home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
UFO! 2
/
UFO! - Issue 2 (UPD).adf
/
eufon.13
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-12-14
|
76KB
|
1,576 lines
ELECTRONIC UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS NEWS
(EUFON)
Vol. 1 No. 3 (7 March 1993)
Published by: | Editor:
|
Baron Carlos's Castle BBS | Carlos A. Steffens
+1-202-863-1493 |
FidoNet 1:109/160 | Primary hatching
MufoNet 88:4202/0 | by John Komar
|
------------------------------------+--------------------------------
For information, copyrights, article submissions, obtaining copies and
so on, please refer to the end of this file.
Table of Contents
1. EDITORIAL ..................................................... 1
Editorial: The End Of Linda Napolitano? ....................... 1
2. ARTICLES ...................................................... 2
Final Report On The Linda Napolitano Abduction Pt. 2 .......... 2
John Powell On The Linda Napolitano Abduction ................. 9
'UFO's Tonight' Discuss Roswell ............................... 16
3. BOOK REVIEW ................................................... 20
The Evidence For Alien Abductions ............................. 20
4. ANNOUNCEMENTS/WANTED .......................................... 22
5. EUFON INFORMATION ............................................. 28
EUFONews 1 - 3 Page 1 07 Mar 1993
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
EDITORIAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Editorial: The End Of Linda Napolitano?
by Carlos A. Steffens (88:4202/19)
It seems like the last issue was almost exclusively dedicated to the
Linda Napolitano abduction. Even the next issue is guaranteed to carry
one final article regarding this case (part 3/3 of Stefula (et. al.)'s
Final Report On The Linda Napolitano Abduction). This case has come
under formidable attack by independent researchers in the UFO community.
All coincide in that the reports so far put forth by Mr. Hopkins pose
serious questions regarding the investigatory techniques, ethics, and
veracity of the case. Could this end of the Linda Napolitano abduction?
In this issue you will find the continuation of a very poignant
evaluation of the Napolitano abduction. You will also find an
independent investigator's evaluation of the Stefula 'Report'. In this
evaluation, John Powell points to faults in both the Napolitano case and
the Stefula 'Report'. Finally, we include the relevant part to the
Roswell case from an interview with Kevin Randle in the radio show
'UFO's Tonight'. This article was forwarded some time ago by Gary Long.
This month's book review is on "The Evidence For Alien Abductions", by
John C. Rimmer. The book was reviewed by Jeff Brewi and was forwarded
by Gary Long from one of ParaNet's public conferences. If you would
like to submit a book review/article for publishing in EUFON, please
refer to end of this publication.
EUFONews 1 - 3 Page 2 07 Mar 1993
Final Report On The Linda Napolitano Abduction (Part 2 of 3)
by Joseph Stefula
Richard Butler
George Hansen
(Continued from last issue)
INITIAL PROBLEMS WITH THE CASE
There are a number of obvious but unanswered questions that raise
immediate doubts about the credibility of the case.
The most serious problem is that the three alleged principal
corroborating witnesses (Richard, Dan, and Perez de Cuellar) have
not been interviewed face-to-face by Hopkins, although it has been
over a year and a half since initial contact with Hopkins and over
three years since the abduction.
Richard and Dan allegedly met with Linda and have written letters
to Hopkins. Linda has a picture of Dan. Yet Dan and Richard refuse to
speak directly with Hopkins. No hard evidence confirms that Richard and
Dan even exist.
Though they initially expressed extreme concern over the well being
of Linda, the alleged "Dan" and "Richard" waited more than a year before
contacting Linda and Hopkins. Why? Furthermore, they contacted Hopkins
before they visited Linda. How did this come about? After all, they
knew the location of Linda's apartment, so it would seem that they would
have had no reason to contact Hopkins. Why did they bother with him at
all?
The woman on the bridge said that before contacting Hopkins she
only discussed the matter with her son, daughter, sister and
brother-in-law. Why didn't she contact other UFO investigators? Why
only Hopkins? If there is some unclear reporting on this point and she
did actually contact others, can such be verified? Has there been any
investigation of this woman such as checking with her neighbors,
friends, family, or previous employers? What is her background? Has
she had any previous relationship with Linda? These questions have not
been addressed, and thus the credibility of the only directly
interviewed, corroborating, first-hand witness remains in doubt.
Dan has spent time in a mental institution. Richard suffered
extreme emotional distress, forcing him to take a leave of absence from
his job. Assuming that these two people actually exist, one must now be
careful in accepting their claims (even if offered in good faith).
Despite their debilitating mental problems, at least one of them was
allowed to drive a car with UN license plates. Are we really to
believe that they returned to active duty in a sensitive position
(presumably carrying firearms) and were given use of an official car?
Who was the doctor who took the X-rays? We are only told that this
person is closely connected with Linda. Why isn't a formal report
available? Given the alarming nature of the outcome, why wasn't there
an immediate examination? Linda said that the doctor was "nervous" EUFONews 1 - 3 Page 3 07 Mar 1993
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 traveled to New York City in order to visit the site of the
alleged abduction. We found that Linda's apartment complex has a large
courtyard with guard house manned 24 hours a day. We talked with the
security guard and his supervisor and asked if they had ever heard about
a UFO encounter near the complex. They reported hearing nothing about
one. We also asked if the police routinely enter the complex and
undertake door-to-door canvassing in order to find witnesses to crimes.
They said that this was a very rare practice.
We obtained the name and phone number of the apartment manager and
called him a few days later. He reported knowing nothing about the UFO
sighting, nor had he heard anything about it from any of the
approximately 1600 residents in the complex.
We also visited the site under the FDR drive where Richard and Dan
purportedly parked their car. This was in a direct line of sight and
nearly across the street from the loading dock of the New York Post. We
spoke with an employee of the Post, who told us that the dock was in use
through most of the night. A few days later, we called the New York
Post and spoke to the person who was the loading dock manager in 1989.
He told us that the dock is in use until 5:00 a.m. and that there are
many trucks that come and go frequently during the early morning hours.
The manager knew nothing of the UFO which supposedly appeared only a
couple blocks away.
Also in September, a colleague of ours contacted the Downtown
Heliport, on Pier Six on the East River of Manhattan. That is the only
heliport on the east side of Manhattan between Linda's apartment and the
lower tip of the island. Our colleague was informed that the normal
hours of operation of the heliport are from 7:00 a.m to 7:00 p.m. The
Senior Airport Operations Agent researched the records and found thatEUFONews 1 - 3 Page 4 07 Mar 1993
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. ManyEUFONews 1 - 3 Page 5 07 Mar 1993
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 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 co-investigator on the Napolitano case. In a
conversation during a break in the meeting, Franklin asserted to Hansen
that Linda
was absolutely justified in lying about the case. This remarkable
statement was also witnessed by Vincent Creevy, who happened to be
standing between Franklin and Hansen.
Franklin's statement raises very troubling questions, especially
given her prominence within Hopkins' circle of colleagues. Her
statement appears to violate all norms of scientific integrity. We can
only wonder whether Linda has been counseled to lie by Hopkins or his
colleagues. Have other abductees been given similar advice? What kind
of a social and ethical environment are Hopkins and Franklin creatingEUFONews 1 - 3 Page 6 07 Mar 1993
for abductees? We also cannot help but wonder whether Hopkins and
Franklin believe it appropriate for themselves to lie about the case.
They owe the UFO research community an explanation for Franklin's
statement. If such is not forthcoming, we simply cannot accept them as
credible investigators.
HOPKINS' REACTION TO OUR INVESTIGATION
In concluding his Mufon UFO Journal paper, Hopkins wrote: "if rumors
are true and there are officially sanctioned intelligence agents within
the various UFO investigative networks, these people will also be
mobilized to subvert the case from the inside, even before its full
dimensions are made known to the public at large" (Hopkins, 1992c, p.
16). Hopkins apparently takes this idea quite seriously. After he
learned of our investigation, he warned Butler that he suspected Butler
and Stefula of being government agents and that he planned to inform
others of his suspicions. A few weeks after our October 3 meeting, he
told people that he suspected Hansen of being a CIA agent. This was not
an offhand remark made to a friend in an informal setting; rather this
was asserted to a woman whom he did not know and who had happened to
attend one of his lectures (member of MUFON in New Jersey who feared
future repercussions if her name was mentioned, personal communication,
November 7, 1992).
A POSSIBLE LITERARY BASIS FOR ELEMENTS OF THE STORY
This case is quite exotic, even for a UFO abduction. Government
agents are involved, the UN Secretary General is a key witness, Linda
was kidnapped in the interests of national security, concerns are
expressed about world peace, the CIA is attempting to discredit the
case, and the ETs helped end the Cold War. The story is truly
marvelous, 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. EUFONews 1 - 3 Page 7 07 Mar 1993
* Dan and Richard initially claimed to have been on a stakeout and
were involved in a UFO abduction in during early morning hours.
Early in Nighteyes two government agents were on a stakeout and
became involved in a UFO abduction during early morning hours.
* Linda was kidnapped and thrown into a car by Richard and Dan.
Wendy was kidnapped and thrown into a van by Derek and Merril.
* Linda claimed to have been under surveillance by someone in a van.
Vans were used for surveillance in Nighteyes.
* Dan is a security and intelligence agent.
Derek was an FBI agent.
* Dan was hospitalized for emotional trauma.
One of the government agents in Nighteyes was hospitalized for
emotional trauma.
* During the kidnapping Dan took Linda to a safe house.
During the kidnapping Derek took Wendy to a safe house.
* The safe house Linda visited was on the beach.
In Nighteyes, one safe house was on the beach.
* Before her kidnapping, Linda contacted Budd Hopkins about her
abduction.
Before her kidnapping, Wendy contacted Charles Edward Starr about
her abduction.
* Budd Hopkins is a prominent UFO abduction researcher living in
New York City and an author who has written books on the topic.
Charles Edward Starr was a prominent UFO abduction researcher
living in New York City and an author who had written books on the
topic.
* Linda and Dan were abducted at the same time and communicated with
each other during their abductions.
Wendy and Derek were abducted at the same time and communicated
with each other during their abductions.
* Linda thought she "knew" Richard previously.
Wendy "knew" Derek previously.
* Dan expressed a romantic interest in Linda.
Derek became romantically involved with Wendy. EUFONews 1 - 3 Page 8 07 Mar 1993
* Dan and Richard felt considerable vibration during the close
encounter.
During the UFO landing in Nighteyes there was much vibration.
* Photographs of Linda were taken on the beach and sent to Hopkins.
In Nighteyes, photographs taken on a beach played a central role.
THE REACTION OF THE UFOLOGY'S LEADERSHIP
One of the most curious features of our investigation has been the
reaction of several prominent leaders in ufology. Indeed, in the long
run, this may turn out to be the most important part of the entire
affair.
After the MUFON symposium in July, Stefula had several conversations
with Walter Andrus, International Director of MUFON. Andrus told him
that MUFON had no interest in publishing any material critical of this
case even though they had published an article describing it as "The
Abduction Case of the Century." This is a most surprising statement
from a leader of an organization which purports to be scientific.
Andrus' statements should raise questions about the legitimacy of
MUFON's claims to use objective, scientific methods.
On September 14, 1992, Hopkins faxed Butler a letter saying that as
a long-standing member of MUFON, he was issuing an "order" (his word).
He "ordered" Stefula and Butler to stop their investigation of the case.
We found this very curious, and we wondered how Hopkins, as a member of
MUFON, could believe that it was in his power to issue such an "order."
His letter seemed to reflect the mindset of a leader of a cult
rather than that of an investigator searching for the truth.
For the meeting on October 3 in New York City, Hopkins flew in his
close friend Jerome Clark from Minnesota. Under the sway of Hopkins,
Clark strenuously urged that outsiders cease investigations, thus
seemingly trying to reinforce Hopkins' earlier "order" (despite the fact
that the case already had been reported in the Wall Street Journal,
Omni, Paris Match and the television show Inside Edition). Clark
(1992a) later committed his position to writing, saying that this case
may indeed involve a world political figure and have international
consequences.
Andrus and Clark are arguably the two most influential figures in
U.S. ufology. Andrus is International Director of the Mutual UFO
Network (MUFON), and he organizes the largest annual conference on UFOs
in the country and regularly writes for MUFON's monthly magazine. Clark
is a columnist for Fate magazine, editor of International UFO Reporter,
vice-president of the J. Allen Hynek Center for UFO Studies, and author
of books and even an encyclopedia on UFOs. Because of their eminence,
their statements should be of special concern to the UFO research
community.
At the meeting on October 3, the kidnapping and attempted murder ofEUFONews 1 - 3 Page 9 07 Mar 1993
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.
(Continued in the next issue of EUFON)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
John Powell On The Linda Napolitano Abduction
by John Powell
"...this case is likely to have a substantial impact on the
field of ufology."
Yes indeed it is. We had all better get our seatbelts on for this
one.
A little disclaimer is in order. I have been critical of the Linda
Case and the manner in which Hopkins has seen fit to publish it but that
doesn't mean I have chosen sides. In what follows you'll see that
I'm equally critical of the 'other side' and the important disclaimer
here is that I intentionally do not make the distinction between
'sides.'
The report (Memo) contained a number of serious charges for which no
documentation was provided:
Lack Of Documentation:
----------------------
"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."
This is a serious charge and it should have been documented in this
report (or not mentioned). (Not counting the 'recommendation' to
postpone investigations made by Clark, et. at.) How many and which
articles were submitted for publication? Where are the rejectionEUFONews 1 - 3 Page 10 07 Mar 1993
letters?
"Several prominent leaders in ufology have become involved,
and their behavior and statements have been quite curious. Some
have aggressively attempted to suppress evidence of a purported
attempted murder. The implications for the understanding of
ufology are discussed."
Another very serious charge that is undocumented... (The charge of
suppressing evidence explicitly contains within it the assumed fact
that such evidence exists and this has not been documented.)
"...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."
Another very serious charge that is undocumented... Were these meetings
tape-recorded?
"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."
Another very serious charge that is undocumented. As late as 12/92
Jacobs has publically stated that Hopkins did not yet have a publisher.
"Linda also told us that she had an agreement with Budd Hopkins
to split equally any profits from a book on the case."
"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."
Not documented? I bet Stefula wishes he had tape-recorded the
interviews now...
Major Problems:
---------------
"After receiving the letter [Richard/Dan letter to Hopkins more
than one year later], 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."
Fortunately, Hopkins promptly read this letter, unlike the first letter
from Kimble, and Richard/Dan show up on cue...? Is the Kimble letter a
solitary exception, and if so why, or what distinguished this letter
from all the other mail that one can assume Hopkins doesn't read on the
day it arrives?EUFONews 1 - 3 Page 11 07 Mar 1993
"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)."
Why haven't Stefula (et. al.) reported this to the police? They don't
need anyone's permission to do so. They were told by the alleged victim
of a kidnapping and they are aware of the existence of supporting
evidence... They are accessories to conspiracy after the fact if
they do not officially file a police report.
"This gave Linda a chance to search the premises; she recovered
her cassette tape and discovered stationery bearing a Central
Intelligence Agency letterhead."
Has the stationary been examined? (The Watermark would be enough to
identify it and the CIA would probably cooperate...) Of course, we
don't know what kind of stationary it is... (If you send a letter to
the CIA and apply for the job of Director you'll get a pleasant form
letter back - on CIA stationary...)
"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."
How was Linda able to identify the country of origin of a diplomatic
license plate? She did this on her own?
"At the February 1 meeting, Linda mentioned that Hopkins had
received a letter from "the third man" (the VIP)...
Yet another piece of _PHYSICAL EVIDENCE_... Has Hopkins acknowledged
that this letter exists? If it exists he will eventually have to
present it for examination...
"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."
How would Linda know this? It would be extremely irregular and
unprofessional for Hopkins to reveal this (the identity of the VIP
and the traced license plates) to her. What does Hopkins say?
