While thumbing through John E. Mack's Abduction, which concerns alleged alien abductions, I remembered reading a detailed and persuasive analysis of one such case in George P. Hansen's excellent book The Trickster and the Paranormal. His treatment of what he calls "the Linda Napolitano hoax" sheds considerable light 0n the abduction movement. After we look at it, I'll add some personal thoughts on how this topic may relate to the ongoing micro-controversy about David Thompson's sittings with Victor Zammit.
Hansen begins with an overview of the case. (All quotes are taken from pp. 249-267 of The Trickster and the Paranormal; citations omitted).
The purported UFO abduction of Linda Napolitano is truly exotic, even for a UFO abduction. Government agents were involved; the UN Secretary General was a key witness; Linda was kidnapped in the interest of national security; the CIA tried to discredit the case, and the ETs helped end the cold war. Or so the story goes....
The chief investigator of the case, Budd Hopkins, is the most active spokesperson advocating the physical reality of UFO abductions.... His most illustrious supporter and colleague is John E. Mack, M.D., former head of the psychiatry department at Harvard Medical School and a Pulitzer Prize winner.
From the time he first went public with the Napolitano case, Hopkins made it clear that he considered it to be the most important evidence for the physical reality of UFO abductions.... The case's significance is strengthened by the support he received from leaders of the two largest UFO organizations in the US.
Hansen then tells the story of the alleged abduction of Linda Napolitano (a.k.a. Linda Cortile) at 3:16 AM on November 30, 1989, when "a large, brightly lit spaceship was witnessed hovering over her apartment building in lower Manhattan, and Linda and three small beings were seen float floating up into it." Supposedly, the secretary general of the United Nations and his two bodyguards, Richard and Dan, also witnessed the event when their motorcade stalled nearby. These three witnesses were themselves abducted, and, like Linda, were later returned unharmed.
What followed was a strange thriller-movie sequence of alleged events in which Richard and Dan sent various communiqués to Budd Hopkins and to Linda, though they refused to speak with Hopkins directly. In April of 1991 they supposedly kidnapped Linda, questioned her, and let her go. A few months later Dan kidnapped her again, this time with homicidal intent; Richard pulled off a rescue in the nick of time.
Linda claimed to have had an x-ray taken of her head which showed a small object embedded in her nose, but apparently Hopkins never saw the x-ray, and, as Hansen dryly notes, "The aliens apparently abducted Linda and removed the object because a later examination found no trace of it."
The story ventured even further into movie-fantasy territory when Linda began to have an affair with Richard and "the two came to realize that they had been abducted together many times since their early childhood. As they grew up, the aliens arranged sexual liaisons, and Richard believed that he had fathered Johnny, one of Linda's children."
That, in essence, is the story. Hansen, well-known as a writer on the paranormal with extensive knowledge of the field, became involved in an investigation. He notes,
A number of elements raised suspicions. The story was outlandish on the face of it. No credible, multipli-witnessed abduction had ever been documented. The purported involvement of the UN Secretary General made the claims even more unlikely. Anyone familiar with ufology knew the field to be rife with fraud and hoaxes, and the implausible aspects alone should have been cause for great concern. An added twist came when our colleague Vincent Creevy told us about the science fiction novel Nighteyes by Garfield Reeves-Stevens. This was first published in April 1989, and it contains many striking parallels with Linda's story (including alien-arranged sexual liaisons between a government agent and the female protagonist), suggesting that the hoaxers had based some of their ideas on it....
Small details of the case also provoked questions. Why had Richard and Dan written to Hopkins before they contacted Linda? They knew the location of her apartment but would have had no reason to think Hopkins was involved. A most amusing detail was that Linda had not reported the kidnappings or the attempted murder to law enforcement authorities, even though she made the allegations publicly in front of media representatives and hundreds of other people at the 1992 MUFON [Mutual UFO Network] convention.... Her failure to make the allegations official made the case extremely dubious....
We toured Linda's neighborhood in order to become more familiar with the location of the events. Her apartment complex had a guardhouse that was manned 24 hours a day, and video cameras were positioned at various locations around the complex. We discovered that the New York Post had a loading dock two blocks away that was open until 5:00 a.m. We talked with the guards and people at the loading dock and others in the vicinity, but no one knew anything about the UFO event....
The meeting [with Hopkins and some of his associates] revealed much about Hopkins' methods and the mentality of ufology's leaders. We asked Hopkins if he had checked with the apartment complex guards or with the New York Post loading dock personnel to see if they remembered seeing a UFO. He hadn't. We learned that Hopkins didn't even know the weather conditions the night of the abduction. He had done nothing to verify the most rudimentary facts. During questioning, Linda admitted that she had lied about several aspects of the case, and Penelope Franklin, one of Hopkins' closest collaborators, staunchly supported her in doing so.
[Coinvestigator Jospeh] Stefula brought along a colleague who had years of experience in dignitary protective services. He made an independent, detailed presentation on motorcades carrying important political figures. He explained that in such operations checkpoints are established, and if they are not passed on time, several authorities are notified. If even one car stalls, a whole network of people is informed. At the end of his presentation he suggested that Hopkins ask Richard and Dan the meaning of several specialist terms. If they were whom they claimed, they would know the definitions. Hopkins apparently never asked them the meaning of the words.
At the meeting we played our trump card. We suggested that Linda report the kidnapping and attempted murder to the police, and we stated that if she didn't, we were prepared to file a request for a federal investigation.... At that, Hopkins [and the others] all appeared to panic. They said that a worldwide government conspiracy may be attempting to suppress knowledge of earth's visitation by ETs. If the crimes were reported, we might never learn the truth about the Napolitano affair.... This reasoning was silly, but revealing. Even if there was such an effective, orchestrated conspiracy, Hopkins had already widely publicized the case, including the alleged crimes, and any report from us would amount to nothing.... There was nothing to lose....
To force the issue, and up the stakes, I wrote to the office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Treasury and Stefula called the Secret Service requesting an investigation of Linda's allegations.
The Secret Service did interview both Hopkins and Linda but apparently did not pursue the matter any further. This is hardly surprising, but what's interesting is Hopkins' reaction, and the reactions of his fellow UFO enthusiasts.
Hopkins was furious, and I received a letter from the Hyneck Center [a UFO research organization] rebuking me ... I gather that their private mythology had just collided with real-world considerations, and that was none too pleasant for them.
After Hansen and his colleagues published their highly critical report of the Napolitano affair,
Hopkins and his supporters wasted little time in replying. The March/April 1993 issue of the Hyneck Center's magazine International UFO Reporter was almost entirely devoted to personal attacks on us. Hopkins made a number of false statements about us, and though we informed him and the magazine of them, no apology or correction ever appeared. Nevertheless I found his vehement denunciation, including profanity, quite hilarious.
One of Hopkins' diatribes concluded, "the soul of George Hansen is, essentially, the soul of a hater."
Hansen observes,
After our exposé, Hopkins seemed even more firmly committed to the case.... For several years, the Linda case captured the imagination of ufologists and garnered endorsements from many of them. By the time Hopkins' book [Witnessed: The True Story of the Brooklyn Bridge UFO Abductions] appeared in 1996, their interest and support had faded.... Some reviewers even appeared slightly embarrassed, and a number of ufologists seemed to want to forget the affair....
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.... 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 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....
Hansen then addresses the question of how seemingly sophisticated investigators like Hopkins could get "hoodwinked." He observes that the UFO researchers already held beliefs that were only confirmed and reinforced by Linda's story. Moreover,
grandiosity frequently accompanies conspiratorial thinking and paranoid 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 accordance 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 a hoax. They seemed to unconsciously subscribe to the agenda and carry out their roles, sometimes with great vigor....
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.... The leaders firmly believed in the value of ufology, despite its shabby treatment by establishment science.... Hopkins' associates tried to uphold ufology's reputation and defend its institutions. In contrast, Stefula and I ... were seen as outsiders and troublemakers trying to besmirch its status. That perception was not altogether wrong.... 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.... With marginality, paranoia can emerge, which may serve to draw the group together and unite it, but it can also undercut rational reality testing ...
Hansen goes on to make some comparisons between fantasy role-playing games and ufology. He acknowledges that there are important differences between the two areas, but observes that in both cases there are "liminal features" -- a "blurring of fantasy and reality," participation in a "drama," the use of "creative imagination," and the tapping of "archetypal images." In comparison with role-playing games,
Ufology is more unstructured; there are fewer rules about what is and is not possible, and the powers of the otherworld figures are almost unbounded. The UFO phenomena can happen without warning, at any time or any place. The ETs can be anywhere, and some ufologists believe that ETs tag certain people and track them for their entire lives. There is no escape. Paranoia is rampant, with a fear of the ETs or the government, or of ETs and government working together...
