda mentioned that pictures from the beach were eventually sent

to Hopkins). She continued running, but Richard appeared beside

her, seemingly out of nowhere. He stopped her and convinced her

to return to the beach house and told her that he would control

Dan by giving him a Mickey Finn. She agreed. Once inside,

Richard put Dan in the shower to wash off the mud and sand from

the beach. This gave Linda a chance to search the premises; she

recovered her casette tape and discovered stationery bearing a

Central Intelligence Agency letterhead.

In a brief conversation on October 3, 1992, Hopkins told

Hansen that Linda came to him shortly after she arrived back in

Manhattan after the kidnapping. She was disheveled, had sand in

her hair, and was traumatized by the experience.

Further Contacts with Richard and Dan

During the February 1 meeting with Butler and Stefula, Linda

reported that she had met Richard outside a Manhattan bank on

November 21, 1991. He told her of Dan’s deteriorating mental

condition. During the Christmas season, Linda received a card and

a three page letter from Dan (dated 12/14/91). The letter bore a

United Nations stamp and postmark (the UN building in New York has

a post office which anyone can use). Dan wrote that he was in a

mental institution and was kept sedated. He expressed a strong

romantic interest in Linda. Some of his remarks suggested that he

wanted to kidnap her, take her out of the country, and marry her;

Linda seemed alarmed by this (she gave a copy of the letter to

Stefula and Butler).

Linda also asserted that on December 15 and December 16, 1991,

one of the men had tried to make contact with her near the

shopping area of the South Street Seaport. He was driving a large

black sedan with Saudi Arabian United Nations license plates.

During the first incident, to avoid him, Linda reported that she

went into a shop. The second day a similar thing happened, and

she stood next to some businessmen until he left

7

the area.

The Third Man

At the February 1 meeting, Linda mentioned that Hopkins had

received a letter from "the third man" (the VIP), and she was able

to repeat entire sentences from this letter, seemingly verbatim.

It discussed ecological danger to the planet, and Linda indicated

that aliens were involved in ending the Cold War. The letter

ended with a warning to Hopkins to stop searching for "the third

man" because it could potentially do harm to world peace.

Linda also related a few more details of her November 1989

abduction. She said that the men in the car had felt a strong

vibration at the time of the sighting. Linda also claimed that in

subsequent hypnotic regressions she recalled being on a beach with

Dan, Richard, and the third man, and she thought somehow she was

being used by the aliens to control the men. She communicated

with the men telepathically and said that she felt that she had

known Richard prior to the November 1989 abduction, and she

suggested that they possibly had been abducted together

previously. We also learned that the third man was actually

Javier Perez de Cuellar, at that time Secretary General of the

United Nations. Linda claimed that the various vehicles used in

her kidnappings had been traced to several countries’ missions at

the UN.

At the Portsmouth, New Hampshire conference, Hopkins spoke of

the third man saying: "I am trying to do what I can to shame this

person to come forward."

Witness on the Brooklyn Bridge

In the summer of 1991, a year and a half after the UFO

abduction, Hopkins received a letter from a woman who is a retired

telephone operator from Putnam County, New York (Hopkins has given

this woman the pseudonym of Janet Kimble). Hopkins did not bother

to open the letter, and in November 1991, he received another one

from her marked on the outside "CONFIDENTIAL, RE: BROOKLYN

BRIDGE." The odd outside marking and the fact that she had

written two letters, seem to have raised no suspicions in Hopkins’

mind. The woman, a widow of about sixty, claimed to have been

driving on the Brooklyn Bridge at 3:16 a.m., November 30, 1989.

She reported that her car stopped and the lights went out. She

too saw a large, brightly lit object over a building; in fact, the

light was so bright that she was forced to shield her eyes, though

she was over a quarter mile away. Nevertheless, she claimed to

have observed four figures in fetal positions emerge from a

window. The figures simultaneously uncurled and then moved up

into the craft. Ms. Kimble was quite frightened by the event, and

people in cars behind her were "running all around their cars with

theirs (sic) hands on their heads, screaming from

8

horror and disbelief" (quoted in Hopkins, 1992d, p. 7). She

wrote: "I have never traveled back to New York City after what I

saw and I never will again, for any reason" (Hopkins, 1992d, p.

