The Trickster and the Paranormal

by George P. Hansen

  After our exposé, Hopkins seemed even more firmly committed to the case. Through his contacts in the media, he arranged for a brief personal meeting with Perez de Cuellar in November 1993 at Chicago’s O’Hare airport, while the former Secretary General had a temporary stop-over between flights. Hopkins describes the meeting in his book, and though Perez de Cuellar said little about the case, the statements he made were denials. Of course Hopkins interpreted them as support for his belief.

  After our critique appeared, Hopkins discovered a few other “witnesses.” One was a “Cathy Turner” who was brought to his attention by “Frank Turner,” Cathy’s nephew, in 1993, nearly four years after the event. Ms. Turner didn’t clearly recall the year of her sighting, and she even said that it may have occurred near one of the bridges going to Queens (miles north of the Brooklyn Bridge). After spending much time interviewing her, Hopkins convinced himself that her testimony strongly supported the Linda case. He went on to make conference presentations and wrote an extended article about this “witness.”

  For several years, the Linda case captured the imagination of ufologists and garnered endorsements from many of them. By the time Hopkins’ book appeared in 1996, their interest and support had faded. The reviews in the UFO magazines were generally positive, but considering the magnitude of the claims, most were not ringing endorsements. Some reviewers even appeared slightly embarrassed, and a number of ufologists seemed to want to forget the affair. Frank Turner, Cathy’s nephew, became friendly with Linda, but after a period he was greatly disillusioned and vocally skeptical. His comments appeared on the Internet, and there were hints that others close to Linda also had doubts.

  Analysis

  Hopkins’ book probably is about as accurate as he could make it, though not as complete, and there is no reason to think that there was any duplicity on his part. In fact, the story is so unlikely that no refutation is really needed, and I believe that any reasonably judicious reader would find the claims ludicrous. Nevertheless, it may be helpful to keep in mind some of the salient points against the case. First, Hopkins did not attempt to find witnesses in Linda’s neighborhood, and he didn’t even check with the guards at her apartment complex, though in New York City, even at 3:16 a.m., such a bright object should have been seen by hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people. All

  major witnesses sought out Hopkins rather than the other way around. Second, Perez de Cuellar denied knowing Linda. Third, Linda failed to file police reports of her kidnappings and attempted murder. Fourth, the case has innumerable unique features with no parallel in the history of ufology, though there are many similarities to the novel Night eyes.

  Hopkins and his defenders argued that if this was a hoax, it was an incredibly complicated one. There is a grain of truth in that, but it is wildly overstated. The Napolitano case was more lengthy and elaborate than the average UFO hoax, but there have been others that required greater effort. The Napolitano case was not a technically difficult or expensive operation, nor would it have required a lot of time or coordination. It was carried out over a period of years and could have been undertaken like a hobby, perhaps plotted when Linda’s husband and sons were out of the apartment for a few hours or when she was visiting friends. Linda was not the only one involved with the deception, but she was the linchpin. Male friends could have helped prepare the “Richard” and “Dan” audiotapes that were sent to Hopkins. Maybe Linda typed “their” letters as she had worked as a temporary secretary and would have had access to a variety of typewriters.

  The riskiest part of the hoax was probably Janet Kimball, the supposed witness whose car stalled on the Brooklyn Bridge. She refused to be interviewed by anyone but Hopkins. He presented no evidence to corroborate her story as to why she was on the Brooklyn Bridge at 3:16 a.m.

  Some have objected that the hoax explanation is not plausible because there is no reasonable motive for such an extended effort. This is a common refrain, and in my investigations of other paranormal deceptions, I’ve often heard the questions “Why would anyone perpetrate a hoax? What motive could there be?” After a few experiences investigating them, I discovered that motives are often difficult to discern and comprehend.

