linuxmafia.com 2016/linuxmafia.com.tar/linuxmafia.com/pub/skeptic/general/crop-watcher/cw-19.txt

Text File | 1995-01-17 | 138KB | 2,965 lines

Crop Watcher 19   1993

Doug Bower at Neals' Meeting Yard, Covent Garden, London,
August 3rd 1993


Following Doug Bower's lecture at Marlborough the previous
Wednesday  (described in CW18) this second meeting was held in
the amphitheatre at Neal's Meeting Yard in Covent Garden. This
summary of what took place is based on a tape recording of the
meeting supplied by one of The Crop Watcher's many spies and
agents. Sadly this second lecture was poorly attended, with only
about 35 people in attendance compared with nearly 100 at the
Marlborough meeting. In contrast to the earlier meeting the
Covent Garden lecture was a more abusive and disruptive affair,
largely due to the antics of Stanley Morcom, one of the original
members of the Centre for Crop Circle Studies.  Morcom bought
himself and his subject no credit at all by engaging in repeated
outbursts and slanderous attacks. On two occasions Morcom openly
accused Bower and Brown of being "liars", an accusation which to
my knowledge he has not withdrawn.

Style

The style and format of the lecture closely followed the
Marlborough lecture, as Ken Brown had wisely planned the meeting
by preparing written notes of what he was going to say.  He again
repeated his main theme "Tonight is intended to highlight the
fact that corn circles were Doug Bower's original idea".

Apology

Doug Bower then repeated the statement he read out at the
Marlborough meeting. It read "I would like for us to go down on
the record for us to apologise to farmers and landowners, and
thank them all for the tolerant and good-humoured way - I hope
that's correct - in which they've viewed the escapades of two
middle aged pranksters who became obsessed with an idea - it was
nothing more than a practical joke from the start".

Ken Brown continued:-

"I don't ever want to criticise true faith, however much I might
disagree with it. I don't wish to make a fool of anyone's sincere
belief but I AM justified in criticising Colin Andrews, Pat
Delgado and Terence Meaden and latterly George Wingfield, of
course. But particularly all those who were around in the early
years of circle investigations who made no effort to be entirely
objective. It seems to me those so-called experts were everything
but objective in their research of the circles. To my mind they
all deserve the severest criticism. There was sufficient evidence
around for this subject to have been wrapped up, packed away and
forgotten
completely in fact even before - well before - Colin Andrews came
on the scene in the mid 80s. "

"Anyhow, you can easily see, when Doug and Dave came clean in the
TODAY newspaper in '91 it was far far too late. Doug and Dave had
been swamped, overtaken. They'd become irrelevant to the religion
of  corn circles. And because they themselves hadn't seen the
faith growing they were amazed their story wasn't taken
seriously. Just try to imagine yourself in their shoes. You tell
the truth, you KNOW its the truth, but the Pope and the Priest
and the
Parishioners will not give up their faith. But then why should
they ? Faith is not about reason. Faith is not about being
rational. Faith is [not] common sense. And much worse, Faith does
not like to be questioned. So when I first met Doug Bower and
Dave Chorley they still had no understanding of the diatribe
being hurled at them. But after I'd earlier provided a few circle
magazines and comments from a couple of lectures I'd been to
their eyes began to open. I could see that the TODAY newspaper
story gave only a brief and slightly distorted picture of a
period which must have lasted over 20 years since Doug and Dave
first met. Some of my more reasonable circle friends were raising
questions about how much of the real truth these two guys from
Southampton really were telling. I just happened to be there at
the right time and the right place. "

Ken Brown then repeated the claim that he made at the Marlborough
Meeting, that on the 28th October 1991 he presented Colin Andrews
and Pat Delgado with evidence which supported Doug and Daves'
claim. According to Brown Colin Andrews stated that "There are
probably only about a dozen circles out of all the circles we
have ever had that I can put my hand on heart and say they are
absolutely genuine". According to Brown Colin Andrews repeated
this claim in a telephone conversation with Ken Brown on January
18th 1993. Then it was Doug Bower's turn. "Well, as Ken has
already said to you, the thing that's upset us most of all is the
opposition that we've had from these people. The general public I
think - the majority of them anyway - accepted our story right
from the start when it arrived in the paper in September 1991,
but what was going on behind the scenes up until that time we had
no idea until Ken came on the scene and he told us more or less
about it. We only knew about four people which is the important
people - these are the people that are still in opposition to us.
I mean we've had nothing but insults over the telephone and in
writing. My wife has been insulted. Its been nothing but insults
ever since it all started in September '91. This is the thing
that upsets us most of all. As Ken said just now we were hoping
that the whole thing would have come to an end in September '91
they would have probably come up to us and shook our hands and
say 'Thanks very much for what you've done, we've made a lot of
money out of you and my God this is what's really behind it
all' - its the pounds, shillings and pence - this is all that
really matters. There was a statement only three days ago in the
Southern Evening Echo - that Pat Delgado and Colin Andrews have
now reached the 500,000 figure for his books -and translated into
four languages. So I mean I can see really why the resistance and
opposition has been put up towards us, they wanted to keep this
going. And anyone with an income such as that are not going to
accept our story."

Ken Brown then presented Doug Bower's own photographs of crop
circles from the early years - photographs of crop circles which
Brown claimed had never been reproduced in the crop circle
literature. He claimed that Doug Bower had numerous photographs
of such circles and that this proved that Doug must have made
these circles. He accepted the point that was made by Stanley
Morcom and another member of the audience that had there been
only one or two such photographs this would have proven nothing.
His point was that there were numerous such photographs dating
back to 1980-82 and that this was pushing coincidence beyond
chance level.

The Historical Photographic Evidence

Ken Brown continued: "Some people have said that Doug and Dave
must have copied an original idea - [They say] where did they get
the idea from? They must have copied the same thing somewhere in
their mind or seen somewhere - [This is] Not true. That's [a
photograph of] Tully. Tully was some circles made in reed beds or
circular impressions made in reed beds. The photographs - I've
blown one up there - is of a dished side - a curved side, the
reeds are bent in other words - curving in a little bit like the
side of a cup. So that's what Tully looked like. Paul Fuller
keeps coming up to me -and he came to Marlborough to bring out
all his photographs - Paul lent me all his evidential photographs
for pre Doug and Dave circles. All Paul Fuller's photographs are
blown down - blown down  - pretty flat - not even with a slant on
like that - they are even more wind blown than this [Tully]. Paul
Fuller says there are plenty of circles pre the mid 1970s. I
don't deny that, but boy oh boy they're not circles as we know
them. Circles as we know them -our crop circles - since the mid
1970s are straight rigid sided affairs. They are not wind blown
with slanting sides. They are not dished like Tully was dished."

Readers are invited to comment on this claim. The 2nd edition of
"Crop Circles A Mystery Solved" (Robert Hale Ltd) carries three
photographs of circles which we believe disprove Ken Brown's
claim that Doug and Dave "invented" straight-edged crop circles
in the mid 1970s.  These three photographs were taken in Canada
(1977) and Australia (1973). Doug and Dave have repeatedly
confirmed that they only created crop circles in Britain. There
is also a photograph of what looks very much like a sharply-
defined crop circle at Aix-en-Provence, South-East France, on
20th May 1977, in The Probe Report, Vol 3, No 4, April 1983.

Tracks

Doug Bower was then invited to describe how he made crop circles.
He and Dave always wore Wellington boots with deep treads.
Apparently Dave Chorley used to be very concerned about the
damage their boots left in the standing crop but this would
normally be covered up by the circle they were creating. Ken
Brown stated that he thought it was "remarkable" that the crop
circle researchers had never noticed the tracks left by these
boots. Lucy Pringle remarked that she possessed photographs
showing tread marks underneath circles.

In response to another question Ken Brown stated his belief that
Doug and Dave had never made any "grapeshot" circles - the
smallest circles they had ever made were only 8 feet across
because the width of the security bar from Doug's shop was only
four feet long. In response to another question Brown dismissed
the claim that it was impossible to see where the tramlines were
in the dark without the use of a torch. He went on to state that
it was quite possible to walk through standing crop without
leaving a trail. Stanley Morcom confirmed this.

Doug Bower then explained that the centre of every circle he had
ever made displayed a clockwise circle. The only exception was
when making the outer rim.  Ken Brown described how Doug Bower
had created the "illusion" of a spiral pattern by laying down a
sequence of straight lays. This method had been convincingly
demonstrated to him by Doug in the field. In response to a
question from the audience Ken Brown stressed that he had only
examined the Bower and Chorley method of laying circles and that
other groups of hoaxers undoubtedly used different methods which
produced different characteristics.

Doug Bower then explained that he had discovered that standing
crop was often knotted into small patches where the wind had
blown the crop to point against the direction he was pushing his
4 foot rod (the security bar from his picture framing shop). When
this happened it was much  harder work to push the rod through
the crop as it had to be pushed at an angle. It was this angle
which contributed towards the eccentricity of the overall crop
circle. Sometimes this effect was so marked that Doug would have
to use a piece of string to mark out the rim of the circle so
that he and Dave Chorley could push the crop down into a more
neat circle. This was exacerbated if he and Dave Chorley began
making a circle from opposite positions within the initial eight
foot circle.

Ken Brown then prompted Doug Bower to repeat the story of "Von
Ryan's Express" first told at the Marlborough Meeting. It seems
that this story relates to the 1978 Headbourne Worthy circle -
shown on page 16 of "Circular Evidence". As Doug Bower states
this formation would certainly have been visible from the main
Winchester to Waterloo railway line. Again Dave Chorley's
Christmas Card that recorded this event was presented (Dave's
inscription read "Must be something big going on in Micheldever
tonight" - a reference to a remark by the ticket inspector at
Winchester railway station).

Ken Brown then stated that according to his calculations Doug and
Dave made 42 of the circles that featured in the 61 colour
photographs in "Circular Evidence", 27 of circles featuring in
the 52 colour photographs in "The Latest Evidence" and 34 of the
circles featured in the 68 colour photographs in "The Crop Circle
Enigma". [This makes a total of  103 out of 181 (57 per cent). Of
course some of these photographs are of the same formations so
this percentage is an inflated estimate of the actual percentage,
PF].

In response to a question from Alice Keen-Soper Ken Brown stated
that in his opinion any circle which postdated Doug and Daves'
first circles was by definition a man-made hoax. In response to a
second question from Lucy Pringle Ken Brown admitted that there
was no photographic proof that Doug and Dave made the circles but
that he and Doug were "baring our souls" so that people could
assimilate all the evidence that was available. A third member of
the audience [Chad Deetken I think, PF] pressed Brown as to why
he believed Doug and Daves' story simply because they had told
him they had made the circles. Brown retorted that there was more
than just their word, he had interviewed both men at length, had
discovered their own photographs of circles they claim to have
made in Doug Bower's scrap-book and had seen the result of a
demonstration which convinced him of the truthfulness of their
claim. Doug Bower responded to a further question about why he
and Dave Chorley made so many circles over such a prolonged
period in time. Doug Bower admitted that it had become an
"obsession" that was fuelled by the media publicity.

Ken Brown then prompted Doug to recount the early years of his
circle-making. Many of the points raised at this point in the
meeting had been raised at the Marlborough meeting so these
points will not be discussed here. The only new revelation
concerned Doug's own photograph of a previously unpublicised
quintuplet event at Cley Hill in 1983. In response to another
challenge by Chad Deetken Ken Brown pointed to the TODAY
newspaper's own photographs of Doug and Dave half way through
making their demonstration circle at Sevenoaks - the formation
which featured in TODAY's exclusive story which had been promoted
as genuine in such glowing terms by Pat Delgado.

Ilene Bower was invited by Ken Brown to describe how it was the
Alfriston formation of 1984 which alerted her to the fact that
Doug Bower was involved in something secretive. She was alerted
by the high mileage on the car, which Ilene noticed because she
did the books for her husband's picture-framing business.

Doug Bower went on to describe how he alone created the "first"
circle in oilseed rape - at South Wonston in 1987. He rejected
Chad Deetken's claim that he couldn't have made this circle
without damaging the brittle thick stem. Ken Brown asserted that
he had a list of 12 circles in 1987 which had not been made by
Doug and Dave but which must have been made by copycat hoaxers.
Later the audience were amused to learn that following Colin
Andrews' request for information about new circles Doug and Dave
would make a new formation and then telephone him with the news !

Flashpoint 1

The first flashpoint of the evening concerned a disagreement
between Ken Brown and Stanley Morcom over the so-called Swastika
formation. Ken Brown stated that the truth behind the appearance
of these Swastikas was difficult to unravel as Doug and Ilene
Bower were both convinced that Doug had made only the second
formation, the one positioned north of the A303 trunk road.  Ken
Brown found this difficult to accept as it would imply that
another group of hoaxers made the original circle and that Doug
Bower then made the second formation less than a mile or so away
by sheer coincidence. At this point Stanley Morcom interrupted
and claimed that on a previous occasion Ken Brown had claimed to
him that Doug and Dave did not make either of the two Swastikas.
During the ensuing argument Morcom accused Brown of changing his
story and "lying" to him. Brown dealt with Morcom's attack in his
normal good-humoured way by admitting that he was actually an
"M.I. 5 agent". Whilst this amused the audience it did nothing to
deter Morcom's mounting disbelief in Doug and Daves' story.

Morcom renewed his attack by referring to Doug Bower's earlier
claim that he made most of his circles using the four foot long
security bar from his picture-framing shop. Morcom stated that
the 1989 Corhampton triplet displayed "seven or  eight"
concentric rings with an average width of 2 foot 2 inches. Morcom
wanted to know how Doug Bower could make concentric rings 2 foot
2 inches across with a rod of 4 foot length. Ken Brown suggested
that the rod could have overlapped adjacent lays. Morcom himself
suggested that this effect could be produced if the rod was
pushed through the crop at an angle. Morcom then returned to the
controversy over the two Swastika formations and Brown concluded
by saying that he thought that even though Doug Bower could not
recall having made both Swastikas the facts suggested to him that
Doug Bower must have been responsible for both formations.