5). Despite her intense fear and all the commotion, she had the

presence of mind to rummage through her purse to find her

cigarette lighter to illuminate her watch in order to determine

the time.

Hopkins has interviewed this woman in person and over the

phone. The woman claimed to have obtained his name in a

bookstore; she called the Manhattan directory assistance for his

telephone number and then looked up his address in the Manhattan

White Pages. She alleges that she was reticent about speaking of

the incident and had only told her son, daughter, sister, and

brother-in-law about the event.

The Nasal X-ray

In November 1991 a doctor, whom Hopkins describes as "closely

connected with Linda," took an X-ray of Linda’s head because she

knew about the story of the nasal implant and because Linda

frequently spoke of the problem with her nose. The X-ray was not

developed immediately. A few days later the doctor brought it to

Linda but was very nervous and unwilling to discuss it. Linda

took it to Hopkins, who showed it to a neurosurgeon friend of his.

The neurosurgeon was astounded; a sizeable, clearly non-natural

object could be seen in the nasal area. Hopkins has shown a slide

of the X-ray during his presentations, and the implant is

strikingly apparent, even to a lay audience. The object has a

shaft approximately 1/4 inch long with a curly-cue wire structure

on each end.

Other Unusual Aspects of the Case

During our meeting with Linda on February 1, she gave us

additional miscellaneous details that might be pertinent. We were

told that she believed that she was under surveillance and

described a light silver-gray van that had parked near her

apartment. She also claimed that she had once been a professional

singer and the lead on a hit record, but she had lost her singing

voice one day while in the shower. Linda mentioned that she was

given to understand that her blood was quite unusual. A doctor

had informed her that her red blood cells did not die, but instead

they rejuvenated. She wondered whether this might be due to an

alien influence; some time later she attempted to locate the

doctor but was unable to do so. Linda seemed to imply that she

now believed that she was part alien or somehow worked with the

aliens.

Linda also told us that she had an agreement with Budd Hopkins

to split equally any profits from a book on the case.

9

INITIAL PROBLEMS WITH THE CASE

There are a number of obvious but unanswered questions that

raise immediate doubts about the credibility of the case.

The most serious problem is that the three alleged principal

corroborating witnesses (Richard, Dan, and Perez de Cuellar) have

not been interviewed face-to-face by Hopkins, although it has been

over a year and a half since initial contact with Hopkins and over

three years since the abduction.

Richard and Dan allegedly met with Linda and have written

letters to Hopkins. Linda has a picture of Dan. Yet Dan and

Richard refuse to speak directly with Hopkins. No hard evidence

confirms that Richard and Dan even exist.

Though they initially expressed extreme concern over the well

being of Linda, the alleged "Dan" and "Richard" waited more than a

year before contacting Linda and Hopkins. Why? Furthermore, they

contacted Hopkins before they visited Linda. How did this come

about? After all, they knew the location of Linda’s apartment, so

it would seem that they would have had no reason to contact

Hopkins. Why did they bother with him at all?

The woman on the bridge said that before contacting Hopkins

she only discussed the matter with her son, daughter, sister and

brother-in-law. Why didn’t she contact other UFO investigators?

Why only Hopkins? If there is some unclear reporting on this

point and she did actually contact others, can such be verified?

Has there been any investigation of this woman such as checking

with her neighbors, friends, family, or previous employers? What

is her background? Has she had any previous relationship with

Linda? These questions have not been addressed, and thus the

credibility of the only directly interviewed, corroborating,

first-hand witness remains in doubt.

Dan has spent time in a mental institution. Richard suffered

extreme emotional distress, forcing him to take a leave of absence

from his job. Assuming that these two people actually exist, one

must now be careful in accepting their claims (even if offered in

good faith). Despite their debilitating mental problems, at least

one of them was allowed to drive a car with UN license plates.

Are we really to believe that they returned to active duty in a

sensitive position (presumably carrying firearms) and were given

use of an official car?

Who was the doctor who took the X-rays? We are only told that

this person is closely connected with Linda. Why isn’t a formal

report available? Given the alarming nature of the outcome, why

wasn’t there an immediate examination? Linda said that the doctor

was "nervous" and didn’t want to talk about the X-ray. It is not

clear whether Hopkins has ever met this alleged doctor. Instead,

Hopkins showed the X-ray to a friend of his.