"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."
Who took the X-ray, will this person go on record, has Hopkins talkedEUFONews 1 - 3 Page 12 07 Mar 1993
with her? Is this the same doctor from the 4/89 visit?
"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."
This is obviously a serious problem especially since "Dan" is
apparently dead! However, Linda alleges that Hopkins has traced the
license plates and has a letter from Perez de Cuellar. How about
handwriting analysis?
"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."
_Why_ is it "not clear whether Hopkins has ever met" the doctor, and
which doctor are we talking about? (Or are the 4/89 and 11/91 visits
with the same doctor?) Has Hopkins been directly asked this
question?
As with Richard/Dan, do we even know if these doctors exist?
"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."
Did anyone show this person a picture of Hopkins!? While I think the
insinuation is unprofessional I clearly see that the Richard/Dan
element is tattered... (Maybe that's why Dan had to go...)
"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."
Problem...
"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 buildingEUFONews 1 - 3 Page 13 07 Mar 1993
manager. He indicated that he did not feel it necessary."
Problem...
"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."
Problem...
Are these problems or is Hopkins simply refusing to reveal _any_ details
to Stefula (et. al.). Hopkins _seems_ to be completely unresponsive in
this matter.
"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."
Why isn't this letter included in this report!? Stefula (et. al.) have
a problem 'trusting' Hopkins yet they expect _us_ to 'trust' _them_.
Why should I?
Minor problems:
---------------
"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."
It wasn't a book, it was a pamphlet...
"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."
A rather expensive car to own, operate and insure in NYC especially for
a security guard...
"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?"
Kimble provides the answer in her letter and Stefula (et. al.)
previously acknowledge that Hopkins is a leader in the field and widely
recognized therefore I don't see this as amounting to much.
"If there is some unclear reporting on this point and she did
actually contact others, can such be verified?"
Stefula's paper/case is not enhanced by inventing questions for which
there is no case material basis...EUFONews 1 - 3 Page 14 07 Mar 1993
"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?
This is another minor point. Richard's "extreme emotional distress"
could have been anything from acting to job stress and we have no way of
knowing if it affected his work or was even noticed by his superiors.
Dan's time in a "mental institution" could very well have been
specifically job-related, we have no way of knowing at this point and
since he's dead we may never know...
"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."
No real problem here. They will have to be made available eventually...
General Stuff:
--------------
"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?"
This is a serious point. I found it to be the most serious point in the
entire paper (in the entire matter to date not counting the terribly
unfortunate demise of "Dan"). This entire matter becomes unremarkable
without the Richard/Dan/Kimble addition and two-thirds of it is
_already_ shot full of holes. (I should say one-half since Dan is
dead...) Everything begins with the first step and this first step is
Richard/Dan contacting Hopkins more than a year later _by letter_. They
didn't wait for a reply or even provide such a mechanism yet several
days later they _personally visit_ Linda... This element of the Linda
Case is obviously a setup or a massive hoax. Richard/Dan, if they
exist, became aware of the matter _somehow_. Perhaps they really did
witness it, perhaps they got wind of it through Hopkins or Linda
(apparently this was a hot topic at the abductee meetings), perhaps they
got wind of it through a friend or contact of Linda's or Hopkins'.
The point is that Linda _never said_ her abduction was witnessed, other
people, who are undocumented to date and who are unconnected with eitherEUFONews 1 - 3 Page 15 07 Mar 1993
Hopkins or Linda, popped up and said they witnessed Linda's abduction...
"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."
I think it is extremely unlikely that Linda's kidnapping stories could
be "proved false" and from what (little) is currently known I also think
it equally unlikely that the stories could be proven true. Rather, a
more plausible reason is that she fears/feared slipping up under
interrogation. (Admittedly, a Klassically plausible reason would be
that Hopkins has actually suggested against an official investigation
because all of his related material would have to be turned over...)
"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."
The MUFON Journal did eventually published Hyzer's critical report on
the Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze polaroids, as well as a follow-up piece by
Hyzer... I am totally confident that the Journal will eventually
present both sides (if two well-researched and documented sides can be
mustered) of this matter.
"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."
This is an unnecessarily and melodramatic conclusion. Perhaps they are
concerned with something even more important such has holding up a house
of cards before it crashes on top of everyone... Or, maybe Hopkins
knows he was setup, and let Clark, Andrus, etc. in on that, and has been
trying to balance things until they can unwrap Mr. Big...
It should be painfully obvious to all of us that this matter is quickly
falling apart at the seams. Now matter what happens next Hopkins'
reputation will suffer. The elitist manner in which he hasEUFONews 1 - 3 Page 16 07 Mar 1993
teaspooned-out the flimsiest of pseudo-facts will be rejected by anyone
who has and/or continues to independently investigate and research
UFO-related material. (Even if it is aliens in spaceships someone will
sooner or later ask him why he didn't tell us everything when he knew
it.)
On the other hand, his reputation could be salvaged by exposing a rather
large abduction hoax... This is the only possibility I can think of
that satisfactorily explains what has already occurred.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
'UFO's Tonight' Discuss Roswell
From: kuryakin@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Rick Pavek)
This was transcribed by a friend who wishes to remain anonymous.
The following is from 'UFO's Tonight', carried on Cable Radio Network at
9:00 pm PST every Sunday.
The guest on the show was Kevin Randle, co-author of the book,
'UFO Crash at Roswell', Avon paperback, 1991. The interview covered
the latest on this case from one of the leading researchers on this
subject.