Flashpoint 2

Stanley Morcom again interrupted Ken Brown as he was discussing
Doug Bower's construction of the first pictogram at Chilcomb in
1987. Morcom challenged Doug Bower as to how he constructed the
"coffins". Doug Bower replied that he and Dave "jumped". Morcom
took this to mean that Doug Bower jumped ten feet in one go -
something Doug Bower had obviously not meant to imply. Ken Brown
correctly pointed out that the TVS newscast of this formation
showed that there was a trail linking the "coffins" to the rest
of the formation but Morcom demanded that Doug Bower answer his
question without Ken Brown's assistance. In the ensuing argument
Morcom twice admitted that he believed that "all" crop circles
were hoaxes. His questioning of Doug Bower to account for how he
managed to jump "10 feet" from the spur to the "coffins" then
became unnecessarily provocative and confrontational. Morcom
concluded the argument by stating that "I've got a feeling that
I've been told a lot of lies".

Flashpoint 3

Subsequently, when describing the Hazeley Farm Fields pictogram
both Morcom and Pringle challenged Ken Brown and criticised him
for telling Doug's story despite the fact that he had not even
been present when the circle making had allegedly been taking
place. Brown defended himself by stating that he had examined the
evidence at length with Doug and Dave and had managed to coax out
of Doug facts and events which Doug himself had not understood.
He
justified his method of presenting the evidence by stating that
he knew "more about Doug Bower's circle making than Doug Bower
himself". Lucy Pringle then asserted that despite the fact that
many circles may or may not be hoaxes she had still discovered
unusual effects inside crop circles that she could not account
for.



Flashpoint 4

Doug Bower again stated his unhappiness with the way he had been
treated by the "so-called experts". For years crop circles had
been promoted as genuine then suddenly - once his story broke -
he and Dave Chorley were being dismissed as "frauds" simply so
that a few people could carry on making money out of his circles.
Stanley Morcom countered by pointing out that he had spent a
fortune investigating circles but Doug Bower never mentioned the
sacrifice he and others had made to research the phenomenon. This
only seemed to incense Doug Bower further as he forcibly pointed
out to Morcom that he and Dave Chorley had never asked Morcom to
spend money investigating their circles, it had been Morcom's
decision to spend the money. Morcom challenged Bower as to
whether his circle-making was intended to "fool" himself. "Yes -
all of you. We fooled you all!" was Doug Bower's triumphant
response. He continued, "My next hoax is going to fool the world
even more than this one". This ominous statement was met with
delighted applause from the
audience.

Stanley Morcom attempted his fifth attack of the evening when
Doug Bower described how he and Dave Chorley left "meteorites" in
some of the Stonehenge formations of 1991. Morcom appeared to
believe that Brown and Bower had changed their story but
eventually realised his error and withdrew his charge. When
explaining the "DD" signature Doug Bower pointed out that "Every
artist signs his own work". This immediately bought a question
from Chad Deetken as to whether or not any formation had ever
appeared with the "DD" signature which Doug Bower had not made.
Doug Bower replied that to his memory there was none but that
hoaxers had copied them before and it was therefore conceivable
that they might be adding fake "DD" signatures to add
authenticity to their hoaxes. This didn't satisfy Deetken or
Morcom and another argument arose. At the end of this argument
Ken Brown summarised the reasons why he and Doug Bower had
organised the meeting:-
"Things can get impossible with some people, I'm afraid. We're
getting to that stage where we're going to have to say what we
believe - and you're going to have to take it. Its no good taking
a point for the next fifteen minutes - all we can say is what we
have to say. We'll say what we have to say. If you don't like it
you can lump it. You know we really don't care. We have come
tonight out of good will, putting our money on the line. I'm
saying this from the heart, not knowing whether we'll get our
costs back. We are here to tell our story.  Its only last week
and tonight we're going to tell our story as far as we're
concerned as after tonight I'm retiring from the corn circle
fraternity, totally. I have no more interest in  it because I'm a
hundred per cent convinced that Doug is telling the truth, that
Ilene's telling the truth, that these circles, (sic) photographs
really are Doug's, that all this equipment is Doug's, that the
story is true and therefore to me, beyond a shadow of doubt, the
whole story is true that they started corn circles. A lot of you
people may disagree, you may have your own belief systems, you
may have your own reasons for disagreeing. That is no reason for
us to fall out, that's no reason for us to hammer a point for
ten/fifteen  minutes .. we'll just have to agree to disagree, and
frankly I don't give a toss because I'm getting out of it, and if
you people want to go out in the fields swanning around, praying,
whistling, listening to sounds in the dark, seeing lights in the
sky, feeling better, feeling worse [that's] fine, I really don't
mind - its your life its not my life, and I don't wish us to fall
out about it tonight."

Stanley Morcom's attempt to respond to this statement was
objected to by the audience. Ken Brown then summed up how the
Doug and Dave story broke in August/September  1991. Finally, in
response to a question from Chad Deetken, Doug Bower admitted
that he and Dave Chorley had both made # 3,000 from TV
appearances and newspaper articles. At this point my bootleg copy
of the meeting finished. Thanks for the tape recording  M.I.5.
PF.

The 1993 Independent UFO Network's Sheffield Conference

This year's IUN conference was held at Sheffield Hallam
University - formerly Sheffield Polytechnic - so unlike previous
years there was plenty of room for audience, speakers and the
numerous
bookstalls distributed around the hall. Both days began with a
dazzling video sequence of major UFO-related topics - the
Mandelbrot hoax, the NASA Shuttle [reputedly involved in a close
encounter with a UFO], the CIA, the Roswell newscutting, Bob
Lazaar, Secret Weapons, a Strieber entity, the Face on Mars, and
so on. Accompanied by Jean Michel-Jarre's atmospheric music this
was a superb piece of marketing which was met with warm applause
from the audience.  The first lecture on Saturday was by Ole
Johnny Braenne from Norway, who described how the celebrated 1952
Spitzbergen UFO crash was nothing more than complete fiction. The
story was invented by a West German newspaper and never featured
in the Norwegian press. The original story was that six  UFOs
were detected on radar and chased by the Norwegian Air Force. The
saucers crashed and were subsequently located half buried in ice.
The UFOs were blue/silver disks which were transported to a
Norwegian Air Force base where they were inspected by scientists
from the UK and the USA. Already we can see all the key motifs of
the early crash-retrieval reports - technologically superior UFOs
that have a peculiar habit of crashing, UFOs that show up on
radar, saucers being retrieved by the Air Force and then sent to
a "secret" base, internationally renowned scientists flying in to
examine the wreckage - exactly the same motifs which later
resurfaced in Moore and Berlitz' resurrection of the Roswell
myth.

>From 1954 the myth took on a life of its own as several
variations develop. Ole described four main variants, these were

[1] the rumour that in fact the UFOs were secret German
experimental craft,  [2] that unknown non terrestrial metals were
identified,
[3] a French UFO article alleged that the saucer had been
retrieved by Canadian commandos and taken to a Swiss base, and
[4] a
Norwegian newspaper altered the location to Heligoland and added
a more detailed description of the interior of the craft. Ole
noted yet another parallel with Roswell. The craft was allegedly
composed of very tough material which could not be damaged.

Despite its highly dubious nature the Spitsbergen case was
subsequently promoted by a number of credulous but popular UFO
writers in the 1950s and 1960s. In "Behind the Flying Saucers"
Frank Edwards claimed that he had corresponded with the General
who oversaw the recovery operation. Ole had tried but failed to
track down this General and Edwards' correspondence. In 1968
Arthur Shuttlewood promoted yet another variation of the story in
"Warnings From Flying Friends". In 1973 the Condon Committee
tried to get to the bottom of the mystery by examining the UK
Ministry of Defence's files and correspondence. Nothing relevant
was found. There is no mention of a UFO crash in the Spitzbergen
local press for the whole of 1952. The Norwegian equivalent of
Who's Who contains none of the names of the military personnel
supposedly involved in the recovery operation in all of its
editions between 1912 and 1970. Military records contain none of
the names of the people allegedly responsible for the recovery of
the craft.

According to Ole in 1952 the Norwegian Air Force had only two
squadrons of Vampire jets - both of which could not carry enough
fuel to fly to Spitsbergen.  Despite this overwhelming negative
evidence Ole had tracked down more than 200 UFO books and
articles which continued to promote the Spitsbergen crash as
fact.  Ole's skeptical conclusion was that the entire story was
fabricated. This was a superb piece of UFO research which
deserves the highest praise.

The next lecture was Philip Mantle of BUFORA and the Independent
UFO network. This was another well presented lecture detailing
many of the more well known British UFO cases over the past
decade. Philip described his involvement in the Skipton hills
flaps of the early 1980s, Tony Dodds' celebrated photographs, the
York Minster Fire and the Peter Beard hoax. This was followed by
the Ilkley Moor entity photograph, the 1989 Abingdon UFO film
(which Philip suggested was possibly a Remotely Piloted Vehicle)
and the BVM photographic hoax from Hungary. Philip was at pains
to point out that many of the cases he had investigated turned
out to have mundane explanations and that he had always believed
the Gulf Breeze photographs to be hoaxes.

The next speaker was Hilary Evans, the respected Fortean writer.
The title of Evans' illuminating talk was "Whatever Happened to
Flying Saucers?". Evans began by stating that once upon a time
there really were flying saucer reports, but now all we have are
abduction reports. Why ? In the 1950s George Adamski's tales of
meeting blond-haired Venusians were dismissed by UFOlogists but
now such tales would undoubtedly be accepted by the UFO
community. Why ?

Evans went on to describe what is known as the "psycho-social"
explanation for alleged UFO abductions. Throughout history people
have looked to the skies for proof of divine beings - from
Biblical times through to H.G. Wells "War of the Worlds". From
the rise of Spiritualism in the Victorian period to the "golden
age"  of science fiction epitomised by "Amazing Stories", a
hugely popular science fiction magazine edited by Hugo Gernsbach
in the 1920s. Evans talk drew heavily on slides of these early
tales of what the spacemen and their spaceships looked like, and
what they were capable of doing to mere mortals. According to
Evans these stories primed society to accept the reality of alien
intervention in human affairs which resulted in the mass panics
induced by the infamous Orson Welles broadcast of 1938 and
Kenneth Arnold's seminal sighting in 1947. Critically both events
were misinterpreted by the world and then seized upon by Ray
Palmer in his 1950s magazine "Strange Stories".

Evans' talk went on to examine the way the alien myth developed
following Ray Palmer's creation of the UFO myth. According to
Evans' perspective Contact stories such as Adamski's were based
on science fiction stories like Schirmer's "The Green Man". The
Apollo landings of 1969 triggered the massive increase in contact
claims of the early 1970s.

Evans suggested that Whitley Strieber's contact story was
originally presented as a factual account of a real flesh-and-
blood meeting with aliens but that later Strieber had changed his
mind and was unable to distinguish between his own fantasies and
reality. This led to a discussion of the Fantasy Prone
Personality, which affects 5 per cent of the population, and
Altered States of Consciousness. Evans believes that alien
abduction claims are the result of witnesses creating a socially
acceptable myth. This would explain for example why visions of
the Blessed Virgin Mary are only reported from cultures with
deeply held Catholic views. According to Evans UFOlogists are
guilty of reinforcing the alien abduction myth because they fail
to see the claim in its historical context. At this point in the
lecture I noticed Budd Hopkins slipping away in disgust.

Evans went on to explain that UFO abduction claims are made by
people who NEED to externalise their innermost crises. This is
proven by the fact that some abductees have later admitted to
inventing their claims for rather peculiar reasons. Carl Jung
foresaw the alien abduction claim in his 1959 book "Flying
Saucers", which was ignored by UFOlogists and misunderstood by
his peers. Evans demanded to know why the vast majority of
abduction claims were being made in white middle-class societies
in developed nations. This, he believed, was because such claims
were more acceptable in those communities than in other cultures.

Evans' lecture was another brave exposition of  the psycho-social
model that met with somewhat muted applause. This was clearly not
the sort of material that the audience wanted to hear, but Evans
gave them a radically different perspective to that promoted by
most mainstream UFO proponents.

Next was Jenny Randles talking about "Wonderland" - a small area
in north Cheshire that has produced countless paranormal claims
over the past century or so. Randles admitted to being fascinated
by what has become known as "window areas" - areas where the
normal rules of time and space appear to occasionally break down.
The Cheshire window area has already featured in CW12 but this
lecture introduced a wide range of unusual phenomena that for
some reason appear to cluster in this small undistinguished area.
These phenomena include :

- alien contact claims dating back to the "Zomdic" case at
Runcorn in the 1950s, - several poltergeist cases,
- sightings of green fireballs similar to those in New Mexico
during the early 1950s and in East Anglia in the early 1980s,  -
crop circles  dating back to the 1930s and 1940s,
- accounts of meetings with fairies and pixies,
- a phantom monk,
- humming/screeching sounds at night [vortices?],
- close encounter cases involving police officers,
- UFOs that fade in and out of reality,
- time lapse cases,
- spontaneous human combustion,
- ghosts,
- car stop cases,
- the famous "Cow nap" case from 1978 (at the "Devil's Garden"),
and so on, and so on. All this evidence is presented in Jenny's
new book "Mysteries of the Mersey Valley" (Sigma).

It was interesting that Lewis Carroll, the author of "Alice In
Wonderland", lived in this area. Were his fictional stories based
on local folklore ? Did the area boast a history of paranormal
claims dating back centuries ?

Randles proposed that there is something special about this rural
area - something which Science should be researching not
ignoring. She challenged the audience to go away and search for
more window areas to study and understand. Let us hope the study
of such areas brings further clues about why apparently disparate
phenomena should cluster in this way. Is this clustering an
illusion due to sociological factors, or is there a common factor
in these "window areas" which occasionally affects the way
witnesses perceive the world ? This was a fascinating lecture
which took us straight to the heart of the anomaly problem.