Both ufology and [Dungeons & Dragons] allow direct, immediate involvement with powerful otherworld beings and mythological motifs. Both endeavors have been known to engross the participants. Most "players" are able to successfully detach themselves from involvement, but occasionally the "game" becomes obsessive and interferes with real-world pursuits. The problems are far more severe with UFO phenomena than with [fantasy role-playing games]....
The Napolitano case is essentially an unbounded version of Dungeons & Dragons. The victims interpreted the hoaxers' handiwork as due to beings with virtually unlimited magical powers. They believed that ETs could pass through walls, make themselves invisible, and even control world events. The magical beings included not only the ET aliens, but also the pantheon of agents of an unreachable, evil government conspiracy determined to prevent humankind's knowledge of the ETs. Thus the interactions of Hopkins, et al., with the hoaxers conform with those between humans and gods. Humans question and provoke the gods only at the greatest peril. The proper approach is to appease, mollify and supplicate them. It should be no surprise that the simplest reality tests of the Napolitano story were not made. Hopkins' failure to search for witnesses actually makes sense in this context....
Observers might now see Hopkins and his supporters as deserving only scorn and derision. That would not be completely fair. Hopkins should be given credit for daring to study matters shunned by orthodox science. His efforts, writings, and life provide abundant material for analysis. Further, Hopkins has a true interest in aiding UFO abductees, and he has spent enormous time and effort in that. Unlike professional therapists who profit from the afflictions of others, Hopkins assists abductees without charge. He is exceptionally dedicated, and his good intentions probably made him more vulnerable than he otherwise would have been.
Almost all leaders of U.S. ufology remain oblivious to the phenomenon's nature. But this has nothing to do with their IQ, education, or professional achievements in other areas. Actually, high accomplishment in established fields may make them more vulnerable, as they may assume that the rational methods effective in those areas will yield results on the UFO problem. When they pursue the UFO topic, they enter an unbounded, liminal domain, unaware of the dangers.
I don't want to confine this discussion only to UFOs, a subject I know (and care) little about. I think many of the same points are applicable to issues that more frequently crop up on this blog. One of those issues is Victor Zammit's ongoing investigation of the medium David Thompson.
To be clear, the points made in this part of the essay are solely my own, not George Hansen's; I have not discussed the matter with him and am speaking only for myself. It does seem to me, however, that several strange features of the Zammit-Thompson matter can be illuminated by the above analysis.
Note that in both the Linda Napolitano case and the David Thompson case, certain obvious avenues of investigation were not followed. No eyewitness reports of Linda's abduction were sought, just as no escape-proof methods of restraining Mr. Thompson have been tried.
When outside critics suggested contacting the police in the Napolitano case, the insiders were horrified and panicky, probably because bringing the police into the affair would threaten their elaborate, shared fantasy. Similarly, when an outside critic (namely, me) suggested bringing in an escape artist to properly secure Mr. Thompson, Mr. Zammit responded with vitriol and denunciations.
The ufologists in the Napolitano case no doubt hoped that it would prove the existence of ETs to a skeptical world, vindicating their lifelong efforts. Mr. Zammit has said repeatedly that his work with Mr. Thompson constitutes the most important evidence ever produced for life after death, that it will have "world shattering" repercussions, and that it will convince "hundreds of millions" of people, having effects comparable to the Copernican Revolution.
Budd Hopkins and others responded to critics of the Napolitano case with personal attacks, psychologizing ("the soul of a hater"), and childishly vehement language, a pattern unfortunately repeated by Victor Zammit in his responses to me, Marcel Cairo, and others.
Other ufologists rushed to Hopkins' defense because it was seen as important to create a common front against skeptical outsiders, just as some afterlife partisans seem to have defended Mr. Zammit because they regard him as an important, high-profile figure that the movement cannot afford to lose.
Hopkins and his colleagues viewed the ETs and the government agents as almost magical beings of unlimited power, who had to be handled with extreme care. Similarly, Mr. Zammit and his Circle of the Silver Cord seem to view the spirits who work through Mr. Thompson as immensely powerful and somewhat unpredictable beings whose every demand must be honored, lest the phenomena be discontinued. When the "spirits" told the circle to remove a large number of audio files from the circle's Web site, the circle immediately complied. Infrared photography is not used in the seances because the "spirits" will not allow it. Audio recordings of the seances indicate that the sitters are extremely reluctant to press the "spirits" for detailed answers or to pursue unsatisfactory answers that the "spirits" provide. To paraphrase Hansen:
Thus the interactions of Zammit, et al., with the spirits conform with those between humans and gods. Humans question and provoke the gods only at the greatest peril. The proper approach is to appease, mollify and supplicate them. It should be no surprise that the simplest reality tests of David Thompson's mediumship were not made. The circle's failure to ask hard questions, use infrared, or hire an escape artist actually makes sense in this context....
I should add that George Hansen's paragraph in praise of Budd Hopkins can apply just as well, in my opinion, to Victor Zammit: He should be given credit for studying these matters; he has a true interest in supplying evidence for the afterlife; he has made no money for his efforts, and indeed has spent a large sum; he is "exceptionally dedicated, and his good intentions may have made him more vulnerable than he otherwise would have been."
Of course, role-playing and self-delusion (or shared collective delusions) are by no means limited to the paranormal community. Similar psychological dynamics can be found in skeptical organizations. We might even ask whether all of our activities constitute role-playing (and even delusion) to some extent.
But that's a topic for another day.
---
Hansen et al's critique of the Napolitano case is here.
Another investigator weighs in here.
A supporter of Linda's claims writes about the case here.
George P. Hansens maintains a blog here.
Hi, Michael very interesting, I cam across today two article first one it was about astronomers that they found a great nothingness in the universe the void.
The second one is another article on out of body experiences http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6960612.stm
I wonder what your opinion is all these Michael my opinion is that the space they found is not empty but filled up with matter and the second article they ignore the teh accurate out of body experiences and ones also in the blind.
Posted by: Leo | August 24, 2007 at 11:11 PM
One of the claims of close encouner and abduction investigators is that certain characteristics of reports such as sounds of ufo's and aspects of abudctions which are not made public are consistent among reports. This would make hoaxing by eye whitnesses unlikely but doesn't rule out hoaxing by authors.
This is, in my opinion, the weakest link many areas. When you have many people from all walks of life with nothing to gain and much to lose from publicity, it is hard to accept that they are making things up.
http://www.ufoabduction.com/faq1.htm#q4
"The abduction phenomenon appears to cut across all class, educational, geographic, intellectual, economic, racial, ethnic, and political lines."
On the other hand, the average person has to take the word of the authors of books on the subject.
Regarding the comment which brings up the news report of induced obe's - It seems like the hype is based on comparing apples and oranges - using the term obe to describe two different things. Just because you can create an illusion in the mind doesn't prove all perceptions of that situation are illusions. Using video cameras and vitrual reality goggles I can make someone feel like they are in Paris while they are really in London, that doesn't mean they can't go to Paris and see the same things. The ingenuine reports are just like saying Paris is an illusion because virtual reality can reproduce a trip to Paris in the lab.
Furthermore, the illusion explanation fails to account for reports that experiencers obtain information only available from a different location. This is a common flaw in many skeptical arguments: they ignore the full spectrum of reports on the phenomena.
Posted by: nf283gwvi82gb | August 25, 2007 at 02:23 AM
I think the will-to-disbelieve can be as great as the will-to-believe. Moreover, I think there is a polarization effect with all this. In his reports on his 11 sittings with Eusapia Palladino, Everard Fielding, who headed up a three-man team, including Hereward Carrington,for the Society for Psychical Research, writes:
"The first two seances had in fact left no eduring mark upon us. They had astonished us, puzzled us, vexed us. They had shown us that the problem presented by Eusapia's phenomena was not the simple matter which, before we witnessed them, we had, in the invincible conceit of every new critic of such things, supposed it. Conviction is, after all, an emotional and not an intellectual process; and the impression left by the first two seances was purely intellectual. The ordinary effect of the sudden confrontation of a fairly balanced mind with a merely bizarre fact, the stronger the reaction.....And so it was with ourselves. Tables, we know, or thought we knew, do not go into the air by themselves; curtains do not bulge out without some mechanical agency; and although we saw them do so, we still refused to believe that they did. We preferred to believe that we had been deceived in some way way unknown, that he had been hallucinated, or had wrongly observed. We doubted our senses rather than our experience; were guided, in fact, by our emotions rather than our observations. Hence, at this seance, we hailed with a kind of relief the fact that Eusapia had been caught substituting one hand for the other, and we regarded all the incidents that followed through the atmosphere of suspicion which this discovery had fortified. The result was that not only did we colour up certain possible quite innocent actions into almost clear evidence of fraud, but certain other interesting and indeed inexplicable phenomena....