I won't review the entire Roswell story. There is a lot about it
currently available from many in-print books. The above book is one,
there is another by Stanton Friedman and Don Berliner called 'Crash At
Corona' that is currently on the shelves. I also won't get into the
argument that is going on between the two Roswell research factions,
represented by the above two books. I will only say that the argument
centers around the existence of a second crash site to the west of the
Corona/Roswell site, in the Plains of San Agustin. With the exception of
a few details, both factions agree about the first site, the
Corona/Roswell site.
Since the interview was with Kevin Randle, I prefer to report just the
work that Randle/Schmitt are doing on this case. Randle/Schmitt are also
sponsored by the Center For UFO Studies in Chicago.
The Randle/Schmitt book has some very impressive testimony:
Col. Thomas DuBose then chief of staff for Brig. Gen. Roger Ramey,
who was then commander of the 8th Air Force, of which the 509th Bomb
Group at Roswell, was a part. Col. DuBose was in on the creation of the
crashed weather balloon cover story per the direct order of General
Clements McMullen, Washington DC.
Members of the 509th bomb group intelligence and counter-intelligence
staffs (named in the book).
Former B-29 crew members who flew pieces of the wreckage around (named
in the book).EUFONews 1 - 3 Page 17 07 Mar 1993
USAF Brig. Gen, Arthur Exon, who was a former commander of Wright
Patterson AFB.
So if you're interested, get the books, read the stories, and make up
your own minds.
Summary:
A summary of the new information follows:
- Randle/Schmitt are now concentrating their efforts on
investigating the impact area of the Corona/Roswell vehicle.
- There are now 7 first hand witnesses to the vehicle impact site.
There were really no first hand witnesses to the impact site when
their book was written.
- A better approximation of the location of the vehicle impact site
has been made, based on the new first hand witnesses.
- Based on the testimony of these new first-hand witnesses, some of
the 'conventional wisdom', such as the crash date, now seems to be
changing.
- Randle/Schmitt have now talked to over 400 1st/2nd hand witnesses
regarding the Corona/Roswell site.
- The crashed vehicle was tracked on radar before the crash.
- Kevin Randle claims to have handled a small piece of the crash
debris, pocketed by one of the first hand witnesses.
- Randle provided additional information on why the Roswell Army Air
Field released a press story that they had recovered a flying
saucer.
- Although there was less specific information on this, there also
seems to be progress that is being made on understanding the
General Twining flying disk letter, of September 23, 1947.
- The claims of a second crash site on the Plains of San Agustin,
over 100 miles to the west of Roswell, now seems to be in serious
jeopardy. Back in September, the sole first hand witness to that
scenario, admitted to lying about a small aspect of the case. So
now there are no more 'credible' first hand witnesses to the
'Plains' site.
There is more information on some of the above below. Some of the
following are exact quotes. If there are no quote marks, then it is a
summary in my words, of what Randle said.
Q: Do we have anyone first hand who witnessed the object itself near
Roswell?
A: There are now 7 first hand witnesses that are familiar with the craft
impact site discovered near Roswell. It was only after 2-to-3 years
of research that Randle/Schmitt started to find first hand witnessesEUFONews 1 - 3 Page 18 07 Mar 1993
to the vehicle impact site. Randle/Schmitt have been researching the
Corona/Roswell case now for a little over 4 years.
Based on the testimony of the 7 new first hand witnesses, the vehicle
impact site is now located 25-to-30 miles from the debris field near
Corona NM. That places it much closer to Roswell NM.
During the 7/4/47 3-day weekend, the head of the AAF, General Carl
Spaatz, was on a fishing trip in the Pacific Northwest, where most of
the sightings were taking place at that time (interesting).
Q: Have you ever looked into the possibility of a high powered radar
site as contributing to the cause of the crash?
A: Randle indicated there were radar sites at White Sands, Roswell AAF,
and Kirtland. This thing was tracked on radar for a period of time.
Randle was skeptical that radar could have been a contributing factor
to the crash.
Q: Have you anything new to report from the recent Denver, CO
engagements?
A: On a radio show during the Denver speaking engagement Randle was
asked if he had ever seen any of the debris.
'I have actually handled a piece of the debris. A small piece of the
debris maybe 3/4 of an inch long and 1/2 of an inch wide.
It looked like silver pumice with some stratification in it.
Very light weight.
It didn't crumble like pumice would. There was not that kind of a
gritty texture to it. But it looked like pumice.'
Q: You're convinced that you actually handled a piece of an
extraterrestrial craft?
A: 'I was told that what I was handling was a piece of the debris, yes.
Now the question becomes, it was not analyzed and all I could do was
look at it and see what it looked like.
The question is always in the back of your mind, was this really a
piece of the debris or was I being taken down the garden path.
I was told this was a piece of the debris from the craft that the
fellah had been able to pocket.'
Q: Was this one of the original first hand witnesses?
A: 'This was a first hand witness! I have no reason to doubt his word at
this point, at all. All I can say is yes I handled a small piece of
the debris, as far as I know.'
Q: Are there things going on behind the scenes (regarding Roswell) thatEUFONews 1 - 3 Page 19 07 Mar 1993
we don't know about as civilians?
A: 'I would imagine there's a great deal going on that we don't
understand.