10

Some have speculated that Linda may have simply put some small

object in her nose and had a friendly X-ray technician assist. We

have seen no evidence to exclude this possibility.

Linda claims that she was kidnapped twice, nearly drowned, and

further harassed. Yet she refuses to contact the police, even

after Hopkins’ urging. During the February 1, 1992 meeting with

Stefula and Butler, Linda asked if she had legal grounds to

"shoot" Dan if he attempted another abduction of her by force.

Stefula advised against it and recommended that she go to the

police and make an official complaint. She declined. If she was

afraid, why didn’t her husband contact authorities? The most

plausible reason is that if a report was filed, and her story

proved false, she could be subject to criminal charges. Linda’s

failure here raises enormous questions of credibility.

OUR INVESTIGATION

Despite the numerous problems outlined above, we believed it

worthwhile to gain additional information because so many people

had contacted us with questions. On September 19, 1992, Stefula,

Butler, and Hansen traveled to New York City in order to visit the

site of the alleged abduction. We found that Linda’s apartment

complex has a large courtyard with guard house manned 24 hours a

day. We talked with the security guard and his supervisor and

asked if they had ever heard about a UFO encounter near the

complex. They reported hearing nothing about one. We also asked

if the police routinely enter the complex and undertake door-todoor

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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.

15

In Nighteyes, one safe house was on the beach.

* Before her kidnapping, Linda contacted Budd Hopkins about her

abduction.

Before her kidnapping, Wendy contacted Charles Edward Starr

about her abduction.

* Budd Hopkins is a prominent UFO abduction researcher living in

New York City and an author who has written books on the topic.

Charles Edward Starr was a prominent UFO abduction researcher

living in New York City and an author who had written books on

the topic.

* Linda and Dan were abducted at the same time and communicated

with each other during their abductions.

Wendy and Derek were abducted at the same time and communicated

with each other during their abductions.

* Linda thought she "knew" Richard previously.

Wendy "knew" Derek previously.

* Dan expressed a romantic interest in Linda.

Derek became romantically involved with Wendy.

* Dan and Richard felt considerable vibration during the close

encounter.

During the UFO landing in Nighteyes there was much vibration.

* Photographs of Linda were taken on the beach and sent to

Hopkins.

In Nighteyes, photographs taken on a beach played a central

role.

* The letter from "the third man" warned of ecological problems

and potential harm to world peace if there was interference.

Wendy was racing world disaster in Nighteyes.

16

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

17

why.

This situation seemed so outrageous that a few days later

Hansen called Andrus, Clark, John Mack, and David Jacobs and asked

them if they really believed Linda’s story about the kidnappings

and attempted murder. All of these individuals said that they

accepted her account. We were forced to seriously consider their

opinions because they had been given secret information not

revealed to us. During the telephone conversations, Andrus and

Clark again strongly objected to requesting an investigation by

law enforcement authorities.

A PSYCHO-SOCIAL PERSPECTIVE

The Napolitano case brings into stark relief symptoms of deep

problems within ufology: major figures in the UFO community

aggressively sought to suppress evidence of a purported attempted

murder; Hopkins failed to obtain and verify even the most basic

investigatory information; his coinvestigator, Penelope Franklin,

approved of lying by the principal witness; and leaders in the

field have willingly accepted and promoted the case despite its

exotic features and lack of supporting evidence. This state of

affairs raises perplexing questions and cries out for a plausible

explanation. The thinking and motivations of ufology’s leaders

deserve at least as much attention as the abduction claims

themselves.

Did these leaders really believe, as they said, that they

accepted the report of attempted murder? If so, they seem not to

have acted as responsible citizens. However, these people do not

appear to us to be delusional, in any usual sense of that word.

They are highly functional members of society. They also do not

appear to be perpetrators of a hoax or even "yellow journalists"

with a "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" attitude who knowingly want to

capitalize on it for their own temporary glory or financial gain.

We believe that other motivating factors and concepts provide

a better explanation and framework for understanding these

seemingly bizarre actions. We would suggest that perhaps, at some

semiconscious level, these individuals do not really believe their

UFO investigations to be fully engaged with the "real world."

