HaCKeRz KrOnIcKLeZ 3/HaCKeRz_KrOnIcKLeZ.iso/ufo2/12story2.txt

Text File | 1996-04-30 | 17KB | 328 lines

OUR INVESTIGATION <P>

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. <P>

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 counseled to lie by Hopkins or his colleagues.
Have other abductees been given similar advice?  What kind of a social
and ethical environment are Hopkins and Franklin creating for abductees?
We also cannot help but wonder whether Hopkins and Franklin believe it
appropriate for themselves to lie about the case.  They owe the UFO
research community an explanation for Franklin's statement.  If such is
not forthcoming, we simply cannot accept them as credible investigators.

HOPKINS' REACTION TO OUR INVESTIGATION

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

A POSSIBLE LITERARY BASIS FOR ELEMENTS OF THE STORY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*  Linda was kidnapped and thrown into a car by Richard and Dan.

Wendy was kidnapped and thrown into a van by Derek and Merril.

*  Linda claimed to have been under surveillance by someone in a van.

Vans were used for surveillance in Nighteyes.

*  Dan is a security and intelligence agent.

Derek was an FBI agent.

*  Dan was hospitalized for emotional trauma.

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

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

During the kidnapping Derek took Wendy to a safe house.

*  The safe house Linda visited was on the beach.

In Nighteyes, one safe house was on the beach.

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

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

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

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

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

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

*  Linda thought she "knew" Richard previously.

Wendy "knew" Derek previously.

*  Dan expressed a romantic interest in Linda.

Derek became romantically involved with Wendy.

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

During the UFO landing in Nighteyes there was much vibration.

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

In Nighteyes, photographs taken on a beach played a central role.

THE REACTION OF THE UFOLOGY'S LEADERSHIP

One of the most curious features of our investigation has been the
reaction of several prominent leaders in ufology.  Indeed, in the
long run, this may turn out to be the most important part of the entire
affair.

After the MUFON symposium in July, Stefula had several conversations
with Walter Andrus, International Director of MUFON.  Andrus told him
that MUFON had no interest in publishing any material critical of this
case even though they had published an article describing it as "The
Abduction Case of the Century." This is a most surprising statement
from a leader of an organization which purports to be scientific.
Andrus' statements should raise questions about the legitimacy of
MUFON's claims to use objective, scientific methods.

On September 14, 1992, Hopkins faxed Butler a letter saying that as a
long-standing member of MUFON, he was issuing an "order" (his word). He
"ordered" Stefula and Butler to stop their investigation of the case.
We found this very curious, and we wondered how Hopkins, as a member
of MUFON, could believe that it was in his power to issue such an
"order."  His letter seemed to reflect the mindset of a leader of a cult
rather than that of an investigator searching for the truth.

For the meeting on October 3 in New York City, Hopkins flew in his
close friend Jerome Clark from Minnesota.  Under the sway of Hopkins,
Clark strenuously urged that outsiders cease investigations, thus
seemingly trying to reinforce Hopkins' earlier "order" (despite the
fact that the case already had been reported in the Wall Street Journal,
Omni, Paris Match and the television show Inside Edition).  Clark
(1992a) later committed his position to writing, saying that this case
may indeed involve a world political figure and have international
consequences.

Andrus and Clark are arguably the two most influential figures in U.S.
ufology.  Andrus is International Director of the Mutual UFO Network
(MUFON), and he organizes the largest annual conference on UFOs in the
country and regularly writes for MUFON's monthly magazine.  Clark is a
columnist for Fate magazine, editor of International UFO Reporter,
vice-president of the J. Allen Hynek Center for UFO Studies, and author
of books and even an encyclopedia on UFOs.  Because of their eminence,
their statements should be of special concern to the UFO research
community.

At the meeting on October 3, the kidnapping and attempted murder of
Linda were discussed.  We informed Hopkins and the other participants
that we were prepared to make a formal request for a federal
investigation of the government agents responsible for the alleged
felonies.  Hopkins, Andrus, and Clark appeared to literally panic at
the suggestion.  They vigorously argued against making such a request.
We could only conclude that they wanted to suppress evidence of
attempted murder.  We wondered why.

This situation seemed so outrageous that a few days later Hansen called
Andrus, Clark, John Mack, and David Jacobs and asked them if they really
believed Linda's story about the kidnappings and attempted murder.
All of these individuals said that they accepted her account.  We were
forced to seriously consider their opinions because they had been given
secret information not revealed to us.  During the telephone
conversations, Andrus and Clark again strongly objected to requesting an
investigation by law enforcement authorities.