Carrington agreed. "...I wish to say that I am now disposed to retract and repent my earlier critical, indeed hostile attitude; and think that we should all have obtained better and more conclusive phenomena had we been less severe with the medium, and known better how to conduct her seances. When one is convinced of the reality of the phenomena, the fascinating study of their causes, nature, and conditions becomes possible. That is the point from which I should now study the facts, were I again to observe them."
It seems to me that Victor Zammit is now doing what Carrington was advocating. He has moved beyond being a sit-on-the-fence scientific observer to being a propagandist (and I use that word in its true sense, i.e., one who promotes something with zeal). Lodge, Hyslop, Doyle, and other esteemed researchers were labeled propagandists after they had the courage to leave the comfortable perch on the fence. Meanwhile, those who don't have first-hand experience or observation, are where Fielding and Carrington were early in the game with Eusapia. It remains beyond their boggle threshold and so they continue to doubt. And that might not be such a bad thing.
It appears that there is some kind of Divine Plan that does not permit us to have absolute truth, if there is such a thing, in these matters. So let Victor Zammit take the positive pole and counter the negative charges of James Randi in this polarized matter. Certainly, the sit-on-the-fence researchers aren't doing it. It's getting late here in Hawaii and I'm not even sure what I just wrote, but I'll post it anyway.
Posted by: Michael E. Tymn | August 25, 2007 at 03:09 AM
I think Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was using my fingers on that last post.
Posted by: Michael E. Tymn | August 25, 2007 at 03:22 AM
>I wonder what your opinion is all these Michael my opinion is that the space they found is not empty but filled up with matter and the second article they ignore the teh accurate out of body experiences and ones also in the blind.
Regarding the OBE thing, I agree with the comments left by nf283gwvi82gb.
I don't have an opinion on the "empty space" discovery. I'll leave that one to the experts.
>It seems to me that Victor Zammit is now doing what Carrington was advocating.
The difference is that Carrington's investigation of Palladino was carried out in a highly professional manner, and all reasonable precautions against fraud were taken. This has not been true of Victor Zammit's investigation of David Thompson. In fact, many obvious precautions have not been taken, and when they have been suggested, the suggestions have been ignored or, sometimes, angrily repudiated. I was reminded of this when I read about Budd Hopkins' refusal to properly investigate the Napolitano case, and his hostility and "panic" when pressed on the point. I suspect that the psychological dynamics in both situations are quite similar - though I could, of course, be wrong.
>So let Victor Zammit take the positive pole and counter the negative charges of James Randi in this polarized matter.
This is where I disagree with Michael Tymn. I don't think we can balance one brand of extremism with another brand of extremism. That gets us nowhere. I do agree that "fence-sitting" gets tiresome, but it's possible to make a positive case for the afterlife without coming across as a fanatic or a zealot. Here's one blog that does this very well.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | August 25, 2007 at 11:44 AM
"This is where I disagree with Michael Tymn. I don't think we can balance one brand of extremism with another brand of extremism. That gets us nowhere. I do agree that "fence-sitting" gets tiresome, but it's possible to make a positive case for the afterlife without coming across as a fanatic or a zealot. Here's one blog that does this very well."
Good point. I don't understand why anybody has the need to proselytize other people or even attempt to convince them of anything. If the evidence is compelling for you, then what does it matter what other people think? I think it reveals deep insecurities when people exhibit such missionary zeal. It seems that deep down they feel that their opinions and beliefs are due to self delusion unless they are accepted by the status quo.
Posted by: Alex | August 25, 2007 at 12:41 PM
A good example of people with deep insecurities:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/
Posted by: Alex | August 25, 2007 at 12:47 PM
<<<>>
To a much lesser degree, I am also a propagandist. Almost daily, I ask myself why. Is it some insecurity within myself? Maybe I am deluding myself, but I don't think I am. If it is self-delusion, it is not a selfish one, although it can be argued that everything we do, even loving and serving others, is selfish.
It bothers me when I encounter people who are convinced that they are "marching toward nothingness." I know a number of such people -- most my age (70) or older -- and for the most part they are not happy campers. They escape as much as possible into mundane things or numb their senses with alcohol or drugs, or they spend the day escaping into television programs. Beyond who wins tomorrow's football game, life is meaningless for them. In spite of polls that say 70-80 percent of Americans believe in "heaven," whatever they think that is, I don't think that there is really such a "belief." My parents were good Catholics, but they still feared death and went out struggling and resisting it. They figured they were going to "burn in purgatory" for a few centuries before they got to "heaven." So they were not much better off than the non-believers. If whatever I can put out at my blog or elsewhere will get people thinking that there is something positive on the other side of death, I'd like to believe that it will help a few people and that I'm not self-deluding myself. I suspect Victor's intentions are much the same.