Enter the Superstar. The public just love Budd Hopkins. Nothing
Hopkins says is challenged - not even the ludicrous tripe dished
up at the Sheffield Conference by one of the world's most well
known UFO authors.  Hopkins began his unabashed promotion of the
"Linda" case by claiming that "We have reason to believe that
there are many other witnesses". Unfortunately - according to
Hopkins' reasoning - because the case hasn't yet been publicised
these witnesses have yet to come forward to confirm "Linda's"
claim that she and her children were floated into a giant
brightly lit UFO hovering above Downtown Manhattan at 3 am in the
morning. A colleague of mine was sat next to me and laughed out
loud at this absurd statement - sadly one of only a handful of
members of the 250 strong audience who knew the facts. At this
someone in front of us turned round and told us to shut up, "Who
are you ? Why do you people bother coming here ?". Why indeed ?
According to material in my possession Linda's real name has been
published in countless magazine articles whilst the case itself
has been promoted in "Omni", the New York Times, MUFON UFO
Journal and IUR, so why did Hopkins claim otherwise ?

Hopkins' lecture continued on its merry way, oblivious to the
major problems that have been voiced about the case by its
critics. Here are some of Hopkins' latest claims:-
- the nasal implant inserted into "Linda" 's nose by the aliens
has been recovered, photographed and examined in laboratories. An
intriguing slide was shown which purported to be a side-on view
of one of these nasal implants; - 3 independent video tapes of
the encounter allegedly exist [!!]; - several independent
witnesses claim that they saw the UFO but mistakenly thought it
was part of a movie with special effects [which rather
conveniently explains why they didn't come forward at the time of
the abduction to confirm that it "really" happened]; - "Dan" and
"Richard" kidnapped "Linda" in order to determine whether or not
she had webbed feet [apparently - according to "Richard" and
"Dan" this would be proof that "Linda" was actually an alien - in
fact it is surely proof that "Richard" and "Dan" know a great
deal about the alien
abduction literature than they are letting on]; - "Dan" has
subsequently had a nervous breakdown [presumably this means he
can no longer be contacted so that his story can be verified]; -
the UFO was so bright that there was "enough light for thousands
of people to see them", "the whole sky was lit up" [so why the
distinct lack of independent witnesses ?]; and - the UFO abducted
"Linda" and her two children and then crashed into the Hudson
River but didn't resurface [note the same motif as the early
crash-retrieval reports again]. A local coastguard unit failed to
pick up the UFO on its radar system.

At this point in Hopkins' lecture I have to admit I was laughing
so much that I stopped taking notes. This is the kind of case
which the Official Skeptics must take enormous delight in using
to discredit UFOlogists and the fascinating phenomena we study.
There are dozens of major objections to what is being claimed.
For example, quite aside from the fact that "Richard" and "Dan"
have only ever visited "Linda" [do they really exist], Jenny
Randles has informed me that there is a major problem with the
drawings which have been produced by "Janet Kimball" and "Dan".
"Janet Kimball" -if she exists - claims she was driving her car
over Brooklyn Bridge when her car stalled inexplicably. She
claims that she observed the abduction from this vantage point
along with other witnesses in stalled cars. "Dan" claims he was
positioned much closer, less than 500 feet away. Both witnesses
draw the "abduction" as if they were face on but in fact both
groups of witnesses were viewing the alleged event from different
angles. Why is this ?

It seems strange that two of the three major witnesses have only
ever corresponded with Hopkins - just as with the Gulf Breeze
hoax "Dan" and "Richard" could be fabrications by the primary
witness in an attempt to support her claims.

Problems exist over the distance between "Janet Kimball" and
"Linda" 's apartment block. According to Dr Willy Smith's
important article in IUR  Vol 18 No 2 it would have been
impossible for "Janet Kimball" to have drawn the alleged sighting
depicting "Linda" 's hair at a distance of 1560 feet - because at
this distance human eye sight is incapable of  distinguishing
such detail. This argument is vigorously contested in IUR Vol 18
No 3.

However, by far the most damning aspect of this celebrated case
is the fact that there are some very striking similarities
between the claimed "abduction" and the plot of a fictional
novel, "Night Eyes". These major problems with the "Linda" case
are so important that I have published a  revised edition of the
controversial paper by Hansen, Stefula and Butler which has been
published on the MUFONET BBS. The original paper by Hansen et.
al. has been
challenged in very strong terms in both MUFON UFO Journal and
International UFO Reporter.

Despite the publication of these very negative findings the
controversy seems destined to continue for some time. However,
what is so sad here is that Budd Hopkins is actually a nice well-
meaning researcher who genuinely believes he is helping the
witnesses to come to terms with a real physical encounter with
aliens. Hopkins' research - quite understandably - has been
widely promoted on the international UFO lecture circuit and in
numerous TV appearances and newspaper articles. What can
UFOlogists do to persuade Hopkins that he is most definitely
wrong to accept the literal
interpretation of alleged alien abduction claims ? How much
damage is Hopkins going to do before the penny drops ?

In the crop circle business I have repeatedly criticised people I
can prove to be cynical and outrageous liars. With Hopkins it is
different as no one can doubt Hopkins' sincerity. What can we do
?

The final lecture on Saturday was by Linda Moulton-Howe on animal
mutilation cases. I admit that at this point I left the lecture
hall - I never did like blood and gore. According to people I
spoke to afterwards Moulton-Howe's lecture aimed to link crop
circles, alien abductions and animal mutilations altogether !
Perhaps this is what people want to believe about UFOs ?

On Sunday the first speaker was the Rev. Donald Thomas, someone
who has been involved in the UFO scene for many years. This was
basically a historical overview from someone who lived throughout
the 1960s and who also accepted the literal truth of what was
being claimed. Thomas' lecture featured classic case such as the
Lakenheath-Bentwaters multiple radar-visual military encounter,
the 1967 Police chase across Dartmoor [which has always been
dismissed by most UFOlogists and skeptics as a mis-identification
of the planet Venus, although I recall that it featured on the
front page of several national newspapers] and the alleged
landing of a spaceship at Broadlands Estate here in Romsey in the
mid 1960s. Giving the first lecture on a Sunday morning is never
very easy and Rev. Thomas' cause was not helped by the poor
quality of the tape recordings he had faithfully kept of major
UFO stories from this fascinating era.

I  didn't make copious notes of the remaining Sunday lectures as
these were all basically repeats of earlier lectures at Sheffield
and elsewhere. Following Cynthia Hind's description and video of
an alleged abduction case from Zimbabwe there was more from
Linda-Moulton Howe on alleged animal mutilations by evil aliens
and much much more from Hopkins on the second greatest UFO
abduction case on record. This too was a scream !

Hopkin's new case involved a "nervous" young couple - named at
MUFON's July Symposium as "Sam" and "Jenny Washburn" and their
two sons. Hopkins met the couple after one of his lectures in
Brisbane, Australia in late 1992. They claimed that five days ago
"Sam", "Jenny" and one of their sons had all suffered nosebleeds
from the same nostril. For years "Sam" had suffered from a
terrifying recurring nightmare which had begun in childhood.
According to Hopkins these are both symptoms of repeated
abductions.

Hopkins then presented his ace card. The Washburns had given
Hopkins a series of polaroid prints showing a playground scene
with their children playing on swings and slides. Four of the
prints were bright red and featured sand, sea and some palm
trees. According to Hopkins these photographs were taken pointing
directly at the sun so the bright red nature of these prints
won't surprise anyone with a basic understanding of photography.
Anyhow, the punchline was this. According to Hopkins these three
prints SHOULD have included the young couple and their children
but by some dastardly clever trick the aliens had managed to
abduct them by making them invisible just as the camera's timer
opened the shutter !!

Subsequently, according to MUFON UFO Journal, Hopkins subjected
both adults to regression hypnosis to discover what "really"
happened. According to Sam the family were approached by two
small silver balls which hovered above the beach. He saw Jenny
and the two boys sucked up into a larger area of brilliance. The
silver balls reminded Sam of earlier encounters with UFOs in his
early childhood [important clue here].

Jenny's testimony was more explicit. She recalls standing on the
beach and feeling something big hovering above the family. Then
she and her two sons were levitated into the UFO whilst Sam stood
on the beach holding the camera. Inside the UFO they were
approached by two small figures and separated. Jenny was then
subjected to the standard gynaecological examination. According
to Hopkins, the aliens were capable of abducting all four members
of the family by cloaking themselves inside a field of
invisibility which lasted most of an hour.

Of course this is all complete and utter nonsense but this didn't
stop Hopkins from promoting this as yet another proven case of
alien intervention. Just what can we do to stop this man ? How
much more damage is Hopkins going to do to witnesses before his
"respected" UFO research is exposed and condemned by the
professional psychological community ? Some of these witnesses
are children so what kind of psychological damage is Hopkins
doing to them ?

One final point. Cynics might also point out that polaroids don't
produce negatives so potential UFO hoaxes are less easy to
detect. Sadly despite his obvious sincerity Hopkins never stops
to think for one second about problems like this. By leaving
himself open to exploitation Hopkins has followed hundreds of his
predecessors -all of them "respected" UFO researchers - into the
valley of despair. Oh dear !

If you want to read the original promotion of this case see MUFON
UFO Journal Number 293, September 1992 (103 Oldtowne Road,
Seguin, Texas, 78155). If you want to see the critique of this
case by Don Johnson and Dr Willy Smith plus Jerry Clark and Budd
Hopkins' response to the controversial  paper by Stefula, Butler,
and Hansen get hold of vol 18 nos 2 and 3 of International UFO
Reporter (write to the J.Allen Hynek Center for UFO Studies, 2457
West Peterson Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60659).  I also recommend
that you obtain the excellent Journal of UFO Studies, Vol 1
(1989) from the same address (# 18 including p&p) as this
contains some important articles summarising the debate from both
the pro-ETH angle and from mainstream psychiatric/psychological
perspectives.

On a more positive note Paul Devereux presented another excellent
lecture covering earth lights, altered states of consciousness
and UFO window areas. Like Evans Devereux's position is that UFOs
are caused by natural mechanisms and processes rather than alien
intervention. There is a major university study underway in the
States examining the effect of what might be natural light
phenomena on the brain. Some of this field research is based at
Marfa in Texas, a location with a long established folklore of
nocturnal lights. Interestingly our own Professor Ohtsuki visited
this location in 1987 as part of his ball lighting research.
Devereux also very properly withdrew his earlier promotion of the
Hucker lights ["Earth Lights Revelation" page 135-6] which he now
believes to be car headlights, a commonly-suggested explanation
for anomalous light phenomena.

During the break we were treated to the Alton Barnes video film
reported in CW18 plus a sensational film of an out-of-focus UFO
[an aircraft covered with bright lights ?] just before it
allegedly crashed into a forest in Ottowa, Canada in either
November 1989 or 1991. This is the "Guardian" film which has
subsequently been shown on Breakfast Time TV. Apparently it was
sent anonymously to Bob Oeschler by a "Commander X" - just like
the bogus MJ-12 documents were seeded into the UFO community by
someone with a warped sense of humour. I spoke to a young
Canadian UFOlogist during the interval who told me that he had
personally visited the site of the alleged UFO crash but found no
evidence of ground traces that might confirm the story. It seems
that nothing has been learnt from the disasters of promoting
Roswell and Spitsbergen. Readers will recall that Bob Oeschler's
previous involvement in major UFO stories has been widely
criticised by numerous UFO researchers, who have variously
dismissed him as a "crank", a "charlatan" and "a
confidence trickster". Times don't change do they !

All in all I enjoyed the Sheffield Conference. It was fun ripping
the alien intelligence believers to shreds with their daft
theories and sensational research. Once again it seems that
UFOlogy is actually a composite of two directly opposed
subjects - a battle ground between the religious fervour of the
uncritical all-
believing alien intelligence movement and the sociological/folk-
lore approach of the more rational geo-physical/psycho-social
movement. As I reported in my review of the 1992 Conference in
UFO Brigantia, what are UFOlogists doing by wedding these two
diametrically opposed subject areas together ? How can we cut
ourselves away from the popular presentation of the UFO evidence
? Isn't it time we publicly rejected the alien intelligence
movement and called ourselves and our subject areas something
else ?

Alleged Alien Abductions
The "Linda" Case

I hope readers will bear with me as I make my first trip into the
alien abduction "debate".  I do so for a number of reasons.
Firstly the following report gives a very different perspective
to the claims being made by Hopkins and his supporters, and to my
knowledge has not yet been published in Britain. Secondly there
is much to be learnt from this case about the way UFOlogists
repeatedly make critical errors by not asking the right
questions. Thirdly this case demonstrates the serious problems of
accepting the literal reality of highly exotic claims and then
refusing to continually reappraise the case as new evidence
emerges. And lastly because if the allegations in this paper are
true then some proponents of this case have gone down that dark
dingy lane of suppressing negative evidence - the same lane that
certain crop circle researchers disappeared down several years
ago.

This article first appeared on the MUFON BBS system in June. It
immediately sparked something of an argument between the system
operator - John Komar - and Sheldon Wernikoff - remember him ?
Wernikoff features in Meaden's "Circles From The Sky" (page 200).
It appears that John Komar decided to restrict circulation of
this material because of its controversial attack on Budd
Hopkins, Jerry Clark and MUFON's Walt Andrus - arguably the three
most influential US UFOlogists. Wernikoff argued that despite its
controversial nature and stinging attacks the paper had a right
to be posted as it contained important new evidence that was
relevant to the debate. John Komar disagreed but eventually
backed down. Komar recently resigned as the System Operator for
the MUFONET BBS claiming that it was for business reasons. I
won't bore readers with all the details of this apparent
censorship. Instead, here is one of the world's most notorious
UFO articles of recent years: -To: Those Interested in the UFO
Problem

From: Joseph J. Stefula, Richard D. Butler  and George P. Hansen.

Date: 08 January 1993 Re:   Budd Hopkins' case of the abduction
of Linda Napolitano. Enclosed is our report on the much acclaimed
case of the UFO abduction of Linda Napolitano.  We invite your
comments.

