BRIEF SUMMARY OF HOPKINS' ERRORS REGARDING THE CRITIQUE BY STEFULA, BUTLER, AND HANSEN Geo

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

BRIEF SUMMARY OF HOPKINS' ERRORS REGARDING THE CRITIQUE BY STEFULA, BUTLER, AND HANSEN George P. Hansen 30 June 1993 In the March/April issue of _International UFO Reporter_, the official magazine of the Hynek Center, Budd Hopkins makes a number of statements about the paper "A Critique of Budd Hopkins' Case of the UFO Abduction of Linda Napolitano." Hopkins asserts the following; 1. That we said that Linda "Cortile" is a former actress. Our paper makes no such assertion. 2. That we said that Hopkins believes that "Richard" and "Dan" work for the Secret Service. Our paper makes no such claim. 3. That we said that "Richard" and "Dan" were accompanied by official British and Yemeni automobiles. Our paper makes no such claim. 4. That we said that "Richard" and "Dan" reported feeling a strong vibration at the time of the sighting. Our paper makes no such claim. 5. That we said that both "Richard" and "Dan" suffered nervous breakdowns. Our paper makes no such claim. 6. That we said that Linda remembers being taken underwater the night of the abduction and described seeing debris under the East River. Our paper makes no such claim. 7. That we said "Dan" sent Hopkins a card informing Hopkins that he was in a mental institution. Our paper makes no such claim. 8. That we said that Hopkins has a financial arrangement about a book on Linda's case. As we reported on page 8, Linda told us about a financial agreement. On October 3, 1992, she admitted to having lied about that (as we noted on page 12 of our paper). 9. That we said Linda's son was abducted two months before November 30, 1992. Our report contains no mention of any abduction of Linda's son. 10. That we said that the wristwatch of "Janet Kimble" (Hopkins also spells it "Kimball") malfunctioned. Our paper makes no such claim. 11. That we said Linda's husband was not at home the night of the abduction. Our paper makes no such claim. However, during our meeting with Linda on February 1, 1992, she did tell Stefula and Butler that her husband was not at home during the abduction. 12. That we claimed that Linda's apartment windows are not visible from the Brooklyn Bridge. (Hopkins repeats this on page 12 of his article.) We made no such claim. 13. On page 11, Hopkins claims that Stefula had been an enlisted man and a military policeman. Stefula served as a Cheif Warrant Officer from 1982-1988. He never served as a military policeman. 14. On page 11, Hopkins reports that Stefula did not have a higher education. In fact Stefula holds a masters degree and he is the most highly educated of the three of us. 15. On page 12 Hopkins claims that Hansen had not read the book _Nighteyes_. This is false; Hansen did read it. Hopkins reports that he relied on Larry Warren for his information. This is yet another example of Hopkins failing to check the reliability of informants. 16. On page 13, Hopkins claims that Hansen posted Linda's telephone number on an electronic bulletin board. This is false. Hopkins' first 12 assertions can be found on page 9 of his IUR article. The above identifies 14 factual errors by Hopkins. For the remaining two items, we reported the testimony of Linda. Other than the apparent lies by Ms. Napolitano, Hopkins has identified no factual errors in our report.

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank