Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 601 Wednesday, October 28th 1992 (C) Copyright 1992 Paranet Information Service. All Rights Reserved. Today's Topics: Hopkins Linda case K-2 A Lie? 'Going To Extremes', 9/22/92 Leeds Conference Ogden objects July 26, 1993 Anti-gravity Flying Saucer "Linda" Abduction Case - Part 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don.Allen@p1.f81.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Allen) Subject: Hopkins Linda case Date: 23 Oct 92 02:07:01 GMT ** HOT ITEM ** This was forwarded to me by a friend who is pretty tight in some UFO circles. According to my friend, this was what was part of the discussion at the recent get together at the UN. I will leave it with you. I have no further information available, but hopefully this posting will serve to stimulate discussion. Judging from it's contents, I don't think that will be a problem :-) ========================================================================= Attempted Murder vs. The Politics of Ufology: A Question of Priorities in the Linda Napolitano Case by George P. Hansen ----------------------------------------------------------------- ABSTRACT: UFO abductee Linda Napolitano claims that she was kidnapped, assaulted, battered, harassed, and nearly drowned by two agents of the U.S. government. Prominent ufologists Budd Hopkins, John E. Mack, David M. Jacobs, Jerome Clark and Walter H. Andrus, Jr. accept these claims. Hopkins has collected extensive materials that could be used to help apprehend and convict the agents. Yet Hopkins, Clark and Andrus have vigorously argued that these crimes should not be reported to law enforcement authorities; they indicate that such could be "politically damaging" to UFO research. These ufologists are asked to defend their decision and priorities. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Budd Hopkins' case involving the abduction of Linda Napolitano by a UFO has been discussed in the Wall Street Journal (May 14, 1992, pp. A1, A10), Omni (April 1992, p. 75), Paris Match (17 Sept. 92, pp. 13-14, 18, 96, 98), and the New York Times (October 5, 1992, pp. B1, B2). The Mufon UFO Journal labeled it "The Abduction Case of the Century" (August 1992, p. 9). By virtue of this intense interest, it will become an exemplar for the study of UFO abductions. Briefly, it is asserted that at about 3:15 a.m. on November 30, 1989, Linda Napolitano floated out of her 12th floor apartment in lower Manhattan. Allegedly three witnesses in a car about two blocks away observed Linda and three humanoid figures emerge from a window and ascend into a craft hovering over her building. Two of the witnesses, Richard and Dan, were government security officers who were guarding the third witness, a dignitary. More than a year after the case, Richard and Dan wrote to Hopkins describing what they saw, and a few weeks later they visited Linda in her apartment. Hopkins has never met these two but has over 80 pages of letters from them, and he has accumulated much other material pertinent to the case. The affair is quite complex, and the story is now only beginning to be told. Hopkins presented a few details at the 1992 MUFON convention in Albuquerque and then in the September 1992 issue of the Mufon UFO Journal. One of the most disturbing elements of the case is that felonies were allegedly committed by the government agents; these include assault, battery, kidnapping and attempted murder. Hopkins' published account of this aspect is so sketchy that some might consider it deliberately misleading. His entire written summary is only one sentence long: "In April and again in October 1991, Linda would suffer hours- long forced confinements and interrogations at the hands of these confused frightened `law-enforcement' officers; she would be struck by a car during a chase through the streets of lower Manhattan" (Mufon UFO Journal, September 1992, pp. 13, 14). Hopkins' brief statement hardly conveys the gravity of the situation. It suggests that he may have taken these matters much too lightly. The kidnappings and attempted murder On January 28, 1992, Linda Napolitano contacted Richard Butler and requested a meeting because she was concerned about her personal safety, and she was worried that Hopkins might not be able to adequately protect her. Linda had earlier become friends with Butler at meetings in the home of Budd Hopkins. On February 1, 1992, Linda met with Butler along with Joseph Stefula, a former Special Agent with the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command who has extensive contacts in law enforcement. During the meeting, Linda stated that in April 1991 she encountered security agent Richard on the street near her apartment. She was asked to get into a car that Dan was driving, but she refused. Richard then picked her up and, with some struggle, forced her into the automobile. Linda reported that she was driven