Hopkins' claims have generated enormous publicity and have been
mentioned in the New York Times, Omni, the Wall Street Journal,
and Paris Match, among others.  As such, this case is likely to
have a substantial impact on the field of ufology.

Leadership in both the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) and the J.
Allen Hynek Center for UFO Studies  (CUFOS) aggressively opposed
our investigation, and both previously refused to publish our
criticisms.  This raises grave questions about the scientific and
journalistic integrity of MUFON and CUFOS.

Those organizations have many members, and we are unable to
provide more than a few copies of this paper to others.  We ask
you to help us with the distribution.  Please feel free to make
copies of this article, post it on electronic bulletin boards,
and print it in periodicals.

A Critique of Budd Hopkins' Case of the UFO Abduction of Linda
Napolitano

by Joseph J. Stefula, Richard D. Butler, and George P. Hansen

ABSTRACT:  Budd Hopkins has made a number of public presentations
of a purported UFO abduction case with multiple witnesses.  The
primary abductee  is Linda Napolitano, who lives in an apartment
building on the lower east side of Manhattan (New York City).
She claims to have been abducted by extraterrestrial aliens from
her 12th floor apartment in November 1989.  It is claimed that
three witnesses in a car two blocks away observed Linda and alien
beings float out of a window and ascend into a craft.  One
alleged witness was United Nations Secretary General Javier Perez
de Cuellar.  It is also claimed that a woman on the Brooklyn
Bridge observed the abduction.  Linda has reported nose bleeds,
and one X-ray displays an implant in her nose.

To date, Hopkins has provided no full, detailed written report,
but he did publish a couple five page articles in the September
and December 1992 issues of the Mufon UFO Journal and made a
presentation at the 1992 MUFON symposium. We have made use of
that information as well as records from other presentations, and
we have interviewed the abductee.  A number of serious questions
arose from our examination.  The case has many exotic aspects,
and we have identified a science fiction novel that may have
served as the basis for elements of the story.

Several prominent leaders in ufology have become involved, and
their behaviour and statements have been quite curious.  Some
have aggressively attempted to suppress evidence of a purported
attempted murder.  The  implications for the understanding of
ufology are discussed.

Budd Hopkins is the person most responsible for drawing attention
to the problem of the extraterrestrial (ET) abduction experience.
His efforts have been instrumental in stimulating both media
attention and scientific research devoted to the problem.  He has
written two popular books (Missing Time, 1981, and Intruders,
1987), established the Intruders Foundation, and has made
innumerable appearances at conferences and in the media.

Although Hopkins is neither a trained therapist, an academic, nor
a scientist, he has involved such people in his work.  John E.
Mack, M.D., a Pulitzer Prize winner and former head of the
psychiatry department at Harvard Medical School, has praised
Hopkins' work and acknowledged his indebtedness to him (Mack,
1992a, 1992b).  Hopkins has collaborated with university
professors in co-authoring an article in the book Unusual
Personal Experiences (1992), which was sent to 100,000 mental
health professionals.  He has testified as an expert witness at a
hearing regarding the medical competence of a physician who
claims to have been abducted (McKenna, 1992).  Because of such
strong endorsements and
impressive affiliations, and because of his untiring work on
behalf of abductees, Hopkins has become the single most visible
figure in the UFO abduction field.  His contributions, positive
or negative, will be quickly noticed by those inside and outside
ufology.

Last year, Hopkins made a number of public presentations about a
spectacular UFO abduction case occurring in November 1989 and
having multiple witnesses. The primary abductee was Linda
Napolitano, a woman living on the 12th floor of a high-rise
apartment building in lower Manhattan (New York City) [Hopkins
has previously used the pseudonym "Linda Cortile" in this case].
It is claimed that three witnesses in a car two blocks away
observed Linda and three ET aliens emerge from a window and
ascend into a craft.  Further it is claimed that a woman who was
driving across the Brooklyn Bridge also saw the event.

The case has generated enormous interest and drawn international
attention. It has been discussed in the Wall Street Journal
(Jefferson, 1992), Omni (Baskin, 1992), Paris Match (De Brosses,
1992), the New York Times (Sontag, 1992), and Hopkins and
Napolitano have appeared on the television show Inside Edition.
The Mufon UFO Journal labelled it "The Abduction Case of the
Century" (Stacy, 1992, p. 9).  Even the technical magazine
ADVANCE for Radiologic Science Professionals carried a discussion
of Linda's nasal implant (Hatfield, 1992).  We should expect
continuing coverage of the affair not only in the UFO press but
also in the major media.

In a short article previewing his 1992 MUFON symposium
presentation, he wrote: "I will be presenting what I believe to
be the most important case for establishing the objective reality
of UFO abductions that I have yet encountered" (Hopkins, 1992, p.
20).  During his lecture at the symposium he stated: "This is
probably the most important case I've ever run into in my life"
(tape recorded, July 1992).  In his abstract for the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Abduction Study Conference
held in June 1992 he wrote: "The importance of this case is
virtually
immeasurable, as it powerfully supports both the objective
reality of UFO abductions and the accuracy of regressive hypnosis
as employed with this abductee."  Because of Hopkins' renown, and
because of his evaluation, this case warrants our careful
scrutiny.

THE AUTHORS' INVOLVEMENT

The first two authors had learned of the case before Hopkins had
spoken publicly of it, and they decided to monitor its progress.
They regularly briefed the third author as their investigation
progressed.  As the affair became publicized, all three became
concerned about the long term effect it might have on abduction
research.

For several years Richard Butler attended Hopkins' informal
meetings organized for abductees and abduction researchers.
Butler became familiar with the case during those meetings, and
he invited Stefula to a gathering in early October 1991.  At the
meeting, Hopkins outlined the case, and afterward, Stefula had a
chance to chat with Linda about her experiences. Butler and
Stefula gave Linda their telephone numbers.  She was advised that
if she needed any assistance she could contact them.  Stefula
told her that he had numerous contacts in federal and state law
enforcement agencies that could be of aid to her.  The same
information was provided to Hopkins.

On January 28, 1992, Linda requested a meeting with Richard
Butler, and on February 1, 1992, Linda, Stefula and Butler met in
New York City, and Linda provided additional details about her
experiences (described below).  During that meeting, she asked
them not to inform Hopkins of their discussions.  At the 1992
MUFON convention in Albuquerque, New Mexico in July, both Hopkins
and Linda appeared on the podium and presented the case.  Stefula
attended the convention and heard the talk, and disturbing
questions arose.  Some of the statements directly contradicted
what Linda had earlier told Stefula and Butler.  We contacted
Hopkins in an attempt to resolve these matters, but he declined
to meet with us, saying that he didn't want to discuss the case
until his book manuscript was submitted.  Despite his initial
reluctance, eventually a meeting was arranged on October 3, 1992
at Hopkins' home, and a few more details then emerged.

SUMMARY OF CASE

In order to compile this summary of alleged events, we have
relied upon Hopkins' and Linda's talks from the podium of the
1992 MUFON symposium, on our interviews with Linda, on Hopkins'
talk at the Portsmouth, New Hampshire UFO conference, September
13, 1992, and Hopkins' two five-page articles in the September
and December issues of the Mufon UFO Journal.

In April 1989 Hopkins received a letter from Linda Napolitano, a
resident of New York City.  Linda wrote that she had begun
reading his book Intruders and had remembered that 13 years
earlier she had detected a bump next to her nose.  It was
examined by a physician who insisted that she had undergone nasal
surgery.  Linda claimed that she never had such surgery, and she
even checked with her mother, who confirmed that impression.

Hopkins took an interest in the case because there was a
potential for medical evidence and because Linda lived relatively
close to Hopkins, which facilitated their meeting.  Linda visited
Hopkins and discussed her past experiences with him.  She
recalled some pertinent earlier events in her life but believed
that she was no longer directly involved with any abduction
phenomena.  Linda then began attending meetings of Hopkins'
support group for abductees.

On November 30, 1989, Linda called Hopkins and reported that she
had been abducted during the early morning hours of that day, and
she provided some details.  A few days later, she underwent
regressive hypnosis, and Linda remembered floating out of her
apartment window, 12 stories above the ground. She recalled
ascending in a bluish-white beam of light into a craft which was
hovering over the building.

Richard and Dan

Over a year later (February 1991), Hopkins received a letter
signed with the first names, Richard and Dan.  (We have no hard
evidence that "Richard" and "Dan" actually exist.  In order to
avoid over-burdening the reader, we will typically omit the word
"alleged" when mentioning them.)  The letter claimed that the two
were police officers who were under cover in a car beneath the
elevated FDR Drive between 3:00 and 3:30 a.m. in late November
1989.  Above a high-rise apartment building, they observed a
large, bright reddish-orange object with green lights around its
side.  They wrote that they saw a woman and several strange
figures float out a window and up into the object. Richard and
Dan said that they had come across Hopkins' name and decided to
write to him. They went on to say that they were extremely
concerned about her well being, wanted to locate the woman, talk
to her, and be assured that she was alive and safe.  The two also
mentioned that they could identify the building and window from
which she emerged.

After receiving the letter, Hopkins promptly called Linda and
told her that she might expect a visit from two policemen.  A few
days later, Linda telephoned Hopkins to tell him that she had
been visited by Richard and Dan. When they had knocked on her
door, introducing themselves as police officers, she was not too
surprised because she reports that police frequently canvass her
apartment complex looking for witnesses to crimes. Even with
Hopkins' prior call, she did not expect Richard and Dan to
actually appear.  After they arrived and entered her home, there
was an emotional greeting, and they expressed relief that she was
alive.  However, Richard and Dan were disinclined to meet with or
talk to Hopkins, despite the fact that they had written him
earlier and despite Linda's entreaties to do so.  Richard asked
Linda if it was acceptable for them to write out an account of
their experience and then read it into a tape recorder.  She
agreed, and a couple weeks later Hopkins received a tape
recording from Richard describing their experience.

Some time thereafter, Hopkins received a letter from Dan giving a
bit more information.  The letter reported that Richard had taken
a leave of absence because the close encounter had been so
emotionally traumatic.  Dan also mentioned that Richard secretly
watched Linda.  (This information is from Hopkins' oral
presentation at the 1992 MUFON symposium in Albuquerque.  At the
Portsmouth, New Hampshire conference, Hopkins said that he had
received a letter from Richard saying that Dan was forced to take
of leave of absence.  It is not clear if Hopkins misspoke at some
point, or whether both individuals took leaves of absence.)

Hopkins received another letter from Dan which said that he and
Richard were not really police officers but actually security
officers who had been driving a very important person (VIP) to a
helicopter pad in lower Manhattan when the sighting occurred.
The letter claimed that their car stalled, and Richard had pushed
it, parking it beneath the FDR Drive.  According to Dan, the VIP
had also witnessed the abduction event and had become hysterical.




The Kidnappings

Linda claimed that in April of 1991 she encountered Richard on
the street near her apartment.  She was asked to get into a car
that Dan was driving, but she refused.  Richard picked her up
and, with some struggle, forced her into the vehicle.  Linda
reported that she was driven around for 3 1/2 hours, interrogated
about the aliens, and asked whether she worked for the
government. She also said that she was forced to remove her shoes
so they could examine her feet to determine whether she was an ET
alien (they later claimed that aliens lack toes).  Linda did
remember another car being involved with the kidnapping, and
under hypnotic regression she recalled the license plate number
of that car, as well as part of the number of the car in which
she rode. Hopkins reports that the numbers have been traced to
particular "agencies" (he gave no further details).

At the MUFON symposium, Linda was asked if she had reported the
kidnapping to the police.  She said that she had not and went on
to say that the kidnapping was legal because it had to do with
national security.

In conversations with Butler in early 1992, Linda had expressed
concerns about her personal safety.  A meeting was arranged with
Stefula because of his background in law enforcement.  During the
afternoon and early evening of February 1, the three met in New
York City, and Linda described further details of the
kidnappings.

She reported that on the morning of October 15, 1991, Dan
accosted her on the street and pulled her into a red Jaguar
sports car.  Linda happened to be carrying a tape recorder and
was able to surreptitiously record a few minutes of Dan's
questioning, but he soon discovered and confiscated it. Dan drove
to a beach house on the shore of Long Island.  There he demanded
that Linda remove her clothes and put on a white nightgown,
similar to the one she wore the night of the abduction.  He said
he wanted to have sex with her.  She refused but then agreed to
put on the nightgown over her clothes. Once she did, Dan dropped
to his knees and started to talk incoherently about her being the
"Lady of the Sands."  She fled the beach house, but Dan caught
her on the beach and bent her arm behind her.  He placed two
fingers on the back of her neck, leading Linda to believe that it
was a gun.  He then forced her into the water and pushed her head
under twice.  He continued to rave incoherently, and as her head
was being pushed under for the third time, she believed that she
would not come up again.  Then, a "force" hit Dan and knocked him
back onto the beach. She started to run but heard a sound like a
gun being cocked.  She looked back and saw Dan taking a picture
of her (Linda mentioned that pictures from the beach were
eventually sent to Hopkins).  She continued running, but Richard
appeared beside her, seemingly out of nowhere.  He stopped her
and convinced her to return to the beach house and told her that
he would control Dan by giving him a Mickey Finn.  She agreed.
Once inside, Richard put Dan in the shower to wash off the mud
and sand from the beach.  This gave Linda a chance to search the
premises; she recovered her cassette tape and discovered
stationery bearing a Central Intelligence Agency letterhead.

In a brief conversation on October 3, 1992, Hopkins told Hansen
that Linda came to him shortly after she arrived back in
Manhattan after the kidnapping. She was dishevelled, had sand in
her hair, and was traumatized by the experience.

Further Contacts with Richard and Dan

During the February 1 meeting with Butler and Stefula, Linda
reported that she had met Richard outside a Manhattan bank on
November 21, 1991.  He told her of Dan's deteriorating mental
condition.  During the Christmas season, Linda received a card
and a three page letter from Dan (dated 12/14/91). The letter
bore a United Nations stamp and postmark (the UN building in New
York has a post office which anyone can use).  Dan wrote that he
was in a mental institution and was kept sedated.  He expressed a
strong romantic interest in Linda.  Some of his remarks suggested
that he wanted to kidnap her, take her out of the country, and
marry her; Linda seemed alarmed by this (she gave a copy of the
letter to Stefula and Butler).