  I admit that the motives in the Napolitano case are a mystery, but some speculation might ease concerns about them. Perhaps Linda began with a relatively innocent tall tale that got out of hand. At the beginning, she may have only wanted a bit of attention and some excitement in her life. But as the case became known, Linda was mentioned in magazines, invited to conferences, appeared on TV, was provided a bodyguard, and even dined with royalty (the Prince of Liechtenstein was friendly with Hopkins). The initial impetus for the hoax remains unknown, but as it progressed, benefits appeared.

  Rumors suggested that the hoax was done for revenge. Several people privately told me about dissatisfaction among Hopkins’ group of abductees (e.g., women scorned). Linda may have started the tale on her own and then been encouraged by others who had been slighted by Hopkins and who realized what she was doing. A few parts of the hoax may have operated independently of Linda; Hopkins had a number of colleagues with inside information about the case, and it is possible that one or more of them joined in for their own purposes. Such scenarios are speculative, but they are not implausible.

  Implications of the Hoax

  The Napolitano affair is an important example because the field’s leaders vetted the case and committed their views to writing. Hopkins shared his evidence with them, and subsequently Walter Andrus, Jerry Clark, David Jacobs, and John Mack all supported the integrity of Linda and her story. These leaders have many decades of experience among them. They play substantial roles in publicizing cases, endorsing their credibility, and setting the agenda of the field. Andrus, as International Director of MUFON, and Clark as an editor with the Hynek Center, also control the content of membership magazines. These persons have a long history of supporting what were later shown to be hoaxes. Their actions, in light of their vast experience, prominence, and influence, tell us something about the nature of ufology.

  The victims played important roles in the hoax, and they cannot be separated from it when analyzing the affair. In fact Hopkins’ role was more important than those of the perpetrators. He was the target, and his responses determined the hoax’s progress. The hoaxers preyed upon his beliefs and expectations, and subtly manipulated him into ignoring glaring inconsistencies. His colleagues fared little better. With the manifest loss of critical judgement, some outsiders thought that the victims were willing participants. This became so extreme that several people told me that they suspected Hopkins of being in on the scam. Wealthy persons were supporting him, and some observers thought that he needed to maintain excitement in order to assure their continued backing. I very much doubt that Hopkins consciously took part in any deceit, and in other paranormal deceptions I have investigated, skeptical outsiders voiced virtually identical suspicions to me privately. Victims are often perceived as being dishonest, but in the vast majority of cases, they are oblivious to their contribution. Nevertheless, in many minds, the distinction between the hoaxers and the hoaxed is blurred, this being a subtle effect of the trickster.

  The question remains, just why did the victims get hoodwinked? What made them susceptible? They had a long familiarity with ufology and its many frauds. How are we to understand those people? It is not wrong to accuse them of gullibility, but that is too simplistic, and it provides little insight. Further, it will not do to claim that the victims were psychologically abnormal, ineffectual, or despirited human beings grasping for the merest bit of meaning in their lives. Most are highly successful in other areas. The ufologists who endorsed the case are not generally cultish in any usual sense of that word; they have no common rituals, central charismatic leader, dogma, etc. Furthermore, they are not charlatans who are out for a fast buck and then disappear. Hopkins’ supporters had no direct financial interest in the case; in fact they stood to lose prestige if they were wrong. T
he traditional explanations of debunkers do not suffice. Nevertheless the victims were caught up in the story and were unable to summon their critical, analytic capabilities. This is disturbing, and it deserves the careful consideration of everyone interested in ufology.

  Belief and Social Roles

  The victims held beliefs compatible with major features of the hoax, and that made them vulnerable. Yet to attribute their gullibility to belief is insufficient. Everyone has beliefs, and everyone has areas of gullibility. Beliefs are complex; they are not all or none things; they can be ambiguous and unstable. Sometimes they are vigorously espoused and then quickly abandoned.