around for 3 1/2 hours and interrogated about the aliens. At the MUFON symposium in July 1992, Linda was asked if she had reported the kidnapping to the police. She said that she had not and went on to say that the kidnapping was legal because it had to do with national security; she later commented that she did not want to go head to head with a government agency because she might be killed and pieces of her might be found in the East River (Hopkins did not dispute these statements). Linda did remember another car being involved with the kidnapping, and under hypnotic regression she recalled the license plate number of that automobile, as well as part of the number of the car she was in. Hopkins reports that the numbers have been traced to particular agencies. During the February 1 meeting with Stefula and Butler, Linda reported that on the morning of October 15, 1991, Dan pulled her into a red Jaguar sports car. Linda happened to be carrying a tape recorder and was able to surreptitiously record a small part of Dan's questioning, but within a few minutes he discovered and confiscated it. Dan drove to a beach house on the shore of Long Island. There he demanded that Linda remove her clothes and put on a white nightgown, similar to the one she wore the night of the UFO abduction. He said he wanted to have sex with her. She refused but then agreed to put on the nightgown over her clothes. Once she did, Dan droppped to his knees and started to talk incoherently about her being the "Lady of the Sands." She fled the beach house, but Dan caught her on the beach and bent her arm behind her. He placed two fingers on the back of her neck, leading Linda to believe that it was a gun. He then forced her into the water and pushed her head under twice. He continued to rave incoherently, and as her head was being pushed under for the third time, she believed that she would not come up again. Then, a "force" hit Dan and knocked him back onto the beach. Linda started to run but heard a sound like a gun being cocked. She looked back and saw Dan taking a picture of her (the pictures were eventually sent to Hopkins). She continued to move, but Richard came running, seemingly out of nowhere. He stopped her and convinced her to return to the beach house, and he told her that he would control Dan by giving him a Mickey Finn. She agreed to the plan. Once inside, Richard put Dan in the shower to wash off the mud from the beach. This gave Linda a chance to search the premises; she recovered her cassette tape and discovered stationery bearing a Central Intelligence Agency letterhead. In a brief conversation on October 3, 1992, Hopkins told me that Linda came to him shortly after she arrived back in Manhattan after the kidnapping. She was disheveled, had sand in her hair, and was traumatized by the experience. Linda also reported to Stefula and Butler 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 Fleetwood sedan with Saudi Arabian United Nations license plates. To avoid him, Linda said that she went into a shop during the first incident. The second day a similar thing happened, and she stood next to some businessmen until he left the area. Evidence accumulated by Hopkins Hopkins reports accumulating much information about the identities of Richard and Dan, and this could be extremely helpful in a criminal investigation. He has approximately 80 pages of letters from the two men. These might potentially be used to identify typewriters on which they were produced. They may also contain fingerprints. Hopkins has tape recordings of Richard and Dan; perhaps these could be used to help identify them by voiceprints. Hopkins claims to know which government agency employs the two. He says that he knows the identity of the dignitary they were guarding, and this person should be in a position to help locate and identify Richard and Dan. (Linda told Stefula and Butler that the dignitary was Javier Perez de Cuellar, then Secretary General of the United Nations.) The counsel of ufology's leaders The reader may be tempted to dismiss Linda's account as a preposterous script for a grade B movie, and I personally do not believe her claims. However, several notable figures in ufology have expressed the conviction that Linda is telling the truth. On October 6, 1992, I spoke with Dr. John Mack, former head of the psychiatry department at Harvard Medical School, and he confirmed that he had met Linda and concluded that she was not the type of person to make up this kind of story. That same day I also spoke with David Jacobs, a professor of history at Temple University, an abduction research colleague of Budd Hopkins, and author of the book Secret Life. He too believed that Linda was telling the truth. Hopkins presented additional secret evidence to Walter Andrus and Jerome Clark who are now both persuaded of Linda's honesty. 