Linda also asserted that on December 15 and December 16, 1991,
one of the men had tried to make contact with her near the
shopping area of the South Street Seaport.  He was driving a
large black sedan with Saudi Arabian United Nations license
plates.  During the first incident, to avoid him, Linda reported
that she went into a shop.  The second day a similar thing
happened, and she stood next to some businessmen until he left
the area.

The Third Man

At the February 1 meeting, Linda mentioned that Hopkins had
received a letter from "the third man" (the VIP), and she was
able to repeat entire sentences from this letter, seemingly
verbatim.  It discussed ecological danger to the planet, and
Linda indicated that aliens were involved in ending the Cold War.
The letter ended with a warning to Hopkins to stop searching for
"the third man" because it could potentially do harm to world
peace.

Linda also related a few more details of her November 1989
abduction.  She said that the men in the car had felt a strong
vibration at the time of the sighting.  Linda also claimed that
in subsequent hypnotic regressions she recalled being on a beach
with Dan, Richard, and the third man, and she thought somehow she
was being used by the aliens to control the men.  She
communicated with the men telepathically and said that she felt
that she had known Richard prior to the November 1989 abduction,
and she suggested that they possibly had been abducted together
previously.  We also learned that the third man was actually
Javier Perez de Cuellar, at that time Secretary General of the
United Nations.  Linda claimed that the various vehicles used in
her kidnappings had been traced to several countries' missions at
the UN.  At the Portsmouth, New Hampshire conference, Hopkins
spoke of the third man saying: "I am trying to do what I can to
shame this person to come forward."

Witness on the Brooklyn Bridge

In the summer of 1991, a year and a half after the UFO abduction,
Hopkins received a letter from a woman who is a retired telephone
operator from Putnam County, New York (Hopkins has given this
woman the pseudonym of Janet Kimble). Hopkins did not bother to
open the letter, and in November 1991, he received another one
from her marked on the outside "CONFIDENTIAL, RE: BROOKLYN
BRIDGE." The odd outside marking and the fact that she had
written two letters, seem to have raised no suspicions in
Hopkins' mind.  The woman, a widow of about sixty, claimed to
have been driving on the Brooklyn Bridge at 3:16 a.m., November
30, 1989.  She reported that her car stopped and the lights went
out.  She too saw a large, brightly lit object over a building;
in fact, the light was so bright that she was forced to shield
her eyes, though she was over a quarter mile away.  Nevertheless,
she claimed to have observed four figures in fetal positions
emerge from a window.  The figures simultaneously uncurled and
then moved up into the craft.  Ms. Kimble was quite frightened by
the event, and people in cars behind her were "running all around
their cars with theirs (sic) hands on their heads, screaming from
horror and disbelief" (quoted in Hopkins, 1992d, p. 7).  She
wrote: "I have never travelled back to New York City after what I
saw and I never will again, for any reason" (Hopkins, 1992d, p.
5). Despite her intense fear and all the commotion, she had the
presence of mind to rummage through her purse to find her
cigarette lighter to illuminate her watch in order to determine
the time.

Hopkins has interviewed this woman in person and over the phone.
The woman claimed to have obtained his name in a bookstore; she
called the Manhattan directory assistance for his telephone
number and then looked up his address in the Manhattan White
Pages.  She alleges that she was reticent about speaking of the
incident and had only told her son, daughter, sister, and
brother-in-law about the event.

The Nasal X-ray

In November 1991 a doctor, whom Hopkins describes as "closely
connected with Linda," took an X-ray of Linda's head because she
knew about the story of the nasal implant and because Linda
frequently spoke of the problem with her nose.  The X-ray was not
developed immediately.  A few days later the doctor brought it to
Linda but was very nervous and unwilling to discuss it.  Linda
took it to Hopkins, who showed it to a neurosurgeon friend of
his.  The neurosurgeon was astounded; a sizeable, clearly non-
natural object could be seen in the nasal area.  Hopkins has
shown a slide of the X-ray during his presentations, and the
implant is strikingly apparent, even to a lay audience. The
object has a shaft
approximately 1/4 inch long with a curly-cue wire structure on
each end.

Other Unusual Aspects of the Case

During our meeting with Linda on February 1, she gave us
additional miscellaneous details that might be pertinent.  We
were told that she believed that she was under surveillance and
described a light silver-gray van that had parked near her
apartment.  She also claimed that she had once been a
professional singer and the lead on a hit record, but she had
lost her singing voice one day while in the shower.  Linda
mentioned that she was given to understand that her blood was
quite unusual.  A doctor had informed her that her red blood
cells did not die, but instead they rejuvenated.  She wondered
whether this might be due to an alien influence; some time later
she attempted to locate the doctor but was unable to do so.
Linda seemed to imply that she now believed that she was part
alien or somehow worked with the aliens. Linda also told us that
she had an agreement with Budd Hopkins to split equally any
profits from a book on the case.

INITIAL PROBLEMS WITH THE CASE

There are a number of obvious but unanswered questions that raise
immediate doubts about the credibility of the case.

The most serious problem is that the three alleged principal
corroborating witnesses (Richard, Dan, and Perez de Cuellar) have
not been interviewed face-to-face by Hopkins, although it has
been over a year and a half since initial contact with Hopkins
and over three years since the abduction.

Richard and Dan allegedly met with Linda and have written letters
to Hopkins.  Linda has a picture of Dan.  Yet Dan and Richard
refuse to speak directly with Hopkins.  No hard evidence confirms
that Richard and Dan even exist.

Though they initially expressed extreme concern over the well
being of Linda, the alleged "Dan" and "Richard" waited more than
a year before contacting Linda and Hopkins.  Why ?  Furthermore,
they contacted Hopkins before they visited Linda.  How did this
come about ?  After all, they knew the location of Linda's
apartment, so it would seem that they would have had no reason to
contact Hopkins.  Why did they bother with him at all ?

The woman on the bridge said that before contacting Hopkins she
only discussed the matter with her son, daughter, sister and
brother-in-law.  Why didn't she contact other UFO investigators ?
Why only Hopkins ?  If there is some unclear reporting on this
point and she did actually contact others, can such be verified ?
Has there been any investigation of this woman such as checking
with her neighbours, friends, family, or previous employers? What
is her background ?  Has she had any previous relationship with
Linda ? These questions have not been addressed, and thus the
credibility of the only directly interviewed, corroborating,
first-hand witness remains in doubt.

Dan has spent time in a mental institution.  Richard suffered
extreme emotional distress, forcing him to take a leave of
absence from his job. Assuming that these two people actually
exist, one must now be careful in accepting their claims (even if
offered in good faith).  Despite their debilitating mental
problems, at least one of them was allowed to drive a car with UN
license plates.  Are we really to believe that they returned to
active duty in a sensitive position (presumably carrying
firearms) and were given use of an official car ?

Who was the doctor who took the X-rays ?  We are only told that
this person is closely connected with Linda.  Why isn't a formal
report available ? Given the alarming nature of the outcome, why
wasn't there an immediate examination ? Linda said that the
doctor was "nervous" and didn't want to talk about the X- ray.
It is not clear whether Hopkins has ever met this alleged doctor.
Instead, Hopkins showed the X-ray to a friend of his.  Some have
speculated that Linda may have simply put some small object in
her nose and had a friendly X-ray technician assist.  We have
seen no evidence to exclude this possibility.

Linda claims that she was kidnapped twice, nearly drowned, and
further harassed.  Yet she refuses to contact the police, even
after Hopkins' urging. During the February 1, 1992 meeting with
Stefula and Butler, Linda asked if she had legal grounds to
"shoot" Dan if he attempted another abduction of her by force.
Stefula advised against it and recommended that she go to the
police and make an official complaint.  She declined.  If she was
afraid, why didn't her husband contact authorities ?  The most
plausible reason is that if a report was filed, and her story
proved false, she could be subject to criminal charges.  Linda's
failure here raises enormous questions of credibility.

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 travelled to New York City in order to visit
the site of the alleged abduction.  We found that Linda's
apartment complex has a large courtyard with guard house manned
24 hours a day.  We talked with the security guard and his
supervisor and asked if they had ever heard about a UFO encounter
near the complex.  They reported hearing nothing about one.  We
also asked if the police routinely enter the complex and
undertake door-to-door canvassing in order to find witnesses to
crimes.  They said that this was a very rare practice.  We
obtained the name and phone number of the apartment manager and
called him a few days later.  He reported knowing nothing about
the UFO sighting, nor had he heard anything about it from any of
the approximately 1600
residents in the complex.

We also visited the site under the FDR drive where Richard and
Dan purportedly parked their car.  This was in a direct line of
sight and nearly across the street from the loading dock of the
New York Post.  We spoke with an employee of the Post, who told
us that the dock was in use through most of the night.  A few
days later, we called the New York Post and spoke to the person
who was the loading dock manager in 1989.  He told us that the
dock is in use until 5:00 a.m. and that there are many trucks
that come and go frequently during the early morning hours.  The
manager knew nothing of the UFO which supposedly appeared only a
couple blocks away.

Also in September, a colleague of ours contacted the Downtown
Heliport, on Pier Six on the East River of  Manhattan.  That is
the only heliport on the east side of Manhattan between Linda's
apartment and the lower tip of the island. Our colleague was
informed that the normal hours of operation of the heliport are
from 7:00 a.m to 7:00 p.m.  The Senior Airport Operations Agent
researched the records and found that there were no helicopter
movements on November 30, 1989 before normal hours.  Our
colleague was also told that about six months previously, the
heliport authorities had been approached by a man in his fifties
with white hair who had made a similar inquiry.  That man had
asked about a UFO that had crashed into the East River.

The Meeting of October 3

On October 3, 1992, we met with Hopkins and his colleagues at his
residence in Manhattan.  Among those in attendance were David
Jacobs, Walter H. Andrus, and Jerome Clark.  During our meeting a
number of  questions were raised, and some of Hopkins' answers
revealed a great deal about his investigations as well as the
attitudes of Jacobs, Andrus, and Clark. Linda's statements also
told us much.

We inquired if Hopkins had asked the guards of the apartment
complex whether they had seen the UFO.  He indicated that he had
not done so.  This is quite surprising, considering that the UFO
was so bright that the woman on the bridge had to shield her eyes
from it even though she was more than a quarter mile distant.
One would have thought that Hopkins would have made inquiries of
the guards considering the spectacular nature of the event.

We noted that Linda had claimed that police canvassing of her
apartment complex was a common occurrence.  We asked Hopkins if
he had attempted to verify this with the guards or the building
manager.  He indicated that he did not feel it necessary.
Although this is a minor point, it is one of the few directly
checkable statements made by Linda, but Hopkins did not attempt
to confirm it.

We asked about the weather on the night of the abduction.
Amazingly, Hopkins told us that he didn't know the weather
conditions for that period. This was perhaps one of the most
revealing moments, and it gives great insight into Hopkins'
capabilities as an investigator.  If the weather had been foggy,
rainy, or snowing, the visibility could have been greatly
hampered, and the reliability of the testimony of the witnesses
would need to be evaluated accordingly.  Even the very first form
in the MUFON Field Investigator's Manual requests information on
weather conditions (Fowler, 1983, p. 30).  We ourselves did check
the weather and knew the conditions did not impede visibility.
But the fact that Hopkins apparently had not bothered to obtain
even this most basic investigatory information was illuminating.
He claims to have much supporting evidence that he has not
revealed to outsiders; however, because of Hopkins' demonstrated
failure to check even the most  rudimentary facts, we place
absolutely no credence in his undisclosed "evidence."

During the discussions, Hopkins' partisans made allusions to
other world figures involved in this event, though they did not
give names.  Hopkins' supporters, who had been given information
denied to us, seemed to believe that there was a large motorcade
that carried Perez de Cuellar and these other dignitaries in the
early morning hours of November 30, 1989.  At the meeting, we
presented an outside expert consultant who for many years had
served in dignitary protective services.  He described the
extensive
preplanning required for moving officials and the massive
coordination during the movements.  Many people and networks
would be alerted if there were any problems at all (such as a car
stalling, or a delay in passing checkpoints).  His detailed
presentation seemed to take Hopkins aback.  The consultant listed
several specialized terms used by the dignitary protective
services and suggested that Hopkins ask Richard and Dan the
meaning of those terms as a test of their knowledge, and thus
credibility.  As far as we know, Hopkins has failed to contact
Richard and Dan about that matter.

During the beginning part of the October 3 meeting, Linda's
husband answered a few questions (in a very quiet voice).  He
seemed to have difficulty with some of them, and Linda spoke up
to "correct" his memory.  He left the meeting very early, even
though Linda was under considerable stress, and despite the fact
that she was overheard asking him to stay by her side.  His
leaving raised many questions in our minds.

Linda also responded to questions during the meeting.  Early in
the discussion, Hansen asked Linda's husband whether he was born
and raised in the U.S.  He replied that he had come to this
country when he was 17.  Linda promptly interjected that she knew
why Hansen had asked that question. During a prior telephone
conversation between Linda and Hansen, Linda had asserted that
her husband was born and raised in New York.  She acknowledged
that she had previously deliberately misled Hansen.

Later in the meeting the question arose about a financial
agreement between Linda and Hopkins.  Stefula noted that Linda
had told him that she and Hopkins had an agreement to split
profits from a book.  Hopkins denied that there was any such
arrangement, and Linda then claimed that she had deliberately
planted disinformation.

During the meeting, reports were heard from two psychologists.
They concluded that Linda's intelligence was in the "average"
range.  One suggested that Linda would need the mind of a Bobby
Fischer to plan and execute any hoax that could explain this case
and that she was not capable of orchestrating such a massive,
complex operation.  Although these were supposedly professional
opinions, we were not given the names of these psychologists.

