A PSYCHO-SOCIAL PERSPECTIVE

The Napolitano case brings into stark relief symptoms of deep problems
within ufology: major figures in the UFO community aggressively sought 
to suppress evidence of a purported attempted murder; Hopkins failed
to obtain and verify even the most basic investigatory information; his
coinvestigator, Penelope Franklin, approved of lying by the principal
witness; and leaders in the field have willingly accepted and promoted 
the case despite its exotic features and lack of supporting evidence. 
This state of affairs raises perplexing questions and cries out for a
plausible explanation.  The thinking and motivations of ufology's 
leaders deserve at least as much attention as the abduction claims 
themselves.

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

We believe that other motivating factors and concepts provide a better
explanation and framework for understanding these seemingly bizarre
actions. We would suggest that perhaps, at some semiconscious level, 
these individuals do not really believe their UFO investigations to be
fully engaged with the "real world."  Rather, their behavior and
statements seem more consistent with something like fantasy role 
playing, perhaps akin to the game Dungeons and Dragons (D & D).
Both ufology and D & D allow direct, immediate involvement with
powerful "other-world" beings and mythological motifs.  Both endeavors
have been known to overtake (possess?) the participants, though only
occasionally to their detriment.  Most "players" are able to 
successfully detach themselves from involvement, but occasionally the 
"game" becomes obsessive and interferes with "real-world" pursuits.  
This "role playing" taps archetypal images that hold great psychological 
power.  The archetypes can become immensely attractive, even addictive, 
to those playing the game. 

The notions and images of powerful "other-world" figures are part of the
human condition.  Accounts of them are found in all cultures throughout
history, this being one of the traditional domains of religion.  Even
atheists and those who deny the existence of such beings must still
grapple with the ideas on some level, though this might not be
consciously recognized by an individual.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are not denigrating ufology by such comparisons as those made above,
nor are we attacking the existence of "other-world" entities.  Regardless
whether entities or ET aliens exist, the comparisons are useful and the
consequences and insights are applicable.  Such a comparative analysis
should not be limited to only D & D players and ufologists; similar
comparisons could be made for virtually everyone in the "real world." 
They can help serve as warnings about becoming too complacent regarding
beliefs in our own "rationality."

DISCUSSION

The Napolitano case appears beset by an overwhelming number of problems.
It was with some misgivings that we first embarked on this investigation
because we did not wish to see UFO abduction research discredited. 
In fact, one of us, Butler, has had abduction experiences himself. It was
our judgement that if we did not raise these issues for public discussion,
there was a much greater risk for the field.  The case was garnering
considerable attention, and if it became widely regarded as evidential, it
would reflect very badly on the field as a whole if it was eventually
shown to be false.

We were quite unprepared for the reaction to our work from leaders of the
field.  Walter Andrus and Jerome Clark aggressively tried to dissuade us
from continuing our investigation, and so far they have failed to publish
any material critical of the case.  We were unaware that such
belligerently antiscientific attitudes were so prevalent at the highest
levels of ufology.  When these same individuals attempted to suppress
evidence of an alleged attempted murder, we concluded that their beliefs
and actions were incompatible with "real world" events.  However, we do
not consider the label "deluded" appropriate here, and we remind the
reader that these individuals are backed by people such as Harvard
psychiatrist John Mack and David Jacobs, professor of history at Temple
University.

Despite our disappointment, we strongly support scientific research into
the abduction phenomena and would like to call attention to high quality
studies in the field (e.g., Ring & Rosing, 1990; Rodeghier,
Goodpaster & Blatterbauer, 1992).  We also believe that the core 
abduction experience has not been adequately explained within normal 
scientific frameworks.  We commend the work of Hufford (1982) in 
exploring similar issues.

The present case has significant implications for assessing the true
nature of the abduction phenomena.  The idea that actual extraterrestrial
physical creatures are abducting people has been vigorously promoted in
the scientific literature and in the media.  Jacobs has promoted that view
in the New York Times (Hinds, 1992) as well as in the Journal of UFO
Studies (Jacobs, 1992). He suggests that the ET aliens are visiting earth
in order to obtain human sperm and eggs.  In his JUFOS article, Jacobs was
bitterly critical of Ring and Rosing, saying that they ignored "cases of
witnesses seeing others being abducted while not being abducted
themselves" (p. 162). Surprizingly, Jacobs gave no citations for any of
these cases.  Hansen wrote to Jacobs requesting such citations but
received no reply.  Jacobs' article was lavish in its praise for
Hopkins' work, and we suspect that Jacobs had in mind the Napolitano case
when he wrote his article.  We would like to remind the reader that it
was Hopkins (1992a) who wrote: "The importance of this case is virtually
immeasurable, as it powerfully supports both the objective reality of UFO
abductions and the accuracy of regressive hypnosis."  Because the argument 
for the "objective reality of UFO abductions" relies heavily on Hopkins'
work, our findings call into question this entire theoretical perspective.

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX

A Note on the Hansen-Clark Communications

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

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

The salient points are summarized as follows:

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

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

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

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.

08 January 1993

<A HREF="index.html"><IMG SRC="gifs/small-ufo.gif">