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, and a vice-president of the Center for UFO Studies. At a meeting in New York City on October 3, 1992, Linda said that she is willing to testify against Richard and Dan (though she had previously indicated that she was afraid of filing charges herself). I informed those at the meeting that I was prepared to make a formal request for a federal investigation of the attempted murder of Linda. Hopkins, Andrus, and Clark all vigorously objected to this, and they strongly urged me not to do so. They said that such action would be "politically damaging" to ufology. I was extremely puzzled by their reasoning and their apparent priorities. On October 5, 1992, two days later, I called Andrus to make certain that I understood his position. I asked him to join with me and request a formal investigation of these allegations by the proper law enforcement agencies. I explained to him that UFO researchers were generally not qualified to investigate attempted murder. I was taken aback when Andrus asked me what right I had to raise these issues. He again urged that the crimes not be reported. The following day I spoke with Clark. He told me that he accepted Linda's statements, and he reaffirmed his opposition to reporting the crimes. I have not been given a satisfactory explanation for their views. At risk is not only the safety of Linda but also that of the general public. If federal agents have engaged in kidnapping and attempted murder, they should be brought to justice. The matter is of great concern for the general citizenry and for the conduct of UFO abduction research. I call upon Clark, Andrus, and Hopkins to publicly explain their rationale and priorities. 20 October 1992 -------End of forwarded post---------------------------------------------- Don -- Don Allen - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Don.Allen@p1.f81.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks) Subject: K-2 A Lie? Date: 24 Oct 92 07:12:02 GMT * Forwarded from "UFO" * Originally by Joseph Harris * Originally to All * Originally dated 22 Oct 1992, 14:51 My Node appears to be dead. (ie no incoming, no outgoing mail, and I feel this has to get out, so I apologise to those who have already read it...) Some time ago I decided to further investigate the claims of the Phoenix Project in regards to their K2 Report about a supposed underground alien base located near Quincy CA. This report chronicles my initial findings. It is not my intention to discredit the Phoenix Project, or Jack Mathias. They, as a scientific arganization, should be able to appreciate any attempt of independant verification. The following is excerpted directly from the K2-Report, and chronicles an "object" being pursued by 8 F-4 Phantoms. * * * Report # 1: By Staff # 2: Date: August 10, 1989, Time: 2212 PDT. Location: Approximately 40 miles southwest of K-2. A brightly glowing object was observed from my location. It was approximately 30-40 feet in diameter, moving slowly from south to north at 500 feet above the tree-tops. [text deleted for brevity] Within 10 minutes, after the object left the area, eight Air Force jet fighters (F-4s, judging from their sound and appearance) and moving very fast, went overhead traveling in the same direction the object had taken -- towards the North. Four minutes later, the fighters returned, heading south. I presumed the object had been spotted by their radar. Their quick return would indicate they lost radar contact with the object. * * * [text deleted for brevity] Memo August 12, 1989 >From Staff # 1 To: Staff # 2 Our contacts in the Air Force verify that on the night of August 10, 1989, at the time indicated in Report # 1 of that date, that eight F-4's, scrambled from Beale AFB, CA. They had a brief radar-lock, on a "bogie" in the area described. However, they lost the target, due to ground clutter when it suddenly descended into the mountainous terrain. They returned to the base when a further sweep of the area proved fruitless. You're right, the AF had a blip on their radar, but lost it when the ship dropped into that 20-mile approach corridor between the valleys and the radar dead zone. * * * My Investigation. I contacted the Public Affairs office at Beale AFB. (916-634-8890) After identifying myself, and the information I needed, they transfered me to another office. The person who answered the phone identified both himself, and the office so swiftly, I couldn't make out who I was talking to. (altho the point is moot..) The following is a -rough- transcript of the conversation, although it is not verbatim. (I did not record the conversation.) The officer I was speaking to was quite candid, and informal. The conversation itself was spontaneous, so I do not believe that I was being fed a "canned" story. Besides, as you'll see in a moment, the officer has absoloutly no reason to lie about this. I read the above memo to the officer, and then asked the following questions. Q: Has Beale AFB operated F-4 