Ms. Penelope Franklin also attended the meeting.  She is a close
colleague of Hopkins and the editor of IF--The Bulletin of the
Intruders Foundation. Hopkins had previously informed us in
writing that Ms. Franklin was a coinvestigator on the Napolitano
case.  In a conversation during a break in the meeting, Franklin
asserted to Hansen that Linda was absolutely justified in lying
about the case.  This remarkable statement was also witnessed by
Vincent Creevy, who happened to be standing between Franklin and
Hansen.

Franklin's statement raises very troubling questions, especially
given her prominence within Hopkins' circle of colleagues.  Her
statement appears to violate all norms of scientific integrity.
We can only wonder whether Linda has been counselled to lie by
Hopkins or his colleagues.  Have other abductees been given
similar advice?  What kind of a social and ethical environment
are Hopkins and Franklin creating for abductees?  We also cannot
help but wonder whether Hopkins and Franklin believe it
appropriate for themselves to lie about the case.  They owe the
UFO research community an explanation for Franklin's statement.
If such is not forthcoming, we simply cannot accept them as
credible investigators.


HOPKINS' REACTION TO OUR INVESTIGATION

In concluding his Mufon UFO Journal paper, Hopkins wrote: "if
rumours are true and there are officially sanctioned intelligence
agents within the various UFO investigative networks, these
people will also be mobilized to subvert the case from the
inside, even before its full dimensions are made known to the
public at large" (Hopkins, 1992c, p. 16).  Hopkins apparently
takes this idea quite seriously.  After he learned of our
investigation, he warned Butler that he suspected Butler and
Stefula of being government agents and that he planned to inform
others of his suspicions.  A few weeks after our October 3
meeting, he told people that he suspected Hansen of being a CIA
agent.  This was not an off-hand remark made to a friend in an
informal setting; rather this was asserted to a woman whom he did
not know and who had happened to attend one of his lectures
(member of MUFON in New Jersey who feared future repercussions if
her name was mentioned, personal communication, November 7,
1992).

A POSSIBLE LITERARY BASIS FOR ELEMENTS OF THE STORY

This case is quite exotic, even for a UFO abduction.  Government
agents are involved, the UN Secretary General is a key witness,
Linda was kidnapped in the interests of national security,
concerns are expressed about world peace, the CIA is attempting
to discredit the case, and the ETs helped end the Cold War. The
story is truly marvellous, and one might wonder about its origin.
We wish to draw the readers' attention to the science fiction
novel, Nighteyes, by Garfield Reeves-Stevens.  This work was
first published in April 1989, a few months before Linda claimed
to have been abducted from her apartment.

The experiences reported by Linda seem to be a composite of those
of two characters in Nighteyes: Sarah and Wendy.  The parallels
are striking; some are listed in Table 1.  We have not bothered
to include the similarities commonly reported in abduction
experiences (e.g., implants, bodily examinations, probes, etc.).
The parallels are sufficiently numerous to lead us to suspect
that the novel served as the basis for Linda's story.  We want to
emphasize that the parallels are with discrete elements of the
case and not with the story line itself.

Table 1 - Similarities Between the Linda Napolitano Case and the
Science Fiction Novel Nighteyes

*  Linda was abducted into a UFO hovering over her high-rise
apartment building in New York City.

     Sarah was abducted into a UFO hovering over her high-rise
apartment building in New York City.

*  Dan and Richard initially claimed to have been on a stakeout
and were involved in a UFO abduction during early morning hours.

    Early in Nighteyes two government agents were on a stakeout
and became involved in a UFO abduction  during early morning
hours.

*  Linda was kidnapped and thrown into a car by Richard and Dan.
  Wendy was kidnapped and thrown into a van by Derek and Merril.

*  Linda claimed to have been under surveillance by someone in a
van.
    Vans were used for surveillance in Nighteyes.

*  Dan is a security and intelligence agent.

    Derek was an FBI agent.

*  Dan was hospitalized for emotional trauma.

    One of the government agents in Nighteyes was hospitalized
for emotional trauma.

*  During the kidnapping Dan took Linda to a safe house.

    During the kidnapping Derek took Wendy to a safe house.

*  The safe house Linda visited was on the beach.

    In Nighteyes, one safe house was on the beach.

*  Before her kidnapping, Linda contacted Budd Hopkins about her
abduction.

    Before her kidnapping, Wendy contacted Charles Edward Starr
about her abduction.

*  Budd Hopkins is a prominent UFO abduction researcher living in
New York City and an author who has written books on the topic.

   Charles Edward Starr was a prominent UFO abduction researcher
living in New York City and an author who had written books on
the topic.

 *  Linda and Dan were abducted at the same time and communicated
with each other during their abductions.

    Wendy and Derek were abducted at the same time and
communicated with each other during their     abductions.

*  Linda thought she "knew" Richard previously.

    Wendy "knew" Derek previously.

*  Dan expressed a romantic interest in Linda.

    Derek became romantically involved with Wendy.

*  Dan and Richard felt considerable vibration during the close
encounter.

    During the UFO landing in Nighteyes there was much vibration.

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

   In Nighteyes, photographs taken on a beach played a central
role [as they do in the "Washburn" case described on pages 10-11,
PF].

THE REACTION OF
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 co-investigator, Penelope
Franklin, approved of lying by the principal witness; and leaders
in the field have willingly accepted and promoted the case
despite its exotic features and lack of supporting evidence.
This state of affairs raises perplexing questions and cries out
for a plausible explanation.  The thinking and motivations of
ufology's leaders deserve at least as much attention as the
abduction claims
themselves.

Did these leaders really believe, as they said, that they
accepted the report of attempted murder?  If so, they seem not to
have acted as responsible citizens.  However, these people do not
appear to us to be delusional, in any usual sense of that word.
They are highly functional members of society.  They also do not
appear to be perpetrators of a hoax or even "yellow journalists"
with a "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" attitude who knowingly want to
capitalize on it for their own temporary glory or financial gain.

We believe that other motivating factors and concepts provide a
better explanation and framework for understanding these
seemingly bizarre actions. We would suggest that perhaps, at some
semiconscious level, these individuals do not really believe
their UFO investigations to be fully engaged with the "real
world."  Rather, their behaviour and statements seem more
consistent with something like fantasy role playing, perhaps akin
to the game Dungeons and Dragons (D & D).

Both ufology and D & D allow direct, immediate involvement with
powerful "other-world" beings and mythological motifs.  Both
endeavours have been known to overtake (possess?) the
participants, though only occasionally to their detriment.  Most
"players" are able to successfully detach themselves from
involvement, but occasionally the "game" becomes obsessive and
interferes with "real-world" pursuits.  This "role playing" taps
archetypal images that hold great psychological power.  The
archetypes can become immensely attractive, even addictive, to
those playing the game.  The notions and images of powerful
"other-world" figures are part of the human condition.  Accounts
of them are found in all cultures throughout history, this being
one of the traditional domains of religion.  Even atheists and
those who deny the existence of such beings must still grapple
with the ideas on some level, though this might not be
consciously recognized by an individual.

In the Napolitano case, the "other-world" figures include not
only the ET aliens, but also the pantheon of agents of an
unreachable, evil government conspiracy determined to prevent
humankind's knowledge of the ETs. Intermediaries between flesh
and blood humans and the powerful masters of the mystical higher
orders are
ubiquitous in the realm of religion.  Angels and devils serve the
centers of ultimate good and evil.  So here we see the largely
invisible minions "Dan" and "Richard" and the mysterious witness
on the bridge furthering the cause of "Truth."  Likewise, Hopkins
discerns the skeptical investigators as agents of a secular
satan.

Thus the interactions of Hopkins, et al., with these players are
seen to conform to the rules that historically control the
interactions between humans and gods.  Humans question and
provoke the gods only at the greatest peril. The proper approach
is to appease, mollify and supplicate these "entities."  It
should be no surprise that the simplest reality tests of the
Napolitano story were not made in this case.  Hopkins' failure to
check the weather conditions during the abduction actually makes
sense in the context of this cult-like thought process.  Just as
lice were called "pearls of heaven" by medieval religious
devotees, the physical event-reality issues in the Linda story
are transmuted by her supporters.

The roles of high priest and acolytes are only too obvious when
examining the behaviours of personages Hopkins, Clark, Jacobs,
and Andrus.  These aging white males patronizingly refer to
Linda's "average" intellect, perhaps to reassure themselves that
they are indeed in control.  Yet the high priestess has, in
effect, achieved the godhead (metaphorically speaking, of
course).

There are some differences between D & D and ufological pursuits.
D & D has more restrictive and structured rules.  The boundaries
of appropriate behaviour are rather clearly defined.  Ufology is
more "unstructured," there are fewer "rules" about what is and is
not possible, and the powers of the "other- world" figures are
almost unbounded.  This relative lack of structure makes the UFO
game somewhat more "dangerous."  In order to grapple with the
phenomena, the paradigms adopted by many ufologists have
"concretized" (i.e., structured) the beings as ET humanoids.

In fantasy role playing, the rules are not questioned; they are
accepted by the players at the beginning.  Similarly in the Linda
case, the basic evidence is not to be questioned.  Andrus, Clark,
and Hopkins have all urged that outsiders cease investigation
(despite the massive publicity given to the case).  Such
challenging of "rules" leads to disruptions of the "game," and
the dungeon masters need to keep order.

Direct interfacing of the "fantasy role" with the "real-world"
(i.e., direct allegations of attempted murder, verification of
details of testimony), usually does not cause problems, except
when the players do not act in accordance with consequential
"real-world" concerns.  Hopkins, Andrus, Clark, Mack, and Jacobs
seem to have accepted a system of beliefs and assumptions that
have led to a collision with the "real world."  They have been
unable to rationally defend their behaviour, and Jerome Clark's
(1992a) "Torquemada" article is perhaps the single best example
of that.  In fact, his emotional attack labelling Hansen as
"Torquemada" (director of the Spanish Inquisition) resurrects and
reinforces religious themes, and it perhaps betrays his
unconscious feelings of religious persecution.

The above discussion derives from a psycho-social perspective,
and we would like to encourage U.S. researchers to become more
familiar the ideas generated from that approach.  We admit that
the psycho-social theorists have failed to address many aspects
of the abduction experience generally. Exclusive use of that
perspective can lead to positing simplistic and scientifically
sterile
explanations.  On the other hand, those that shun the psycho-
social perspective typically fail to recognize the explanatory
power it possesses and its ability to illuminate risks faced by
investigators. Those wanting more information about the psycho-
social perspective may wish to read the book Angels and Aliens by
Keith Thompson (1991) and the British magazine Magonia; almost
without saying, the works of John Keel are also recommended.

We are not denigrating ufology by such comparisons as those made
above, nor are we attacking the existence of "other-world"
entities.  Regardless whether entities or ET aliens exist, the
comparisons are useful and the consequences and insights are
applicable.  Such a comparative analysis should not be limited to
only D & D players and ufologists; similar comparisons could be
made for virtually everyone in the "real world."  They can help
serve as warnings about becoming too complacent regarding beliefs
in our own "rationality." 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). Surprisingly, Jacobs gave no
citations for any of these cases.  Hansen wrote to Jacobs
requesting such citations but received no reply.  Jacobs' article
was lavish in its praise for Hopkins' work, and we suspect that
Jacobs had in mind the Napolitano case when he wrote his article.
We would like to remind the reader that it was Hopkins (1992a)
who wrote: "The importance of this case is virtually
immeasurable, as it powerfully supports both the objective
reality of UFO abductions and the accuracy of regressive
hypnosis."  Because the argument for the "objective reality of
UFO abductions" relies heavily on Hopkins' work, our findings
call into question this entire theoretical perspective.

In our judgment, conscious hoaxes are rare in the abduction
field.  The vast majority of those claiming to be abducted have
had some kind of intense personal experience, whatever the
ultimate cause.  Nevertheless, the problems of fraud and hoaxing
have long been a problem in ufology, especially for cases with
high visibility.  This will continue.  Researchers must become
more open minded to the potential for hoaxing, yet not be blinded
to the genuine phenomena.  This is a difficult balance.

Some have questioned possible motives in this case; it is
impossible to obtain certain knowledge here.  Perhaps Linda
really had some kind of an abduction experience (Butler believes
this is likely to be the case).  As she became acquainted with
Hopkins and other abductees, she may have wanted to vindicate
them--to save them from ridicule and derision.  Perhaps money was
the only motivation.  Possibly there was a combination of
factors.  It does appear that if this was a hoax, it was not
perpetrated by a lone individual. Collaborators would include the
woman on the bridge, an X-ray operator, and a man (or men)
preparing the tape recordings.  However, we want to emphasize
that we have no direct evidence to implicate Hopkins in attempted
deception.

Cynics might criticize Hopkins saying that he ignored the obvious
problems because he was motivated by money that might accrue from
books and movie rights.  While this might possibly be an
unconscious factor, critics rarely acknowledge that Hopkins does
not charge abductees for his services (unlike some
"professionals").  Hopkins has spent an enormous amount of his
own time and money investigating the phenomena.  Furthermore, he
does not have an academic position subsidized by the tax payers.
One should not begrudge him the profits from his books.  Hopkins
has been involved in considerable controversy, and some have
disputed his methods.  Nevertheless, he has done much to bring
the abduction problem to the attention of scientists and the
mental health community, and his efforts have made it much more
acceptable to discuss such strange encounters.  Abduction
experiences are often emotional and traumatic, and the abductees
need considerable support. Hopkins has attempted to provide much
needed aid.

The outside critic who is not directly involved in such
activities almost never recognizes how difficult it is to serve
as both a therapist and as a scientist.  Those persons trying to
help abductees emotionally need to provide warmth, acceptance,
and trust.  The scientist, however, needs to be critically open
minded and somewhat detached and analytical.  The two functions
are not altogether compatible.  We cannot realistically expect
one
individual to be 100% effective in both roles.  By the nature of
the endeavour, those trying to be helpful can be vulnerable to
deception.

APPENDIX

A Note on the Hansen-Clark Communications

One of the more entertaining aspects of this case has been the
resulting missives by Hansen (1992a, 1992b) and Clark (1992a,
1992b) which have been widely circulated and posted on electronic
bulletin boards.  We encourage those interested to obtain copies.