We've been told again by some of our sources that there's all kinds
of talk about releasing this data slowly. That sort of thing. We've
been told that there is a small contingent of people who now are in
control of this data, who really don't want it to come out! So it's
kind of, take a choice, type of thing. We can speculate about things
but we don't really have any answers about that.
The reason for the press release in 1947 though, that was part of
the whole plan to keep this thing buried by having the lower
headquarters come out with a story that they had a flying saucer,
then a higher headquarters say: No, no, it was merely a weather
balloon. You've discredited all the rumors coming out of Roswell at
that time. And that was the plan, to discredit the rumors so people
wouldn't be asking the very difficult questions. Well those dummies
in Roswell, they thought they had a flying saucer, but what they had
was a weather balloon.'
The Twining letter of Sept. 23, 1947 was talked about. Randle said
that to explain fully what was going on would take a couple of hours.
This thing was at the highest levels of security and at that level
it's a very convoluted and complex system that's in place.
Q: What do you intend to do at this point forward ...?
A: 'One of the things we're working on is to of course track down
additional witnesses to corroborate the impact site near Roswell and
we're looking for documentation so that rather than having to believe
what we say we can kind of prove what we're saying - and that's
always been kind of what we're doing, looking for corroboration. But
the investigation also encompasses looking at the stories told by
people and finding out whether we can break them down under
scrutiny.'
Q: ... How do the stories check out ... among the new witnesses?
A: Randle indicated that there are problems with certain conventional
wisdom.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
EUFONews 1 - 3 Page 20 07 Mar 1993
-=< BOOK REVIEW >=-
Title: THE EVIDENCE FOR ALIEN ABDUCTIONS
Author: John C. Rimmer, 1984
I have been reading a book called _The Evidence For ALien ABductions_
by John Rimmer C. 1984...
I would like to summarize and\or quote an experiment and the results.
The experiment was conducted by Alvin Lawson and William McCall.
The concept was to be able to distinguish the abduction info given
during hypnotic regression between a real abduction and a hoax (the
reason for the hoax for this particular experiment was irrelevant).
They wanted a database of info that could distinguish real data from
imaginary data.
"They began by locating a number of people who would be willing to
participate in their experiments, but who knew little or nothing about
UFOs - possibly a rather difficult task in Southern California where
they operated...These...subjects were then 'led into' a UFO abduction
scenario by means of a carefully designed series of leading questions,
which suggested the bare outlines of the abduction but left the subject
free to fill in the details. These details would come...from the
witnesses' own imaginations. They would then be able to compare the
imaginary abductions with the real events, and by a comparison of the
differences between the two, would be able to gain valuable clues to
use when trying to sort out any hoaxes in the cases that came to them
as UFO researchers."
One interjection here- how did they know that their supposed known- the
so-called 'real' abductions were in fact, real abductions? Not saying
the supposed real were not real, but no comment in the text mentioned
this point. I took the assumption that their real database were
witnesses who were not led into the abduction or prior cases, possibly
by other researchers.
"...But the experiments went spectacularly wrong...what happened was
that the 'imaginary' stories were quite indistinguishable from the
'real' experiences, even down to tiny details..."
The text then goes further into the stereotyped abductee, some of the
stories the witnesses gave, etc...until the text leads into the
researchers conclusion, "Birth Trauma Hypothesis."
The point here is it is very difficult to distinguish between an actual
abduction (if in fact they do occur) and the imagination. Possibly
physical evidence (scarring etc...), but then who can prove an alien
lifeform is doing the abduction? Much can be inferred into a mind
through a prior programming which can come out in a later regression.
I believe little to no headway has been made into the proof of alien
abductions, other than stories told by potential abductees, which couldEUFONews 1 - 3 Page 21 07 Mar 1993
be imagination or from other programming.
EUFONews 1 - 3 Page 22 07 Mar 1993
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reykjavik, Iceland Conference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE 1993 INTERNATIONAL UFO & EXTRATERRESTRIAL CONFERENCE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To be held in the most northerly capital city in Europe
REYKJAVIK, ICELAND
March 24 - 28, 1993
14 Top International Speakers from America, Russia, England, Germany and
Puerto Rico will present information, recent photographic and film
evidence, to be shown for the first time in public.
Other conference highlights include:
A full day trip to Snaefellsjokull Glacier, the most active UFO
sighting area in Iceland and an area of strange powers claimed by the
Icelanders.
An Icelandic Buffet Lunch Extravaganza.
An opportunity to extend and explore the Mystic Volcano Island.
Saturday night barbecue and fireworks display.
For further information:
London Tel/081455-9418
Fax 071-3875711
Doncaster Tel/0302-768168
Fax 0302-341643
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ozark UFO Conference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Fifth Annual Ozark UFO Conference will be held on April 2-4, 1993.
The location will be the same as in previous years, the INN OF THE
OZARKS in Eureka Springs, Arkansas.
A minimum of 125 rooms will be set aside for people attending the
Conference, with special room rates of $36.00 for single occupancy and
$42.00 for double occupancy. Room reservations may be made at any time
by calling the Inn at (501) 253-9768 or by writing the Inn at P.O. box
431, Eureka Springs, AR 72632. Please indicate that your reservations
are for the Ozark UFO Conference in order to obtain the special room
rates. The Inn's total of 125 rooms were completely sold out last year
at least one month before the conference, so make your reservations
early. Additional rooms are available at other local-area motels.
EUFONews 1 - 3 Page 23 07 Mar 1993
The registration fee for the Conference is $35.00 per person, if paid in
advance (through March 27, 1993) or $40.00 per person at the door.