Phantoms in an interceptor role at any time, and specificly during August of 1989? A: No. Beale AFB is a SAC [Strategic Air Command] base, and has never operated tactical aircraft in any capacity. We have B-52s, KC-130 air refuelers, and until recently, the SR-71. We're a bomber base, not a fighter base. There was an attempt made in an 89 air show to get 2 RF-4Cs to come here, but unfortunatly, they couldn't make it. [Note: In conversation, he told me the RF-4s were part of the High Roller squadron based here in Reno...Joe.] Q: Were F-4s ever used in an interceptor role as late as 1989? A: Not to my knowledge, no. The F-4s have been relegated to ECM, "Wild Weasel" roles, and low level recce [Recon] roles for quite some time now. These types of F-4s are completely unarmed, therefor useless as fighters. If an intercept mission was called out for northern CA, the response would come from only one of 2 AFB's. Eilson or Almendorf AFB in Alaska, although I'm not sure which one, and the other AFB would be March AFB. Both bases have a wing of F-15 interceptors that the AF have assigned to West Coast defense. The US Navy also has NAS [Naval Air Stations] assigned to coastal defense, but I'm not sure which bases those are. At any rate, the only Naval outfits to use the F-4 are the Marines, and they also use it as "Wild Weasel" and low level recce. Q: Has it ever been AF SOP to use eight aircraft in an intercept? A: For -one- radar bogie? [he laughed at this point] That would insult most of the fighter pilots I've ever known. [another laugh] No, most AFB's only have 2 aircraft capable of being "scrambled" on a moments notice. Even if an AFB had more aircraft available for a scramble, they would still only send 2 aircraft. Operating an interceptor is extremly expensive, somwhere in the region of $4,000 per flight hour. This is fuel, oil, hydraulics, and air and ground crew salaries. The AF wouldn't spend $32,000 for something they know from experience would only take $8,000. Besides, we're still talking F-4s here right? [Yes] Well, for an intercept conducted by the AF, you're looking at the F-15, or the F-16. Even if we had F-4s that were armed, they'd wouldn't use them. They're just not fast enough anymore. * * * Summary: 1. Beale AFB is a SAC base, and as such, does not operate tactical aircraft, (ie fighters) in any capacity, and never has. Their primary aircraft types are bombers, hi-alt recon, and refuelers. 2. The AF would never send eight ships to intercept a radar bogie. IMHO they wouldn't need to. 3. There are no F-4 Phantoms being used on the West Coast in an interceptor role. They are used in Recon, and ECM roles only, and as such, are totally unarmed. If the AF were to scramble an intercept, they would use F-16s or F-15s. Possible Explanations: 1. The AF is lieing. Not likely. They've no reason to hide the fact that tactical aircraft do not operate from their base, nor have they any reason to lie about using F-4s as interceptors. 2. The Phoenix Project member mis-identified the aircraft. Unfortunatly, the Phoenix Project cannot use this as a defense, since they state that they "verified" that 8 F-4s were scrambled to intercept the radar "bogie." 3. The Phoenix Project deliberatly falsified this portion of their report. Unfortunatly, this is the only explanation. Conclusion: It is my opinion that at least this portion of the Phoenix Project's K-2 report is a deliberate falsehood. It can neither be a typographical error, nor an error in judgement, (since they "verified" the info using AF sources.) This also throws considerable doubt on the validity of the "object" sighting, and on the K-2 report as a whole. However, I will let others, more knowledgable and capable than I to determine the validity of the remaining K-2 claims. Joe. -- John Hicks - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com!vanth!jms Subject: 'Going To Extremes', 9/22/92 Date: 25 Oct 92 01:52:44 GMT From: vanth!jms@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (Jim Shaffer) To: Ray Jenson +I would like a description of what you saw, if not inconvernient. Sorry about the long delay, everyone. Basically, the scene consisted of a bunch of people on the beach around a fire, trying to call down UFOs by humming the 'Close Encounters' theme. Like I said, I was surprised to see it because it had absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the episode. -- * From the disk of: | jms@vanth.uucp | 'there's a hell of Jim Shaffer, Jr. | uunet!cbmvax!vanth!jms | a good universe 37 Brook Street | jms%vanth@cbmvax.commodore.com | next door; let's go' Montgomery, PA 17752 | 72750.2335@compuserve.com | (e.e. cummings) -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com!vanth!jms Subject: Leeds Conference Date: 25 Oct 92 01:52:57 GMT From: vanth!jms@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (Jim Shaffer) To: Robert Trevelyan +Colin Andrews talk was as usual captivating. He