Clark's (1992b) most recent piece deserves comment.  He now says
that he now does not accept Linda's claims about the kidnapping
and attempted murder by government agents.  However, in a
telephone conversation with him on October 6, 1992, he told
Hansen that he accepted those claims.  Hansen did not tape-record
the
conversation, but he is willing to provide a sworn statement to
that effect.  Hansen also talked with Marcello Truzzi who had
spoken to Clark near the same time.  Truzzi understood that Clark
believed that Linda was sincere in her claims and was telling the
truth to the best of her ability.

The salient points are summarized as follows:

1.  At the 1992 MUFON symposium, Linda Napolitano spoke in front
of hundreds of people and claimed that she was kidnapped by
government agents.

2.  Clark told both Hansen and Truzzi that he accepted Linda's
story (i.e., that she was telling the truth to the best of her
ability).

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

4.  Hopkins flew Clark to New York, whereupon Clark aggressively
injected himself into matters and vigorously opposed continuing
an outside investigation and reporting the alleged felonies to
law enforcement authorities.  He defended this position, in
writing, saying: "if this story is true, it is not just a UFO
case but a `politically sensitive' event because it supposedly
involves a political figure of international stature...banging on
the wrong doors could alert the relevant agency that two of its
agents were leaking a huge secret." (Clark, 1992a, p. 1).

We will let the readers decide whether Clark's initial position
was compatible with "real-world" considerations.

We are gratified that Clark has taken the time to comment, at
length, on these issues, and in a style so typical of his level
of dispassionate commentary.  We caution readers that Clark
perhaps may be currently acutely embarrassed by his statement
quoted in point 4 and may feel the need to obscure this central
issue.   Nevertheless, we are pleased that he now seems to have
made a cathartic conversion.

REFERENCES

Baskin, Anita.  (1992).  Antimatter: High-rise abductions: Alien
abductions routinely occur in big cities and high-rise buildings
around the world. Omni. April. Vol. 14, No. 7, p. 75.

Clark, Jerome.  (1992a).  The Politics of Torquemada; or, Earth
Calling Hansen's Planet.  612 North Oscar Avenue, Canby,
Minnesota 56220.  October 24, 1992.  [This paper has been
circulated and posted on electronic bulletin boards].

Clark, Jerome.  (1992b).  Wasting Away in Torquemadaville.
November 30, 1992. [This paper has been circulated].

De Brosses, Marie-Therese.  (1992).  Enleves par les E.T.!  Paris
Match.  17 Sept., pp. 13, 14, 18, 96, 98.

Drano the Sewerian [pseudonym].  (1992). SETI and military
personnel monitor secret UFO abduction conference at MIT.  Third
Eyes Only.  July-August, No. 4, pp. 42-44.

Fowler, Raymond E. (Editor).  (1983).  MUFON Field Investigator's
Manual. Seguin, TX: Mutual UFO Network.

Hansen, George P.  (1992a).  Attempted Murder vs. The Politics of
Ufology: A Question of Priorities in the Linda Napolitano Case.
20 October 1992. [This paper has been circulated and posted on a
number of electronic bulletin boards and published in several
periodicals including The New Jersey Chronicle, Vol. 3, Nos. 1/2,
September-December, 1992; MUFON of Ohio Newsletter, No. 3, Second
November 1992 Issue; Third Eyes Only, No. 6, November 1992; UFO
Spotters Newsletter, No. 16, 1992; Minnesota MUFON Newsletter,
No. 37, October 1992]

Hansen, George P.  (1992b).  "Torquemada" Responds to Jerome
Clark.  23 November 1992.  [This paper has been circulated and
posted on a number of electronic bulletin boards.]

Hatfield, Scott.  (1992).  X-Ray Said to Show Alien Implant.
ADVANCE for Radiologic Science Professionals.  October 26, p. 11.

Hinds, Michael deCourcy.  (1992).  Taking U.F.O.'s for Credit,
and for Real. New York Times, 28 October, p. B9.

Hopkins, Budd.  (1981).  Missing Time: A Documented Study of UFO
Abductions. New York: Richard Marek.

Hopkins, Budd.  (1987).  Intruders: The Incredible Visitations at
Copley Woods. New York: Random House.

Hopkins, Budd.  (1991).  Innocent bystanders.  IF-The Bulletin of
the Intruders Foundation.  Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 1-4.

Hopkins, [Budd].  (1992a).  A doubly witnessed abduction.
Abstracts: Abduction Study Conference at  Massachusetts Institute
of Technology prepared by Andrea Pritchard.  June 13-17, p. III-
B.

Hopkins, Budd.  (1992b).  An Open Letter From Budd Hopkins.
Mufon UFO Journal, June, p. 20.

Hopkins, Budd.  (1992c).  The Linda Cortile [Napolitano]
Abduction Case. Mufon UFO Journal, September, pp. 12-16.

Hopkins, Budd.  (1992d).  The Linda Cortile [Napolitano]
Abduction Case: Part II "The Woman on the Bridge (sic).  Mufon
UFO Journal, December, pp. 5-9.

Hufford, David J.  (1982).  The Terror That Comes in the Night:
An Experience- Centered Study of Supernatural Assault Traditions.
Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Jacobs, David M.  (1992).  On Studying the Abduction Phenomenon
Without Knowing What It Is.  Journal of UFO Studies, New Series
Vol. 3, 153-163.

Jefferson, David J.  (1992).  A Harvard doctor offers trauma
relief for UFO `abductees.'  Wall Street Journal, May 14, pp. A1,
A10.

Mack, John E.  (1992a).  Helping Abductees.  International UFO
Reporter. July/ August, pp. 10-15, 20.

Mack, John E.  (1992b).  Other Realities: The "Alien Abduction"
Phenomenon. Noetic Sciences Review.  Autumn, pp. 5-11.

McKenna, Chris.  (1992).  Doc `Abducted by Aliens' Ruled Fit to
Work.  New York Post, November 21, pp. 5, 13.

Reeves-Stevens, Garfield.  (1989).  Nighteyes.  New York:
Doubleday.

Ring, Kenneth; & Rosing, Christopher J.  (1990).  The Omega
Project: A Psychological Survey of Persons Reporting Abductions
and Other UFO Encounters. Journal of UFO Studies, New Series Vol.
2, 59-98.

Rodeghier, Mark; Goodpaster, Jeff; & Blatterbauer, Sandra.
(1992). Psychosocial Characteristics of Abductees: Results From
the CUFOS Abduction Project.  Journal of UFO Studies, New Series
Vol. 3, 59-90.

Sontag, Deborah.  (1992).  Reverence and Rigidity in the New Age:
At the Whole Life Expo the Spirits are Willing So Long as the
Wallet is Not Weak. New York Times, October 5, pp. B1, B2.

Stacy, Dennis.  (1992).  The 1992 MUFON Symposium.  Mufon UFO
Journal, August, pp. 3-10.

Thompson, Keith.  (1991).  Angels and Aliens: UFOs and the Mythic
Imagination. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Unusual Personal Experiences: An Analysis of the Data from Three
National Surveys Conducted by the Roper Organization.  (1992).
Las Vegas, NV: Bigelow Holding Corporation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
Acknowledgements: We would like to thank Philip J. Klass for
assistance.  We would also like to thank Vincent Creevy for
providing materials and bringing the novel Nighteyes to our
attention.  Thanks are also due to several who provided help but
do not want their names associated with the field of ufology.

Joseph Stefula is a former Special Agent for the U.S. Army
Criminal Investigations Command and is a former MUFON State
Director for New Jersey. He resigned his directorship shortly
after finishing this investigation.

Richard Butler is a former law enforcement and security police
specialist for the U.S. Air Force and now a UFO investigator
researching abductions and government cover-ups.

George Hansen has conducted parapsychological research and is
author of the article "CSICOP and the Skeptics: An Overview"
which appeared in the January 1992 Journal of the American
Society for Psychical Research.




Crop Circles in Sweden
Tickle the Imagination
by Clas Svahn, UFO Sweden

At Harplinge north of Halmstad a woman sat down in the middle of
a rye field to meditate. At Skyllberg south of Hallsberg curious
people walked about in something that looked like a map of the
sunken Atlantic. At Bracke near Hoganas a dowser decided that it
was all due to the position of the planets.

"I never thought that people could act in this way", says an 18-
year-old from Borlange, who together with two school friends
created a huge pictogram near Orsa.

When the circle phenomenon came to Sweden this summer it did so
with a bang. But maybe it was no surprise after all that Sweden
would be "hit" by the circles. In several lectures and TV
programmes the general public was informed of the phenomenon. A
major programme on the circles was shown on the commercial
Channel 4 in March. Then "Night Cafe" on National television
(TV2) invited people to discuss the circles on July 29th.
Following this there are few Swedes who are unaware of the
phenomenon.

Whereas almost a dozen crop circle cases were reported in Sweden
not a single case was reported by UFO groups in Norway and
Denmark. However one case was reported from Finland. At the
beginning of August a circle was found at Luumaki. A fake
pictogram was made here last year. This year's Finnish formation
consisted of three circles, each six metres in diameter, forming
a triangle. Two of them were connected by paths, half a metre
wide.

In England the number of circles is down to about forty this
year. This compares with 600-800 at their peak. The Grand Old Man
of British cereology - Pat Delgado - has become tired of the
phenomenon, as have many others. Delgado has made a lot of money
from the phenomenon with his three books, "Circular Evidence",
"Crop Circles, The Latest Evidence" and "Crop Circles, Conclusive
Evidence?" - the first two written with Colin Andrews.

"Two Dozen Genuine Circles"

Now Delgado has retired from cereology, Colin Andrews has
emigrated to the USA to write about cattle mutilations and other
mysteries. I gather that in a telephone conversation with Terence
Meaden earlier this summer Pat Delgado accepted Doug Bower and
Dave Chorleys' claims and that he now considers most circles to
be fakes.

The interest of the British media has also dropped to almost
nothing. "As far as I know only some 40 circles have been
reported this summer", reports the Editor of "The Crop Watcher"
Paul Fuller, to UFO Aktuellt. He believes that every one of them
must be fakes - and that includes the circles appearing in Sweden
too !

UFO Aktuellt is the first Swedish source to talk to an 18-year-
old high school student who admits that on the night of September
4th he and two friends created the big pictogram outside Orsa. He
prefers to remain anonymous, but his name is known to UFO-Sweden.
Just in case he and his friends from St Mikael School in Mora
have apologised to the farmer, Erik Sundin.

"When we heard people who had seen our circle talking about how
it could not have been made by human beings - well, we didn't
know what to think," he told me on the phone.

The Story of a Hoaxer

It was about 11 pm on Saturday September 4th that the three 18-
year-olds went into a rye field  at Knarrholen near Orsa.
Equipped with some torches, a short plank, an iron lever and a
compass they parked the car and entered a field belonging to Erik
Sundin. It was wet and damp, which later turned out to be to
their advantage.

"I would say it took us one and a half hours before we were
satisfied. It was rather tough on our backs as we didn't think of
attaching the plank to any strings so we had to crawl about. The
place was rather secluded, but if we saw a passing car we turned
our torches off".

"Later, when we saw the articles in the papers and heard people
speculating about everything from earth radiation to aliens it
felt kind of strange. I am interested in UFOs myself and have
seen a few programmes about crop circles on the satellite
channels. I guess that we got our inspiration from them."

The 18-year-old hoaxer says that what is most surprising is how
naively everyone acted. Some people visited the circle with
dowsing rods and reported feeling earth energies. Others stood
inside the circle and told how an unknown energy surged through
their bodies.

"I've learned a lot about psychology these last weeks," he said.

A few days later Bertil Kuhleman had been interviewed by Barbro
Hellberg from Radio Dalarna. He explained that it was his firm
belief that the pictograms at Orsa represented messages from
space.  Kuhleman, who worked for many year with the contactee
Sten
Lindgren, believes that the circles are absolute proof that
aliens are here on Earth.

Richard Andrews Visits Sweden

There has certainly been no inspiration for circle conmen this
year. In late Spring one of the remaining enthusiasts held a
series of public lectures in Sweden. With his angled branches
ready at hand Richard Andrews described the formations of 1992
and presented his own thoughts on the subject to fascinated
audiences in
Stockholm and Gothenburg. Andrews and his colleagues believe that
the circles have a direct connection to field lines of earth
energy and prehistoric sites.

I met Richard Andrews during my visit to England in 1991, when
the circles were at their peak. Besides giving us a lesson in
dowsing he told us that the phenomenon would develop into
"bigger, more complicated formations". In fact it turned out to
be quite the opposite. (According to recent quotes in a  Swedish
newspaper he has now changed his mind, "There will be fewer
circles in England and more in Sweden").

As far as Sweden is concerned it all started very quietly around
July 6th when two brothers in Sala discovered a couple of circles
beneath a high-voltage transmission line. One of the brothers
told UFO Sweden that he saw a light shifting in the sky and felt
static electricity in the air early in the morning as he was out
walking his dog. Later the other brother went to the place out of
curiosity and discovered two circles in a rye field. After a
lengthy
discussion the younger brother decided to call UFO Sweden
anonymously.

A thorough investigation showed that the two circles (6 and 12
metres in diameter) had no traces of clay in them, though the
surrounding ground was very muddy. Neither could the
investigators from UFO Sweden find any traces leading to the
circles from the edge of the field. Both circles were swept
clockwise and Mats Nilsson, who investigated the site on the
evening of July 6th, described the interior of the circles "as
smooth as a ballroom floor".

But this is only the beginning. UFO Sweden has since learnt of
ten other locations in Sweden where crop circles appeared:-
* July 17, Harplinge, 12 km NW of Halmstad. On circle 14.85 metre
in diameter in a rye field. Counter-clockwise.

* July 29, Skyllberg, 19 km SSW of Hallsberg. Complicated  circle
with two rings connected with spokes in barley. Clockwise at the
centre. Counter-clockwise elsewhere. Total diameter 36.4 metres.