Payments for Conference registrations should be made payable to OZARK
UFO CONFERENCE FUND and may be mailed to :
Ozark UFO Conference
Route 1, Box 220
Plumerville, AR 72127
The Conference will begin at 1:00 PM on Friday, April 2nd, and will
conclude at noon on Sunday, April 4th. Additional information may be
obtained by calling (501) 354-2558.
The scheduled speakers for 1993 include Dr. John Mack of Harvard
University (one of the country's foremost researchers of UFO abduction
cases), Norman Oliver (UFO cases from England), Linda Moulton Howe,
George Wingfield, Antonio Huneeus and Forest Crawford. A number of
"surprise" speakers is also planned, as well as a panel discussion
featuring "abductees" and abduction researchers.
For those who have not visited Eureka Springs previously, the town is
located on U.S. Highway 62, approximately 48 miles west of Harrison,
Arkansas, 35 miles northeast of Fayetteville, and about 10 miles south
of the Missouri border. Air travellers will fly into Drake Field at
Fayetteville and a shuttle service will be provided between the airport
and the Inn.
OZARK UFO CONFERENCE
REGISTRATION FORM
Registration Fee: $35.00 per person
NAME _______________________________________________________
ADDRESS_____________________________________________________
CITY____________________________ STATE_________ ZIP_________
WILL YOU BE STAYING AT THE INN? YES ( ) NO ( )
WILL YOU REQUIRE TRANSPORTATION FROM FAYETTEVILLE AIRPORT?
YES ( ) NO ( )
Please send completed form and fee to:
OZARK UFO CONFERENCE FUND
ROUTE 1, BOX 220
PLUMERVILLE, AR 72127
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bordentown, New Jersey Conference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Fourth Great UFO/ET Alien & Abduction Congress" April 16-18 1993.EUFONews 1 - 3 Page 24 07 Mar 1993
Day's Inn, Rte #206 & NJtpk, exit #7, Bordentown, NJ. (5mi. So. Trenton)
Invited Speakers:
Timothy Good- "Above Top Secret"
Karla Turner PhD. "Into the Fringe"
John Mack,- Abductions-
Jaques Vallee "Forbidden Science"
Howard Menger "From outer Space"
Frank Stranges "Stranger at the Pentagon"
David Jacobs "Secret Life"
Kevin Randal "UFO Crash at Roswell"
Leonard Stringfield, "UFO Crash Retrievals"
Ray Fowler "Andreasson Affair", "The Watchers"
David Pritchard -Abduction Congress at MIT 1992-
Ray Stanford "Socorro Saucer in Pentagon Pantry"
CMDR. Graham Bethune, USN-Ret. - UFO PHOTOS-
Richard Butler "Early Gods of History & UFO"
Rosemary Goiley "UFO & Crop Circles"
Jim Moseley -saucer (news) smear & NUFOC-
&
UFO out-of-print Book & Video Club.
For More Information Call 1-609-888-1358 Pat Marcattilio
138 Redfern St. Trenton, NJ 08610.....
If anyone is interested, speak to Pat...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln, Nebraska Conference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXPLORING UNEXPLAINED PHENOMENON 5, April 30 - May 2, 1993
Nebraska Center
33rd & Holdredge St.
Lincoln, Ne.
Pre-conference concurrent workshops, Friday, April 30th, 8-11 a.m.
($5 each, not included in conference registration fee, payable at the
door):
8-11 a.m: Dr. Janet Lingren, "A Brief Introduction To Jungian Dream
Analysis"
8-11 a.m: James Smith, "The Possible Metaphysical Implications Of UFO
Contact"
8-11 a.m: Joe Smith & Ray Jensen, "Dowsing: What It Is & How To Do It"
Conference Schedule-Friday, April 30th:
12-2 p.m: Harry Jordan & Dr. John Kasher, "NASA UFO Images/Iowa
Mini-Flap Update"
EUFONews 1 - 3 Page 25 07 Mar 1993
2-2:30 p.m, break.
2:30-4:30 p.m: Budd Hopkins, "New Revelations About UFO Abductions"
4:30-5:30 p.m, break.
5:30-7:30 p.m: Banquet w/John Carpenter, "Abductions: Multiple
Participants"
7:30-8:00 p.m, break.
8-10 p.m: Guided Ghost Tour by bus ($5 each, approximately 50 seats,
reserved in advance)
8-10 p.m: John Carpenter, moderator, "Close Encounters Panel"
Saturday, May 1st:
9-11 a.m: Raymond Boeche, "The Men-In-Black"
11:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m: lunch on your own.
1-3 p.m: Kevin Randle, "The Roswell Incident"
3:00-3:30 p.m, break.
3:30-5:30 p.m: Stanton Friedman, "Crash At Corona"
5:30-6:00 p.m, break.
6-8 p.m: Valentino's Italian Buffet ($7.50 each, reserved in advance)
8-10 p.m: Linda Moulton Howe, "Aliens, Abductions & Scientific
Findings on Crop Circles"
Sunday, May 2nd:
8-10 a.m: Rosemary Ellen Guiley, "Crop Circles & Unusual Ground
Markings Worldwide"
10-10:30 a.m, break.
10:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m: Professor John Salter, "The Salter UFO
Encounters"
12:30 p.m, conference adjourns.
Pre-conference workshops are payable at the door-no preregistration
necessary.