  The UFO subculture illustrates the complexities of belief. That subculture is typified by exotic ideas that are held, discussed, and then discarded. I have known many who believed in benevolent space brothers, evil government conspiracies, interdimensional time travel, and black helicopters and clouds that change into flying saucers. A few months later they adopted a completely different outlook, and then someone else picked up the rejected ideas. This is common, in fact, more the rule than the exception. Fluidity of belief is not so characteristic of the establishment ufologists (e.g., those who hold offices in organizations). It is so prevalent among members of the subculture generally that it must be considered a fundamental characteristic of the subculture. Dhwani Shah, an undergraduate at Rutgers University, called attention to it in his 1996 thesis UFOs and the Experience of the Sacred: Discovering Living Myths in Post-Modernity. Lability, ambiguity, and ambivalence characterize beliefs in the UFO subculture and are some of its anti-structural (liminal) aspects. In ufology, belief has some of the same properties as the institutions; both are weak and tenuous.

  Hopkins and his supporters were convinced that extraterrestrial beings are visiting earth. They also believed (perhaps less strongly) that there is an extensive government conspiracy to suppress the truth of alien visitations. Linda’s story about Perez de Cuellar confirmed and reinforced both beliefs. The notion that ETs have landed on earth has some respectability, but it is easy for many outsiders to dismiss the conspiracy idea as delusional. But the belief is not completely unjustified. Government officials have suppressed data on UFOs and have spread disinformation; some have made threats against civilians. Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act demonstrate international cooperation in nefarious actions against investigators (e.g., against Armen Victorian. See the last chapter.) The established system does operate something like a conspiracy. Furthermore, conspiracy theory provides a framework in which to make sense of a large amount of data, not only in this case but also in many others.

  That being said, the idea of a massive, highly orchestrated, international conspiracy functions as a myth, and among the U.S. ufological hierarchy it is socially unacceptable to examine the myth’s foundations too closely. This taboo explains the lack of basic reality testing, such as MUFON’s and the Hynek Center’s opposition to a federal investigation of Linda’s kidnappings. An investigation could disconfirm their myth.

  Grandiosity frequently accompanies conspiratorial thinking and paranoiac belief. That occurred in the Linda case, and the hoaxers capitalized splendidly on it. One of Hopkins’ abductees was chosen by the aliens for their demonstration of power to earth’s political leaders. Hopkins was thereby cast in a central role in the drama, and his colleagues would share in the glory of proving to the world the reality of the ETs. This would be the ultimate accomplishment for any ufologist. Even if there was only a slim chance of the case being proven, the payoff was extraordinary, and it would make their lives‘ work worth all the effort.

  There is another reason that Hopkins and his supporters failed to critically examine the evidence. At some unconscious level, they must have recognized their hopes and beliefs to be unrealistic. To the extent that they vaguely understood this, it was to their credit. Had they pushed for a federal investigation, and Linda was proven to be lying, they would have looked silly. If they firmly believed in a vast government conspiracy, they might have joined a survivalist anti-government group. It was to their benefit that they did not act in accord with their expressed beliefs.

  Despite the indications of their unconscious doubts about the case, they made ludicrous statements supporting it, and that remains puzzling. The victims‘ actions suggest that they were almost playing along with the hoax. They seemed to unconsciously subscribe to the agenda and carry out their roles, sometimes with great vigor. Part of the explanation can perhaps be found in considering social roles and group behavior. Roles (social positions) induce behavior that is not consciously, rationally planned but rather just accepted as „normal.“ A person‘s role in society exerts an overwhelming influence on one‘s actions and beliefs. When one is immersed in one‘s own culture, the influence, though pervasive, is difficult to perceive. It is more easily observed other cultures.

  Hopkins‘ partisans have dedicated their lives to UFO research; they identify with the field, and others identify the field with them. These people are inseparable from those roles. Hopkins attained a prominent position in ufology through many years of effort. He had received awards for his work, made numerous presentations to the media, and his presence at conferences was sure to draw many who might not otherwise attend. Ufology is a tiny field with a tenuous existence, and an attack on Hopkins has greater repercussions than one on a comparable person in a larger field. The field‘s welfare is partly linked to that of Hopkins‘. His comrades too are closely identified with ufology and with the extraterrestrial hypothesis; an attack on either is, in some sense, an attack on them personally.

