(1147)  Thu 29 Oct 92  1:24
By: Don Allen
To: All
Re: "Linda" Abduction Case - Conclusion
St:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID: 1:363/81.1@fidonet.org 97814bcd
@PID: FM 2.02
 * Forwarded from "UFO"
 * Originally by Michael Corbin
 * Originally to All
 * Originally dated 26 Oct 1992, 18:25

<<..Continued from previous message>>


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----------------------------------------------


  The Politics of Torquemada; or, Earth Calling Hansen's Planet


     George  Hansen,  who is short on ufological  experience  but
long  on  self-righteous  blather,  is  distributing  a  document
entitled  "Attempted  Murder  vs.  the  Politics  of  Ufology:  A
question  of  Priorities in the Linda Napolitano  Case."   In  an
October  13  memo addressed to Budd Hopkins,  Walt  Andrus,  John
Mack, David Jacobs, and me, Hansen grandiosely announces, "I plan
to publish this in periodicals devoted to UFOs and mail copies to
leading ufologists, boards of directors of MUFON, CUFOS, and  the
Intruders Foundation, and funders of UFO research.  I also expect
to  post  this on electronic bulletin boards and send  copies  to
reporter for Omni, the New York Times, Paris Match, and the  Wall
Street Journal."

     In the extremely unlikely event that Hansen's  communication
does not end up in the CP file of these latter publications and I
receive  a  call or visit from a reporter from the same,  I  will
inform him or her of the following:

     Hansen  claims  that when he expressed a desire to  "make  a
formal  request for a federal investigation of  Linda,  "Hopkins,
Andrus,  and I "strongly urged me not to do so.  They  said  that
such action would be politically damaging to ufology."  I  cannot
speak  for  budd  and  Walt, though I know  them  to  be  men  of
integrity.    I   can,  however,  state  flatly   that   Hansen's
characterization of my remarks is, in its first half,  misleading
and, in its second, blatantly false.

     Hansen called me late on the evening of October 6, two  days
after  my  return  from  New  York  City  and  the  meeting  with
proponents  and critics of the Linda case.  As i have told  Buldd
and others, I have serious problems with the story.  I told  Budd
that  at this stage too many links in the chain of  evidence  are
missing  to  sustain a suspension of  unbelief.   Moreover,  some
aspects  of it seem to me to be impossible.  At the same  time  I
have problems with the charge that Linda hoaxed the entire  even,
an allegation that -- in view of the extraordinary complexity  of
this episode, not to mention what I observed of and learned about
Linda's personality -- strikes me as simplistic and unconvincing.
Tow metal-health professionals (not counting John Mack here)  who
know Linda far better that Hansen does concur, emphatically.

     My  thoughts  about all this are complicated,  and  I  could
devote many pages to them.  I shall not do so here, however.   At
the meeting in which the case was discussed, I kept an open mind;
in  fact, I may have been the only individual there who  had  not
come  to a firm and unshakable conclusion.  Finally  I  suggested
what  I  thought would be a compromise acceptable  to  all  whose
motive was to find the truth.

     I  urged the critics to refrain, over the next  six  months,
form  pursuing  the investigation, which they had  indicated  now
consisted,  or  would soon consist, of knocking on the  doors  of
government  agencies looking for evidence of the elusive  Richard
and  Dan.  I stated that, if this story is true, it is no just  a
UFO   case  but  a  "politically  sensitive"  event  because   it
supposedly  involves a political figure of international  stature
and  therefore  has consequences far outside the  tiny  world  of
ufology.  If that is indeed the case, we would never find Richard
and Dan (if they exist as who they say they are) because  banging
on  the wrong doors could alert the relevant agency that  two  of
its  agents  were  leaking a huge secret.   They  would  then  be
effectively silenced, and we would never learn the truth.

     If,  on  the other hand, the story is a hoax, I went  on,  a
six-month  delay  will  have  no effect on  that  fact,  and  the
evidence  will be just as retrievable then as now.  I assumed  we
were all in this a truth-seeker, I said, and I thought my idea of
a compromise best served that end.

     Rich  Butler  and Joe Stefula, critics  and  honorable  men,
immediately saw my point and agreed.  George "Torquemada" Hansen,
however, proceeded to shout that "science doesn't work that way,"
to  which  I rejoined that , if the story was true, this  is  not
just a scientific matter but a political one as well.  Nothing  I
said  could  have led anyone to think I meant  the  "politics  of
ufology."   The  context  made  it clear  to  everyone  that  the
"politics" to which I referred was the national and international
political  realm of which the Third Man is allegedly  a  resident
and in which (again if they are who they claim to be) Richard and
Dan operate.