Conference registration for # people_____@ $45 ($40 for members of the
Center)
Friday night Banquet w/talk by John Carpenter # people_____@ $17.50
Friday night Guided Ghost Tour # people _____@ $5.00
Saturday night Valentino's Italian Buffet # people _____@ $7.50
Send this registration and check or money order TOTAL AMOUNT ENCLOSED =$EUFONews 1 - 3 Page 26 07 Mar 1993
Payable to The Fortean Research Center, P.O. Box 94627,
Lincoln, NE, 68509. Send no cash.
Street address, City & zip code:
Thanks. See you in Lincoln!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Richmond, Virginia Conference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993 MUFON INTERNATIONAL UFO SYMPOSIUM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The 1993 MUFON International UFO Symposium will held in Richmond,
Virginia, during the weekend of July 2, 3 and 4, 1993. The list of
confirmed speakers are:
- Vincente-Juan Ballester Olmos - (Spain) -
- Colin Andrews - (England) -
- Cynthia Hind - (Zimbabwe) -
- Illobrand von Ludwiger (Germany) -
- Hoang-Yung Chiang, Ph.D. - Taiwan) -
- John E. Mack, M.D. - (United States) -
- George Knapp - (United States) -
- Linda Moulton Howe - (United States) -
- John F. Schuessler - (United States) -
- Wesley E. Ellison - (United States) -
- Jeffrey W. Sainio - United States) -
- Jorge Martin - (Puerto Rico) -
LOCATION: Hyatt Richmond Hotel
6624 West Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23230
RATE: Three-hundred and fifty rooms have been blocked
for July 2 and 3 at the Hyatt Richmond Hotel for
attendees at a special rate of $62 per night for
single, double, triple or quad occupancy by
calling the reservation desk at (804) 285-1234 or
FAX (804) 288-3961 and advising the desk that you
are attending the MUFON 1993 UFO Symposium.
A limited number of rooms have been reserved for
July 1, 4 and 5 for those arriving early or EUFONews 1 - 3 Page 27 07 Mar 1993
staying over for a few days at the same rate.
Advanced reservations may be obtained before June
1, 1993, by mailing a check or money order for $45
per person payable to "MUFON 1993 UFO Symposium"
to the following address:
VIRGINIA MUFON
P.O. Box 207
Manakin-Sabot, Virginia 23103
After June 1, the registration fee will be
$50 or $10 per session.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Calendar Of UFO Conferences For 1993
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 17-21 - TREAT V Conference in Santa Fe, New Mexico.
For information contact TREAT, P.O. Box
728, Ardsley, NY 10502.
April 2-4 - Fifth Annual Ozark UFO Conference, Inn of
the Ozarks, Eureka Springs, AR. For
information call (501) 354-2558.
April 10-12 - Seventh European Lyons Congress, Hotel de
Congress, Lyons, France. For information
in the U.S.A. please contact W.P. LaParl,
19 Wood Street, Hopkinton, MA 01748-1132
July 2,3, & 4 - MUFON 1993 International UFO Symposium at
Hyatt Richmond Hotel, Richmond, Virginia.
For information please contact Mark E.
Blashak, P.O. Box 207, Manakin-Sabot,
Virginia 23103
August 1-5 - Ancient Astronaut Society 20th Anniversary
World Congress, Imperial Palace, Las Vegas,
Nevada. To register contact Ancient
Astronaut Society, 1921 St. Johns Ave.,
Highland Park, Illinois 60035-3105 or call
(708) 295-8899.
August 14 & 15- International UFO Conference, "UFOs: Fact,
Fraud or Fantasy," Sheffield Polytechnic,
Main Building on Pond Street in Sheffield,
So. Yorkshire, England. For information
please contact Independent UFO Network, 1
Woodhall Drive, Batley, West Yorkshire,
England WF17 7SW.
EUFONews 1 - 3 Page 28 07 Mar 1993
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
EUFON INFORMATION
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Editor: Carlos A. Steffens
Distribution Sites:
Baron Carlos's Castle BBS | MUFONET-BBS Network
+1-202-863-1493 | +1-901-785-4943
FidoNet 1:109/160 | FidoNet 1:123/26
MufoNet 88:4202/0 | MufoNet 88:88/0
The Electronic Unidentified Flying Objects News (EUFON) is published
monthly with the purpose of providing up to date information to those
persons interested in the research of UFOs. It is a compilation of
individual articles contributed by their authors or their authorized
agents. The contribution of articles to this compilation does not
diminish the rights of the authors. Opinions expressed in these
articles are those of the authors and not necessarily those of EUFON.
Authors retain copyright on individual works; otherwise EUFON is
copyright 1993 Carlos A. Steffens. All rights reserved. Duplication
and/or distribution permitted for noncommercial purposes only. For use
in other circumstances, please contact the original authors, or EUFON.
OBTAINING COPIES: Issues of EUFON in electronic form may be obtained
from the Baron Carlos's Castle BBS via manual download or file request.
PRINTED COPIES may be obtained from Carlos A. Steffens for $10.00US each
PostPaid First Class within North America, or $13.00US elsewhere,
mailed Air Mail. Physical address obtainable from Carlos A. Steffens
for purposes of obtaining PRINTED COPIES only.
SUBMISSIONS: You are encouraged to submit articles for publication in
EUFON. Article submission requirements are contained in the file
EUFONART.ZIP, available from the Baron Carlos's Castle BBS for download
or file request.