Rather, their behavior and statements seem more consistent with

something like fantasy role playing, perhaps akin to the game

Dungeons and Dragons (D & D).

Both ufology and D & D allow direct, immediate involvement

with powerful "other-world" beings and mythological motifs. Both

endeavors have been known to overtake (possess?) the participants,

though only occasionally to their detriment. Most "players" are

able to successfully detach themselves from involvement, but

occasionally the "game" becomes obsessive and interferes with

"real-world" pursuits. This "role playing" taps archetypal images

that hold great psychological power. The archetypes can become

immensely attractive, even addictive, to

18

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,

19

Clark, and Hopkins have all urged that outsiders cease

investigation (despite the massive publicity given to the case).

Such challenging of "rules" leads to disruptions of the "game,"

and the dungeon masters need to keep order.

Direct interfacing of the "fantasy role" with the "real-world"

(i.e., direct allegations of attempted murder, verification of

details of testimony), usually does not cause problems, except

when the players do not act in accordance with consequential

"real-world" concerns. Hopkins, Andrus, Clark, Mack, and Jacobs

seem to have accepted a system of beliefs and assumptions that

have led to a collision with the "real world." They have been

unable to rationally defend their behavior, and Jerome Clark’s

(1992a) "Torquemada" article is perhaps the single best example of

that. In fact, his emotional attack labeling Hansen as

"Torquemada" (director of the Spanish Inquisition) ressurects and

reinforces religious themes, and it perhaps betrays his

unconscious feelings of religious persecution.

The above discussion derives from a psycho-social perspective,

and we would like to encourage U.S. researchers to become more

familiar the ideas generated from that approach. We admit that

the psycho-social theorists have failed to address many aspects of

the abduction experience generally. Exclusive use of that

perspective can lead to positing simplistic and scientifically

sterile explanations. On the other hand, those that shun the

psycho-social perspective typically fail to recognize the

explanatory power it possesses and its ability to illuminate risks

faced by investigators. Those wanting more information about the

psycho-social perspective may wish to read the book Angels and

Aliens by Keith Thompson (1991) and the British magazine Magonia;

almost without saying, the works of John Keel are also

recommended.

We are not denigrating ufology by such comparisons as those

made above, nor are we attacking the existence of "other-world"

entities. Regardless whether entities or ET aliens exist, the

comparisons are useful and the consequences and insights are

applicable. Such a comparative analysis should not be limited to

only D & D players and ufologists; similar comparisons could be

made for virtually everyone in the "real world." They can help

serve as warnings about becoming too complacent regarding beliefs

in our own "rationality."

DISCUSSION

The Napolitano case appears beset by an overwhelming number of

problems. It was with some misgivings that we first embarked on

this investigation because we did not wish to see UFO abduction

research discredited. In fact, one of us, Butler, has had

abduction experiences himself. It was our judgement that if we

did not raise these issues for public discussion, there was a much

greater risk for the field. The case was garnering considerable

attention, and if it became widely regarded as

20

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

21

to the genuine phenomena. This is a difficult balance.

Some have questioned possible motives in this case; it is

impossible to obtain certain knowledge here. Perhaps Linda really

had some kind of an abduction experience (Butler believes this is

likely to be the case). As she became acquainted with Hopkins and

other abductees, she may have wanted to vindicate them--to save

them from ridicule and derision. Perhaps money was the only

motivation. Possibly there was a combination of factors. It does

appear that if this was a hoax, it was not perpetrated by a lone

individual. Collaborators would include the woman on the bridge,

an X-ray operator, and a man (or men) preparing the tape

recordings. However, we want to emphasize that we have no direct

evidence to implicate Hopkins in attempted deception.

Cynics might criticize Hopkins saying that he ignored the

obvious problems because he was motivated by money that might

accrue from books and movie rights. While this might possibly be

an unconscious factor, critics rarely acknowledge that Hopkins

does not charge abductees for his services (unlike some

"professionals"). Hopkins has spent an enormous amount of his own

time and money investigating the phenomena. Furthermore, he does

not have an academic position subsidized by the tax payers. One

should not begrudge him the profits from his books. Hopkins has

been involved in considerable controversy, and some have disputed

his methods. Nevertheless, he has done much to bring the

abduction problem to the attention of scientists and the mental

health community, and his efforts have made it much more

acceptable to discuss such strange encounters. Abduction

experiences are often emotional and traumatic, and the abductees

need considerable support. Hopkins has attempted to provide much

needed aid.

