ParaNet BBS/napol
From KB42
ParaNet BBS/napol
| File Name: | napol.txt |
|---|---|
| Author: | Unknown |
| Date: | Unknown |
| Posting BBS: | Unknown |
| BBS Main Page: | ParaNet Main Page |
| Key Words: | ParaNet, UFO, Ufology |
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.
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 napol.txt: NAPOL.TXT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(12588) Fri 27 Nov 92 11:27p
By: Don Allen
To: All
Re: Hansen On Clark
St:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a response from George Hansen regarding Jerome Clark's earlier
reply to Hansen's claims. It came in the mail (unsolicited) as an ascii
file on a 5 1/4 disk and with Hansen's handwritten permission to post
to the BBS's . You be the judge.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
M E M O
To: Those interested in the UFO problem
From: George P. Hansen
Princeton Arms North 1, Apt. 59
Cranbury, NJ 08512
(609) 426-0927
Date: 23 November 1992
The enclosed paper is one in a series constituting a public debate on Budd
Hopkins' Linda Napolitano case (stage name "Linda Cortile"). You may have seen
my report "Attempted Murder vs. The Politics of Ufology: A Question of
Priorities in the Linda Napolitano Case." In order to fully understand the
present paper, you may wish to obtain a copy of that earlier article as well as
the response by Jerome Clark, if you have not already seen them. Clark's
address is given in the first footnote of the enclosed article.
The ufological community has recently been given an important article from
Clark, and I believe that it merits your close attention. Clark is a prominent
leader in the field and familiar with some of the secret details of the Linda
Napolitano case. His piece should raise serious questions of professional
judgement and responsibilities.
Walter Andrus, head of MUFON, has yet to respond. This is most disturbing.
Both Clark and Andrus are in positions to control the information that is, and
more importantly, is not, presented in their UFO magazines. Many of you pay
good money for memberships and subscriptions in order to obtain that
information. I urge you to contact the boards of directors of MUFON and CUFOS
and request an explanation for the behavior and statements of their leaders in
regard to the Napolitano case.
As with my previous article, please feel free to copy and distribute this memo
and enclosed paper, publish them in any periodical, and post them on electronic
bulletin boards.
"TORQUEMADA" RESPONDS TO JEROME CLARK
George P. Hansen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ABSTRACT: Jerome Clark is thanked for correcting a misinterpretation of his
position reported in the paper "Attempted Murder vs. The Politics of Ufology."
Clark has now provided, in writing, his reasons for opposing a federal
investigation of the purported kidnapping and attempted murder of Linda
Napolitano. This rationale and other writings of Clark are examined in order
to gain insight into his thought processes.
This paper primarily discusses psychological factors influencing the
investigation and interpretation of the Napolitano case. A paper is in
preparation devoted to the substance and evaluation of the claims. This affair
provides a wealth of material for those attempting to understand the field of
ufology from a psycho-social perspective. In the long run, the actions and
beliefs of the leaders of ufology may be far more important than Linda
Napolitano's UFO abduction claim. As such, this may yet prove to be "The Case
of the Century."
------------------------------------------------------------------
My article "Attempted Murder vs. The Politics of Ufology: A Question of
Priorities in the Linda Napolitano Case" has been published in a number of
newsletters and posted on electronic bulletin boards. In that piece I reported
that Budd Hopkins, Walter Andrus, and Jerome Clark had urged that the reported
attempted murder of Linda Napolitano not be communicated to law enforcement
authorities because such could be damaging to ufology. Clark has recently
issued a response correcting my interpretation of his remarks, and I am
grateful to him for now doing so ("The Politics of Torquemada; or, Earth
Calling Hansen's Planet" by Jerome Clark; 612 North Oscar Avenue, Canby, MN
56220; October 24, 1992). I should mention that I had sent Clark an earlier
draft of my article and invited his comments before publishing it (Clark did
not avail himself of this opportunity and sent me a note only saying "George --
Please do not call or write me again").
The comments and reasoning of Clark should be of special interest to the UFO
research community. He is vice-president of the Center for UFO Studies and
editor of its magazine International UFO Reporter. He writes a monthly column
for Fate magazine, has written books and even an encyclopedia on UFOs. The
Fund for UFO Research gave him the prestigious Isabel Davis Award for 1992.
Clark has placed himself in a prominent, public role and is now in a position
to determine what many persons will chance to read about the topic.
Clark's explanation
I am pleased that Clark now acknowledges, in writing, that he did indeed
urge UFO researchers to suppress evidence of a series of felonies. He
apparently wishes to impede the process of justice. His rationale is even more
intriguing than I had imagined, and I will quote his entire paragraph
explaining his position:
"I urged the critics to refrain, over the next six months, from
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 not 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." (From page 1 of his paper "The
Politics of Torquemada")
This is a candid, and remarkably revealing, explanation, especially because
Clark told me that he accepts Linda's story of being harassed, kidnapped,
sexually molested, and nearly drowned by government agents. Clark's statement
provides insight into his mindset.
First, we are urged to stop investigating the case (even though the affair
has been discussed in Omni, the Wall Street Journal, Paris Match, the Mufon UFO
Journal, and the New York Times). The statement displays Clark's true belief
about the appropriateness of internal review and criticism in ufology.