     To  anyone who has read my voluminous writings on  ufology's
problems  and  concerns,  the  notion  that  I  would  urge   the
concealment  of truth for any reason -- least of  all  "political
damage" to ufology -- is laughable.
     My  printed  record  shows  just  the  opposite:   a  fierce
commitment  to the truth above and beyond anything else.  No  one
has  been  so consistently, even obsessively,  outspoken  on  the
subject  of  ufologists' need for radical  objectivity,  vigorous
debate, and fearless scrutiny of all issues, regardless of  their
potential  effect  on  someone's misguided  vision  of  ufology's
institutional  interests.   Anyone  who doubts  any  of  this  is
invited to read a few IUR editorials.

     Therefore  I am forced to conclude that Hansen  deliberately
misrepresented  my remarks.  In all the conversations I had  with
the  principals  of  this case, I recall  no  one's  saying  that
Hansen's  proposed  "action  would  be  politically  damaging  to
ufology."   If anyone had used that as an excuse for inaction,  I
would have spoken up, bluntly, to state precisely what I  thought
of that.

     At  any  rate,  what the proponents did talk  about,  in  my
hearing,  was their concern about Linda's well being.  Budd,  who
is  a profoundly decent man, feels strongly that the  attacks  on
Linda are unfair, unfounded and injurious to a woman who  already
has  suffered  enough.   Valid or invalid, this  concern  --  not
damage to the "politics of ufology" (whatever that's supposed  to
mean) -- dominated Budd's conversations with me.

     Still,  since  our exchanges in New York had  been  entirely
cordial, I was unprepared for Hansen's behavior when he called me
on October 6.  I thought he wanted to continue our discussion  of
the  case, but as I started to explain my  thoroughly  ambivalent
feelings, he cut me off, said curtly that he would be brief,  and
asked  if  I thought Linda was lying.  I said I doubted  it,  for
many  reasons, which Hansen, who by now had thoroughly  demonized
the poor woman, did not want to hear.  He informed me that by not
sanctioning  his plan to go to federal authorities, I  was  doing
effectively aiding and abetting gross misuse of police power.   I
said  that  if  such  action were to  be  taken,  it  is  Linda's
decision,  not  mine  or his, to make, and I could  not  see  how
anyone  could  think  otherwise.  Knowing more  about  this  than
Hansen  does, I added that the story contains elements which,  if
Linda  is telling the truth, seem to explain her  what  otherwise
looks  like a puzzling reluctance to act.  In any case, I  added,
it  was  clear  enough that Hansen, his pious  assertion  to  the
contrary  (see the hilariously hypocritical concluding  paragraph
of his article), sought not to help Linda but to destroy her.

     Hansen was at least honest enough not to deny that.  Instead
he chose to try to intimidate me.  He warned that he intended  to
turn my name, address, and phone number, along with Hopkins',  et
al,  into the FBI.  He then launched into a diatribe in which  he
accused  my colleagues and me of "living in a delusional  world."
On  Hansen's planet, apparently, those who disagree with him  are
not  just wrong but deluded and, perhaps, as his  paper  implies,
intellectually corrupt and, moreover, deserving of the  attention
of  police agencies.  I said, "George, you're full of shit,"  and
hung  up on him.  His subsequent pronouncements have only  served
to confirm the cogency of that analysis.

     So  what  is the significance of the Linda  case?   I  don't
know.   Let  me  repeat:  I don't know.   Does  anybody?   It  is
staggeringly  complex, and the available evidence can be read  in
several  ways, though certainly in none.  I admire  Budd  Hopkins
for his dogged, courageous pursuit of the evidence, and I respect
those  who,  like  Butler, Stefula,  and  Don  Johnson,  honestly
dissent  from Budd's interpretation.  As an unbeliever (in  other
words, neither believer nor disbeliever), I support all  rational
debate on the issue.

     In  my opinion, at this stage of an incomplete  and  ongoing
investigation, the only conclusion with which I feel  comfortable
is this one:  Time will tell.  Then again, maybe it won't.  Am am
I the only one out there with a tolerance for ambiguity?

Jerome Clark

October 24, 1992

PARANET FILENAME:  NAPOL.TXT

--- FMail 0.92
 * Origin: ** So many Pleiadian women..so little time :-) ** (1:363/81.1)

@PATH: 363/81