The outside critic who is not directly involved in such

activities almost never recognizes how difficult it is to serve as

both a therapist and as a scientist. Those persons trying to help

abductees emotionally need to provide warmth, acceptance, and

trust. The scientist, however, needs to be critically open minded

and somewhat detached and analytical. The two functions are not

altogether compatible. We cannot realistically expect one

individual to be 100% effective in both roles. By the nature of

the endeavor, those trying to be helpful can be vulnerable to

deception.

APPENDIX

A Note on the Hansen-Clark Communications

One of the more entertaining aspects of this case has been the

resulting missives by Hansen (1992a, 1992b) and Clark (1992a,

1992b) which have been widely circulated and posted on electronic

bulletin boards. We encourage those interested to obtain copies.

22

Clark’s (1992b) most recent piece deserves comment. He now

says that he now does not accept Linda’s claims about the

kidnapping and attempted murder by government agents. However, in

a telephone conversation with him on October 6, 1992, he told

Hansen that he accepted those claims. Hansen did not tape-record

the conversation, but he is willing to provide a sworn statement

to that effect. Hansen also talked with Marcello Truzzi who had

spoken to Clark near the same time. Truzzi understood that Clark

believed that Linda was sincere in her claims and was telling the

truth to the best of her ability.

The salient points are summarized as follows:

1. At the 1992 MUFON symposium, Linda Napolitano spoke in front

of hundreds of people and claimed that she was kidnapped by

government agents.

2. Clark told both Hansen and Truzzi that he accepted Linda’s

story (i.e., that she was telling the truth to the best of her

ability).

3. Hopkins claims to have much evidence that could be used to

identify the culprits.

4. Hopkins flew Clark to New York, whereupon Clark aggressively

injected himself into matters and vigorously opposed continuing an

outside investigation and reporting the alleged felonies to law

enforcement authorities. He defended this position, in writing,

saying: "if this story is true, it is not just a UFO case but a

‘politically sensitive’ event because it supposedly involves a

political figure of international stature...banging on the wrong

doors could alert the relevant agency that two of its agents were

leaking a huge secret." (Clark, 1992a, p. 1).

We will let the readers decide whether Clark’s initial position

was compatible with "real-world" considerations.

We are gratified that Clark has taken the time to comment, at

length, on these issues, and in a style so typical of his level of

dispassionate commentary. We caution readers that Clark perhaps

may be currently acutely embarrassed by his statement quoted in

point 4 and may feel the need to obscure this central issue.

Nevertheless, we are pleased that he now seems to have made a

cathartic conversion.

REFERENCES

Baskin, Anita. (1992). Antimatter: High-rise abductions: Alien

abductions routinely occur in big cities and high-rise buildings

around the world. Omni. April. Vol. 14, No. 7, p. 75.

23

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.

24

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.

25

----------------------------------------------------------------

Acknowledgements: We would like to thank Philip J. Klass for

assistance. We would also like to thank Vincent Creevy for

providing materials and bringing the novel Nighteyes to our

attention. Thanks are also due to several who provided help but

do not want their names associated with the field of ufology.

Joseph Stefula is a former Special Agent for the U.S. Army

Criminal Investigations Command and is a former MUFON State

Director for New Jersey. He resigned his directorship shortly

after finishing this investigation.

Richard Butler is a former law enforcement and security police

specialist for the U.S. Air Force and now a UFO investigator

researching abductions and government cover-ups.

George Hansen has conducted parapsychological research and is

author of the article "CSICOP and the Skeptics: An Overview" which

appeared in the January 1992 Journal of the American Society for

Psychical Research.

Joseph Stefula (609) 893-9278

7 Michigan Terrace

Browns Mills, NJ 08015

Richard Butler (609) 625-2890

P.O. Box 65

Mays Landing, NJ 08330

George Hansen (609) 426-0927

Princeton Arms North 1, Apt. 59

Cranbury, NJ 08512

08 January 1993

43 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

コメント


bottom of page