Second, though the critics should refrain from investigating, presumably
Hopkins should continue. One can only surmise that Clark believes Hopkins to
be qualified to investigate kidnapping and attempted murder. He urges all
outsiders to remove themselves from the case, and Clark would allow Richard and
Dan six more months of unobstructed opportunities for kidnapping and murder.
But concerned citizens should remain silent. This has led some to question
Clark's grasp on reality.
Third, Clark suggests that "banging on the wrong doors could alert the
relevant agency that two of its agents were leaking a huge secret." Clark's
suggestion about "alerting the relevant agency" is ludicrous. Hopkins himself
had already visited a number of agencies and made inquiries. He had even sent
a picture of one of the agents to the United Nations. Further, Hopkins had
spoken publicly numerous times about the case, including presentations for
BUFORA, New Jersey MUFON, New York MUFON, the Abduction Study Conference at
Massachussetts Institute of Technology, the 1992 MUFON symposium in
Albuquerque, and even the television show Inside Edition. If there actually
was a conspiracy, the perpetrators would be fully aware of Hopkins'
investigation. One can only wonder how Clark could rationally offer his idea.
Fourth, and most revealing, Clark suggests that it is plausible that a
conspiracy at the top levels of the world's governments is suppressing evidence
about this UFO abduction and the subsequent kidnappings, sexual molestation,
and attempted murder. Not only was the United Nations Secretary General
reportedly involved, but during a meeting I attended on October 3, 1992,
Hopkins' partisans made allusions to the involvement of other world figures,
though they were not named. Hopkins and Clark seem to think that they possess
secret, crucial knowledge of the international political situation regarding
the UFO abduction phenomena. Clark, living an isolated existence in a small,
remote town in Minnesota, seems to believe himself to be in a position to make
important recommendations affecting public disclosures by governments,
revelations that would have a profound impact on world affairs.
Clark's earlier writings on conspiracy theories
It is worth briefly reviewing some of Clark's earlier writings on
conspiracies because they provide additional illumination of his thinking. For
instance, he calls Jacque Vallee's book Revelations "the ultimate conspiracy
book" (International UFO Reporter, September/October, 1991, p. 3) and describes
Vallee as having an "ability to detect connections invisible to the rest of us
[and it] reaches its most bizarre extreme..." (International UFO Reporter,
January/February, 1990, p. 8). He attacks John Keel, saying "that his
speculations were laced with paranoia" (UFOs in the 1980s by Jerome Clark,
Detroit: Apogee, 1990, p. 175). These writings suggest deep, visceral
reactions. For Clark, notions of conspiracies have a high psychological
charge, and he appears unable to grapple with such ideas in a dispassionate
frame of mind.
Unlike many vague conspiracy ideas, Clark's and Hopkins' are exceptionally
specific. Hopkins claims to have a massive amount of evidence, and that
material could be used to identify and convict the culprits. Times, dates, and
places of the purported crimes are known as well as the license plate numbers
of cars involved. But Hopkins and Clark refuse to divulge information. In any
event, their conspiratorial notions are having a dramatic impact on the
investigation of this case. We now have a stark instance of some of the most
prominent leaders in ufology actively attempting to impede the enforcement of
criminal laws they believe to have been violated. Their actions are guided by
a belief in the existence of a powerful international government conspiracy.
By any measure, Clark's own suggestions are far more extreme than those of
Vallee or Keel, but because of Clark's prior vehement denunciation of
conspiratorial thinking, I failed to grasp his present views on the Hopkins-
Napolitano case. This was the reason for my misunderstanding.
Summary
One of the unexpected benefits of the Napolitano case is that it provides
remarkable illumination of the mentality of a prominent authority on UFOs.
Because of his influence and control over a significant amount of popular UFO
literature, this is of particular consequence.
If we accept Linda's claim, Richard and Dan are menaces not only to Linda
but to society at large. Yet Clark vigorously opposes reporting them to the
authorities. He seems to believe that he has special insight into the world
political situation that justifies his position.
Neither Clark nor Hopkins has provided even minimal evidence for such a
notion. That being the case, there may be a plausible explanation for their
behavior. They imply that they possess secret knowledge of a conspiracy within
the highest levels of the world's governments; such thinking can be termed
"grandiose"; the word "paranoid" might even apply. Ironically, Clark's
previous writings display a loathing of and revulsion toward much tamer
conspiratorial speculations. Clark's "Torquemada" article is again emotional
and self-laudatory, and I urge those interested to obtain a copy in order to
verify that. After such a review, the reader will be in a better position to
assess Clark's mental state and deduce the plausible cause of his behavior.
23 November 1992
** End of file **
Well guys, throw another log on the fire of speculation.
Don
--- FMail 0.92
* Origin: * On Topic? What's that? <*> Fidonet UFO Moderator (1:363/81.1)
a better position to
assess Clark's mental state and deduce the plausible cause of his behavior.
23 November 1992
- End of file **
Well guys, throw another log on the fire of speculation.
Don
--- FMail 0.92
* Origin: * On Topic? What's that? <*> Fidonet UFO Moderator (1:363/81.1)