  The leaders firmly believed in the value of ufology, despite its shabby treatment by establishment science. They understood the need for supporting what little institutionalization there was in the field, in order to build a base for further research and progress. If there was continuous infighting about all pieces of evidence, no foundation could be built for scientific advancement. Some compromises have to be made, some agreement reached.

  Hopkins‘ associates tried to uphold ufology‘s reputation and defend its institutions. In contrast, Stefula and I, and to a lesser extent Butler, were seen as outsiders and troublemakers trying to besmirch its status. That perception was not altogether wrong. Butler and Stefula were sympathetic to the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH), but I was not. (The ETH is essentially misnamed, and the „hypothesis“ in actuality is more of a foundational premise. U.S. ufologists rarely test the ETH; rather they assume it and derive ideas accordingly.) I thought it worthwhile to lower the status of the ETH. My role was that of an outsider, and I had no commitment to the field as it was formally organized in the U.S. Our side had no institutional affiliation to defend. Our opponents understandably viewed us as people who could not be trusted.

  I am not saying they consciously weighed and evaluated their social roles when they supported Hopkins. The victims were unable to step outside their roles as defenders of ufology and examine matters in a more detached manner. This was probably exacerbated by the field‘s marginality. Marginal groups usually need members to strongly identify with them in order that the groups remain viable. Less identification is required for a more established discipline. With marginality, paranoia can emerge, which may serve to draw the group together and unite it, but it can also undercut rational reality testing. For Hopkins‘ supporters, short-term preservation of harmony took precedence over critical analysis.

  The idea of social roles applies to all normal areas, and there are countless examples of them leading to irrational actions. Also, paranoia and grandiosity afflict the normal world. Nevertheless, in ufology the problems of hoaxes and paranoia are extreme, and some additional explanation is needed.

  Ufology differs from normal science in the subject matter. It lies in the realm of the liminal, the paranormal, and the supernatural. It is an enchanted area where the rules of the rational world do not apply. Those with only a casual acquaintance with UFO phenomena may not realize that descri
ptions of extraterrestrial aliens are virtually identical to those of fairies, demons, and other mythical figures. Jacques Vallee amply documented this in his book Passport to Magonia (1969). However, many leading U.S. ufologists still abhor such ideas. They see them as discrediting their field. Instead they have conceptualized the phenomena as ET “flesh and blood” humanoids traveling in “nuts and bolts” flying saucers, thereby rationalizing them, keeping them in the normal world and apart from the supernatural. Those ufologists are correct in seeing that associations with the supernatural taint their field and make it unattractive to establishment scientists. However, by suppressing the paranormal aspects, and removing them from ufology’s purview, they misunderstand the nature of the phenomena and become vulnerable to them. Ufologists’ perennial victimization by hoaxers is but one example.

  Roles and Fantasy

  Two factors, identified above, help explicate the connection between UFOs and hoaxes. The first is the matter of social roles; the second is the mythical and magical character of UFO phenomena. The same factors are seen in childhood pretending and in fantasy role-playing games.

  Children often pretend to be someone else: a mother or father, policeman, fireman, shopkeeper, etc., and this is a natural part of human development. We learn who we are and how to behave by mimicking roles of others; we search for role models. Even as adults we take roles, e.g., parent, employee, sports enthusiast, homeowner, etc. These roles produce different thoughts and behaviors by us, and they significantly shape our lives.

  Children experiment with more exotic roles; they play make-believe monsters and sometimes become truly frightened. As adults we don’t completely outgrow our fascination with that. We attend horror movies, watch tales of the supernatural on television, and read horror fiction.