spoke of the previous +years cricles, spoke of and showed slides of the current, 92, seasons +circles and was very forceful to get one opinion over. He said that +the inteligence community was very active at present in the crop +circle/ufo area and warned everyone to be very careful. He spoke of a +forthcoming Equinox program , British Science program, having been +brought forward by a couple of months to address the fact that there +is something goinf to happen in a matter of months. He spoke of Money +and Governments being of no use anymore in the close future and +everone must 'know where you are, know who you are, .. ' +This he said was very important and would be needed for us to +survive.He said 'we are on the edge of a golden, a golden edge, this +is our moment' The audience were transfixed by this understandably. I heard part of an interview with Colin Andrews on 'For The People' a couple of weeks ago, right before Columbus Day. One of his topics seemed to be that the circles were trying to warn us that the earth was dieing and we should change our ways before it's too late. Now, how does this tie in to the above? Andrews hasn't said anything about it as far as I know, but one way to stop environmental damage would be to invent a free energy system. Needless to say, government and business wouldn't be very happy if this happened, because much of them would be obsolete! There would probably be a period of chaos that a lot of people wouldn't survive before things hopefully settled down into peace and prosperity. (Do you think we could have a peaceful anarchy with as many people as we have now? I don't.) Could it be that, either with the help of 'aliens' (whatever they are) or by ourselves, we're about to have a technological breakthrough? (When I say 'aliens', I mean that they don't have to be extraterrestrials. If you're taking a mystic perspective, which Andrews seems to be doing, they could be the collective unconscious or something trying to push our development along.) Chuck Henderson, the host of 'For The People', also said that his sources are saying that alien signals have *already* been received. Of course, he doesn't identify his sources. Also, while we're on the subject of Colin Andrews, I happened by accident (literally; I was in the hospital in a town with a different cable system) to see an episode of 'In Search Of' about six weeks ago, which was about the Bermuda Triangle. One thing they covered was an incident in which a radio station was hosting a talk show about the Bermuda Triangle and an unidentified caller said that the Triangle was a communications transceiver for someone whose name I couldn't quite make out. Supposedly the disappearances happened accidentally whenever anyone happened to be in the area when it was activated. Anyway, the point of this is that when I heard Colin Andrews on 'For The People' about a month later, I was immediately struck by the impression that he sounded exactly like the mystery caller! Does anyone else think the same thing, or does anybody know for sure who the caller was? (The series is rather old, so I figure that information could have gotten around since then.) -- * From the disk of: | jms@vanth.uucp | 'there's a hell of Jim Shaffer, Jr. | uunet!cbmvax!vanth!jms | a good universe 37 Brook Street | jms%vanth@cbmvax.commodore.com | next door; let's go' Montgomery, PA 17752 | 72750.2335@compuserve.com | (e.e. cummings) -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peter.Vancampen@f816.n107.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Peter Vancampen) Subject: Ogden objects Date: 25 Oct 92 22:14:00 GMT Hi All, I thought that I'd see if anyone on the net has any newer info about the objects discovered in Ogden UT, as noted in the file OGDEN.ZIP and the two OGDEN*.gif 's. I am more than intrigued about this and certainly appreciate any info that may be passed along. Thanks Pete VC -- Peter Vancampen - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Peter.Vancampen@f816.n107.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com!vanth!jms Subject: July 26, 1993 Date: 26 Oct 92 06:26:14 GMT From: vanth!jms@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (Jim Shaffer) To: David E. Coleman +Robert Trevelyan mentioned that there is a +predicted return of UFOs to Alton Barnes on +July 26, 1993. This I understand is the +same date, I doubt coincidentally, of the +so-called 'next planetary activation, which +*this* time is when 'time at Earth us supposed to +fold back on itself' or some such idea. 