* July 30, Asperud, 20 kms SSW of Hallsberg. Circle with two
rings and a reversed letter F in autumn wheat. Total diameter
88.4 metres. Counter-clockwise.

* July 30, Bracke, 20 kms NNW of Helsingborg, near Hoganas. Oval
circle in a wheat field. Counter-clockwise.

* July 31, Ljungby, 12 kms NE of Falkenberg. Slightly oval circle
in barley. 14.88-16.29 metres in diameter. Counter-clockwise.

* August 21, Save Depa, north of Gothenburg. Slightly oval circle
in oats. 9.9-10.4 metres in diameter. Counter-clockwise.

* August 21, Waro Norrgard near Linkoping. Circle 8 metres in
diameter with a 20 metre long straight extension in autumn wheat.
Clockwise.

* September 3, Tjarna Angar, 1.5 kms from Borlange. 27.7 metres
long pictogram in a barley field. There was a reversed F with a
ring.

* September 4, Knarrholmen, Orsa. 39 metre long pictogram.

* Early September, Hamnas near Soderhamn. 7-8 rings. 3-4 metres
in diameter in barley.























































































































































he Gavleborg UFO Group
"unmasked the villains" as roe-deers.

Hoaxers Exposed

The following circle formations have been exposed as hoaxes:-
Skyllberg, Asperud, Save Depa, Orsa and Tjarna Angar.

As for the circles at Harplinge, Bracke and Ljungby everything
points to the fact that they were made by the same group of
hoaxers. They were almost all identical in size, their location
(by the side of a road) was chosen for maximum exposure and the
sweeping (counter-clockwise) swirl is typical of a man-made
circle.

The circle at Waro Norrgard was in such poor condition that it
was impossible to investigate it.

The two circles in Sala are the only ones UFO Sweden consider to
be potentially important. We have found no traces of clay inside
the circles, although the field was very muddy and we were there
before anyone else.

Whether genuine or man-made the circles have attracted a lot of
curious people, each with their own favourite theory.

The most inured person is probably farmer Olle Johansson at
Harplinge, whose almost 15 metre diameter circle became known all
over Sweden following his appearance on the "Night Cafe"
programme :

"Lots of people have been here," he told UFO Aktuellt, "A woman
even ate the rye believing it held supernatural powers".

When Inga-Lill Wallin from UFO-Sweden visited the site another
woman was meditating in the middle of the circle. The woman had
flown down from Stockholm and taken a taxi out to Harplinge with
the sole purpose of spending an hour or so in the circle.

"What if it is not genuine ?", Inga-Lill Wallin suggested to the
woman,

"I really hope it is", she answered.

Strange Lights

When a circle is discovered, reports on other events - which are
quickly linked to the circles, inevitably pop up. In several
cases, including those at Harplinge, light phenomena have also
been reported. But on closer scrutiny it can be demonstrated that
these light phenomena were not seen when the the circles
appeared.

In the case of the fake circle at Save Depa, north of Gothenburg,
a man claimed to have seen mysterious lights in the sky on the
same night as the circle appeared. When Anders Persson
interviewed the man it turned out that his sighting could not be
linked to the circle as the man had probably seen spotlights
reflected off clouds.

Also, the fake circle at Orsa has been linked to observations of
lights in the sky.

This kind of linking of two unconnected events - "guilt by
association" - is common in UFOlogy. Frequently the only common
denominator is the fact that the two events concerned something
unidentified. It is so easy to see a link which is not there.

The link between UFOs and circles is very weak, all things
considered. Not on any occasion has an unidentified object been
observed at the same time as a circle has formed.

A detail often presented as evidence that a circle is genuine -
that is not made by humans - is the fact that the the stems are
not broken. It is hard to understand this argument since stems
only break when they are very dry. In moist weather, particularly
like this, the straws are soft and lithe. The fake circle in Orsa
is a good example of this.

The problem is that even the most hardened sceptics soften at the
sight of a circle. Many are sheer works of art. Even if most of
the Swedish specimens this summer have been relatively simple and
lacking the English extravagances, there have been exceptions,
like the "Atlantis" circle at Skyllberg.

Investigations conducted by UFO Sweden showed that the
neighbouring circles  at Skyllberg and Asperud were made by the
same persons. In the latter circle obvious traces of the hoaxer's
tools were found.


































































































 crop circles are concerned. The most probable explanation is
that almost all of them are made by men  in  order to  deceive
other men. Maybe a few of them are caused by some natural
phenomenon, but after this year's crop of hoaxes I am no longer
ready to bet on it.

Clas Svahn, UFO Sweden, Stockholm.

PF Notes:- I hope Clas Svahn will forgive me for some of the
small grammatical changes I've made to his text. Also my super PC
can't do any of those funny superscripts that feature heavily in
Scandinavian place names. Sorry. Readers will be interested to
learn that when Clas Svahn isn't investigating Sweden's outbreak
of crop circle hoaxing he is covering world-shaking events like
the siege of the White House in Moscow for Sweden's largest daily
newspaper Dagens Nyheter. UFO Sweden has over a thousand members
and is well known for adopting a sceptical approach to UFO
research and investigation. Svahn's article tells us a great deal
about how the UFO myth is being revived by people who don't give
a damn about the farmers and their feelings. It also demonstrates
how a whole new religion can be created and maintained by a
handful of people who simply don't want to know the truth. Isn't
anyone out there going to stop them ? Thanks to Clas Svahn and
UFO Sweden.


Fuller Resigns from BUFORA
Its Official !!!

Those readers who are also members of the British UFO Research
Association - BUFORA - will be interested to learn that on
September 11th 1993 I resigned my positions of Director, a member
of BUFORA's National Investigations Committee and ordinary
member. I had been members of these for 5, 10 and 15 years
respectively. I won't go into all the details of this decision
just yet but I will explain that I left BUFORA over important
issues of principle. My letter of resignation should be held in
BUFORA's records and I have asked Jenny Randles to retain a copy
for the N.I.C.

It is sad to leave an organisation I have supported for so long
but recent events really left me with little alternative. I would
like to record my continuing support for the invaluable work of
the N.I.C., the only part of BUFORA that continues to hold my
respect and admiration. My reasons for leaving can be best summed
up by quoting the lyrics from "Animals", one of Pink Floyd's
greatest and most cynical albums (now that really does date me
!):-

"You gotta be crazy, you gotta have a real need. You gotta sleep
on your toes and when you're on the street. You gotta be able to
pick out the easy meat with your eyes closed. And then moving in
silently, down wind and out of sight. You gotta strike when the
moment is right without thinking.

And after a while, you can work on points for style. Like the
club tie, and the firm handshake. A certain look in the eye and
an easy smile. You have to be trusted by the people that you lie
to, so that when they turn their backs on you, you'll get the
chance to put the knife in...."

The Beckhampton &
District Informer

This superb magazine has been doing the rounds for some time
now -I've only been sent volume 1 nos 3 to 5 - but its a must for
anyone who wants to know the truth behind the crop circles. As
far as I can tell this is a free publication but if you want to
get on the mailing list just write something stupid for "The
Circular", "The Cerealogist" or "The Crop Watcher" - you're bound
to get a copy !

Issue 3 is the least libellous. Apparently Peter Sorenson (see
CW18 page 32) is shortly to have an operation to remove a video
camera from his right eye. Unhappily Mr "Sarsen" has had a video
camera "grafted to his face since birth". This has resulted in
the growth of a "ridiculous beard" ! There is also a "Season
Update" of "Genuine Formations" by James Chapman (a blank page)
as well as a Doug and Dave "Propaganda Quiz".

Issue 4 contains an expose of "Weaselgate" - the subject of
George Wingfield's belated article in "The Cerealogist" about
insider crop circle hoaxing in the CCCS. In an interview with The
Informer's "disinformation correspondent" "The Weasel" (John
Martineau) confesses to how he managed to "infiltrate a well
known circle research group 'Circle Investigation Group And
Research Examining The Extra-Terrestrial Entity Scam (CIGARETTES)
and a smaller, more local group 'Phenomenon Action Group'
(PhAG)." According to The Informer "Me and some mates would go
out at night and hoax a major pictogram somewhere like East
Field. The next day I would go out at night and record it in the
CIGARETTES database as genuine. Everyone in the group knew what
was going on. CIGARETTES would declare the pictogram as being
genuine, 100 % confident that another hoaxing team could not
produce any evidence that they had made it, thus revealing the
truth about the nature of the crop circles. It was so simple !"
There is also an excellent article about the Penis that appeared
near Chequers. Apparently a "TW*T" seen taking photographs of the
formation was Erik Beckjord ! This is followed by a hoaxer's
vehicle registration quiz (won in the next issue by Grant
Wakefield, who is disqualified because his car number is also
included in the list). There's also a TIFINAG quiz, which is very
amusing, as well as the "Waggon & Horses Top 10 Records". Judging
from the '60s and '70s groups that feature in this "hit parade"
from the jukebox shortly to be installed in the Tack Room at the
Waggon & Horses it seems clear that the editors of this
scurrilous rag must be a little older than myself, say 35 to 40.
Now does that give you a clue to their identity ???

Issue Number 5 leads with an exclusive report on The Doug Bower
Enigma. According to The Informer's "Crime Correspondent" Doug
Bower is none other than Ernest Henry Bryant, who was contacted
by Venusians at Scoriton in 1965 (another famous UFO case where a
number of leading UFOlogists got their fingers badly burnt). Some
of the comments in this issue are even more cutting than those
that appear in The Crop Watcher ! In one article Grant Wakefield
is described as "an arrogant little snot" whilst Maria Ward is
described as a "l**r" who "dresses like a cheap t**t" and Richard
Andrews is dismissed as a "c***l*t*n dowser". Listen carefully
and you can hear the Libel Lawyers rubbing their hands with glee
!!! There is also the full unabridged story of George Wingfield's
angry response to the revelation that John Martineau was behind
much of the hoaxing that undermined Project Argus ("this
ridiculous so-called scientific exercise" according to Robert
Irving). There is also a recap on the fabrication of the letter
from "Roy Marks" -the one that dismissed Robert Irving as a
"psychopath". This was allegedly written by Maria Ward as a ploy
to discredit Irving, who features in another article disclaiming
his circle-making
activities and membership of M.I.5 ! All these issues are an
absolute scream !!!

Other News

Chris Rutkowski has written in to comment on the "Squashed
Porcupine" case discussed in CW17. According to Chris the carcass
was never actually seen by Chad Deetken, the carcass was never
examined by a veterinary pathologist and dead animals naturally
"deflate" after death through decay and decomposition. For
Deetken's own account of this bizarre case see "The Cerealogist"
issue 10.  Don't forget that despite Deetken's claims animal
mutilation cases and crop circles HAVE been associated before
(see CW17) Re-reading this case summary again it is not difficult
to re-interpret this particular squashed animal case as a hoax.
Why else would the farmer dispose of the carcass and THEN
telephone a UFO investigator ???

The Yorkshire & Humberside CCCS has just produced an excellent
case summary of the two known formations in Yorkshire during
1993. The first was a standard dumb-bell at Blansby Park near
Pickering that formed in late July. The second was a ringed-star
at Arras Hill near Market Weighton which appeared in late August.
For copies of this material write to John Holman, 20 Newton
Gardens, Ripon, North Yorkshire, HG4  1QF.

Rumours and Rumours of Rumours

Colin Andrews has given his United Nations talk about crop
circles, the General Assembly was suitably alarmed  ... In his
recent visit to Malta Colin Andrews spoke to a "gathering" of
"United Nations representatives" from several countries that keep
"open minds on such matters from UFOs to circles in the corn"...
Andrews expects to be offered a job by the United Nations to
research the
phenomenon ... The Ministry of Defence has joined in a "debate"
with Andrews to discuss the "increasingly numerous sightings of
UFOs with the corn circles" (all from the infallible "Andover
Advertiser", 13th August 1993) ... George Wingfield's "hice" is
up for sale ... There will be a special BBC documentary about
crop circles in November ... this will be further disinformation
from MBF Services to keep the truth about the crop circles from
the public ... Reg Presley ("Wild Thing") is writing a book about
crop circles with Colin Andrews ("Wild Thing") .... Robin Allen
and George Wingfield exchanged pleasantries at the Dorchester
Cornference ...

Advertisments

Crop Circles, A Mystery Solved has been completely updated and
republished in a second edition. Available from Robert Hale Ltd,
Clerkenwell House, Clerkenwell Green, London, EC1R  0HT, price #
7.99. Contains previously unpublished photographs of the Wokurna
(1973), Bordertown (1973) and Rossburn (1977) circles, along with
numerous historical cases, new eye witness testimony and a
detailed account of the crop circle crash of 1991-1993.

Wanted: During the late 1970s and early 1980s, a magazine called
"PICWINNARD" was published in the west country.  It was sub-
titled 'a magazine of Wessex leys and folklore'. If anyone has
copies of this magazine I'd like to buy them. Failing that, I'll
be happy to pay for photocopies.

For Sale: I have for sale, several masonic aprons, price on
application. Please write to P.D. Rendall, 46, Partridge Road,
Pucklechurch, Bristol, Avon, BS17  3SP.

The Crop Watcher is an independent non-profit-making magazine
devoted to the scientific study of crop circles and the social
mythology that accompanies them. All articles are copyright to
the authors and should not be reproduced without obtaining
written permission from the authors. Articles appearing in The
Crop Watcher do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editor
or other contributors. Readers are welcome to submit articles for
publication. Offers of exchange magazines are always welcome.

Subscriptions

The Crop Watcher is published six times a year and costs # 1.50
to UK subscribers and # 2.50 to overseas subscribers. A full
year's subscription costs # 9.00 for UK subscribers and # 15.00
for overseas subscribers. Please make cheques payable to "Paul
Fuller" not "The Crop Watcher". Overseas subscribers should not
send cheques drawn on overseas banks as these attract a
commission of about # 10.00 each. Subscriptions can be sent via
an International Money Order. All correspondence should be sent
to 3, Selborne Court, Tavistock Close, Romsey, Hampshire, SO51
7TY.