'Time at Earth is supposed to fold back on itself'?! Could you explain this further? I don't normally pay attention to such things, but one of the claims in the Rainbow Traveler document is that Earth's timeline, or at least society's, is going to collapse soon and remove us from the universe. -- * From the disk of: | jms@vanth.uucp | 'there's a hell of Jim Shaffer, Jr. | uunet!cbmvax!vanth!jms | a good universe 37 Brook Street | jms%vanth@cbmvax.commodore.com | next door; let's go' Montgomery, PA 17752 | 72750.2335@compuserve.com | (e.e. cummings) -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com!vanth!jms Subject: Anti-gravity Flying Saucer Date: 26 Oct 92 06:26:24 GMT From: vanth!jms@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (Jim Shaffer) To: Mike Keithly + Gravity-NEUTRALIZING Spacecraft + and ZERO/REDUCED-Gravity Chamber + + NASA should build an experimental spacecraft based on + U.S. Patent #3,626,605 [at least $1.00 per complete copy from + U.S. Patent Office, 2021 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA + 22202; correct 7-digit patent number required. Or try getting + it via your local public or university library's inter-library + loan dept..], titled 'METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR GENERATING A + SECONDARY GRAVITATIONAL FORCE FIELD', awarded to Inventor + Henry W. Wallace on Dec. 14, 1971. That reminds me -- somewhere around here I've got a file listing all the U.S. patents for non-Newtonian spacecraft drives. I'll post it as soon as I find it. -- * From the disk of: | jms@vanth.uucp | 'there's a hell of Jim Shaffer, Jr. | uunet!cbmvax!vanth!jms | a good universe 37 Brook Street | jms%vanth@cbmvax.commodore.com | next door; let's go' Montgomery, PA 17752 | 72750.2335@compuserve.com | (e.e. cummings) -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: "Linda" Abduction Case - Part 1 Date: 27 Oct 92 01:24:03 GMT Below are the original posting that Don Allen provided ParaNet regarding George Hansen's position on the "Linda" abduction case, and a rebuttal from Jerome Clark. We have provided this material in this fashion for clarity and continuity. ** HOT ITEM ** This was forwarded to me by a friend who is pretty tight in some UFO circles. According to my friend, this was what was part of the discussion at the recent get together at the UN. I will leave it with you. I have no further information available, but hopefully this posting will serve to stimulate discussion. Judging from it's contents, I don't think that will be a problem :-) ========================================================================= Attempted Murder vs. The Politics of Ufology: A Question of Priorities in the Linda Napolitano Case by George P. Hansen ----------------------------------------------------------------- ABSTRACT: UFO abductee Linda Napolitano claims that she was kidnapped, assaulted, battered, harassed, and nearly drowned by two agents of the U.S. government. Prominent ufologists Budd Hopkins, John E. Mack, David M. Jacobs, Jerome Clark and Walter H. Andrus, Jr. accept these claims. Hopkins has collected extensive materials that could be used to help apprehend and convict the agents. Yet Hopkins, Clark and Andrus have vigorously argued that these crimes should not be reported to law enforcement authorities; they indicate that such could be "politically damaging" to UFO research. These ufologists are asked to defend their decision and priorities. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Budd Hopkins' case involving the abduction of Linda Napolitano by a UFO has been discussed in the Wall Street Journal (May 14, 1992, pp. A1, A10), Omni (April 1992, p. 75), Paris Match (17 Sept. 92, pp. 13-14, 18, 96, 98), and the New York Times (October 5, 1992, pp. B1, B2). The Mufon UFO Journal labeled it "The Abduction Case of the Century" (August 1992, p. 9). By virtue of this intense interest, it will become an exemplar for the study of UFO abductions. Briefly, it is asserted that at about 3:15 a.m. on November 30, 1989, Linda Napolitano floated out of her 12th floor apartment in lower Manhattan. Allegedly three witnesses in a car about two blocks away observed Linda and three humanoid figures emerge from a window and ascend into a craft hovering over her building. Two of the witnesses, Richard and Dan, were government security officers who were guarding the third witness, a dignitary. More than a year after the case, Richard and Dan wrote to Hopkins describing what they saw, and a few weeks later they visited Linda in her apartment. Hopkins has never met these two but has over 80 pages of letters from them, and he has accumulated much other material pertinent to the case. The affair is quite complex, and the story is now only beginning to be told. Hopkins presented a few details at the 1992 MUFON convention in Albuquerque and then in the September 1992 issue of the Mufon UFO Journal. One of the most disturbing elements of the case is that felonies were allegedly committed by the government agents; these include assault, battery, kidnapping and attempted murder. Hopkins' published account of this aspect is so sketchy that some might consider it deliberately misleading. His entire written summary is only one sentence long: "In April and again in October 1991, Linda would suffer hours- long forced confinements and interrogations at the hands of these confused frightened `law-enforcement' officers; she would be struck by a car during a chase through the streets of lower Manhattan" (Mufon UFO Journal, September 1992, pp. 13, 14). Hopkins' brief statement hardly conveys the gravity of the situation. It suggests that he may have taken these matters much too lightly. The kidnappings and attempted murder On January 28, 1992, Linda Napolitano contacted Richard Butler and requested a meeting because she was concerned about her personal safety, and she was worried that Hopkins might not be able to adequately protect her. Linda had earlier become friends with Butler at meetings in the home of Budd Hopkins. On February 1, 1992, Linda met with Butler along with Joseph Stefula, a former Special Agent with the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command who has extensive contacts in law enforcement. During the meeting, Linda stated that in April 1991 she encountered security agent Richard on the street near her apartment. She was asked to get into a car that Dan was driving, but she refused. Richard then picked her up and, with some struggle, forced her into the automobile. Linda reported that she was driven around for 3 1/2 hours and interrogated about the aliens. At the MUFON symposium in July 1992, Linda was asked if she had reported the kidnapping to the police. She said that she had not and went on to say that the kidnapping was legal because it had to do with national security; she later commented that she did not want to go head to head with a government agency because she might be killed and pieces of her might be found in the East River (Hopkins did not dispute these statements). Linda did remember another car being involved with the kidnapping, and under hypnotic regression she recalled the license plate number of that automobile, as well as part of the number of the car she was in. Hopkins reports that the numbers have been traced to particular agencies. During the February 1 meeting with Stefula and Butler, Linda reported that on the morning of October 15, 1991, Dan pulled her into a red Jaguar sports car. Linda happened to be carrying a tape recorder and was able to surreptitiously record a small part of Dan's questioning, but within a few minutes he discovered and confiscated it. Dan drove to a beach house on the shore of Long Island. There he demanded that Linda remove her clothes and put on a white nightgown, similar to the one she wore the night of the UFO abduction. He said he wanted to have sex with her. She refused but then agreed to put on the nightgown over her clothes. Once she did, Dan droppped to his knees and started to talk incoherently about her being the "Lady of the Sands." She fled the beach house, but Dan caught her on the beach and bent her arm behind her. He placed two fingers on the back of her neck, leading Linda to believe that it was a gun. He then forced her into the water and pushed her head under twice. He continued to rave incoherently, and as her head was being pushed under for the third time, she believed that she would not come up again. Then, a "force" hit Dan and knocked him back onto the beach. Linda started to run but heard a sound like a gun being cocked. She looked back and saw Dan taking a picture of her (the pictures were eventually sent to Hopkins). She continued to move, but Richard came running, seemingly out of nowhere. He stopped her and convinced her to return to the beach house, and he told her that he would control Dan by giving him a Mickey Finn. She agreed to the plan. Once inside, Richard put Dan in the shower to wash off the mud from the beach. This gave Linda a chance to search the premises; she recovered her cassette tape and discovered stationery bearing a Central Intelligence Agency letterhead. In a brief conversation on October 3, 1992, Hopkins told me that Linda came to him shortly after she arrived back in Manhattan after the kidnapping. She was disheveled, had sand in her hair, and was traumatized by the experience. Linda also reported to Stefula and Butler 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 Fleetwood sedan with Saudi Arabian United Nations license plates. To avoid him, Linda said that she went into a shop during the first incident. The second day a similar thing happened, and she stood next to some businessmen until he left the area. <> -- Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG ******************************************************************************* Submissions infopara@scicom.alphacdc.com Administrative requests infopara-request@scicom.alphacdc.com FTP archive grind.isca.uiowa.edu:/info/paranet/infopara Permission to distribute Michael.Corbin@paranet.org Private mail to Paranet/Fidonet users firstname.lastname@paranet.org UUCP gateway {ncar,isis,csn}!scicom *********************End**of**the**InfoPara**Newsletter************************