Posted by: Michael Tymn | August 25, 2007 at 02:24 PM
Michael Tymn,
There is nothing wrong with putting information out in the public sphere. I just object to zealous missionaries like Dawkins, Hitchens, Pat Robertson, Victor Zammit, etc. I've been to Zammit's site and I can't take the guy seriously. While he does have some credible sources, his book reads like a tabloid. I hate being manipulated in such a manner. When I'm reading about research, I want a sober account of the facts. I don't want to hear sensational language like, "GUARANTEED: A WORLD SHATTERING TELEVISION EXPERIENCE!"
Posted by: Alex | August 25, 2007 at 02:44 PM
Someone forgot to turn off the italics. I just did it for you!
Great post, Michael.
Posted by: Matthew C. | August 25, 2007 at 03:03 PM
Agree Alex but who knows maybe the seances with David Thompson are genuine now if they aren't it won't be a surprise because it is being done in the dark however if it is genuine then the implications are indeed huge.
i personally can't make a judgement on Victor Zammit because i was not there at the seances but I can make a critical judgement on Richard Dawkins because he has been all over the media to me he is a closed-minded proganist, hypocrite, liar, cast the wool over peoples eyes.
Posted by: Leo MacDonald | August 25, 2007 at 06:36 PM
So I agree with you on Richard Dawkins
Posted by: Leo MacDonald | August 25, 2007 at 06:38 PM
A well argued parallel between the Napolitano Case and Zammit/Thompson. Both could be seen as very unfortunate by those who are interested in gaining an insight into whatever is the nature of these seemingly separate phenomena. Michael rightly points out that, in both cases, people with a sincere interest in investigating life-after-death and abduction have been moved to support these specific cases as much out of a desire to defend an entire area of inquiry as any merit to the cases themselves. The emotional responses of Hopkins and Zammit are certainly as understandably human as could be expected in such circumstances, and the two situations taken as a whole haven't dissuaded me in thinking that there is genuine mystery and potential for learning in these (possibly related) phenomena. Both of these phenomena can be traced back in history for millenia (see Vallee & Plato, for openers), both have a compendium of various forms of evidence, and both, it can be argued, relate directly to the mysterious nature of consciousness. It seems that, no matter what the topic, we seem always to return to the crux of the matter, the mind in existence. I guess this would also include Janeane Garafalo (sorry, Michael).
Posted by: Kevin | August 25, 2007 at 09:13 PM
The old time researchers seem to often have assumed that they were reporting things in a manner that the reader could understand. However, after having read numerous reports on Eusapia Palladino, I still do not have a clear picture on what "tricks" Eusapia pulled off when she supposedly cheated. They talk about her freeing her hands or a foot here and there, but they don't explain how a free hand or foot can accomplish the phenomena they are otherwise talking about. They don't explain what she did with the free hand or foot. It often seems that just because she freed her hand or foot -- possibly just for comfort reasons -- that they suspected fraud. Not one of the reports I have read really explains it well. I think many things are obvious to the researchers that are not made clear to the readers of the report.
This may be the problem in Victor's reports. They are very obvious to him, but the reader of his reports doesn't grasp them.
Moreover, there are various degrees of darkness. In Eusapia's case, the the best phenomena usually took place in darkness but it was light enough most of the time for the researchers to see each other and to see Eusapia. I get the impression from Victor's reports that it is not "pitch" dark with Thompson and they are able to observe much, but I may have misread the reports wrong in this respect.
Posted by: Michael Tymn | August 25, 2007 at 10:40 PM
>they don't explain how a free hand or foot can accomplish the phenomena they are otherwise talking about.
A skeptical article called "Eusapia Palladino's Sapient Foot" by Polidoro and Rinaldi claims that she could have manipulated various objects with her foot. The beginning of the article is here. The rest of it, which was transcribed by Vitor Moura, can be read in the comments section of this post.
I do not find the sapient foot thesis persuasive, for reasons I discuss in the comments thread linked above, but this is presumably the kind of thing the researchers were worried about.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | August 26, 2007 at 12:01 AM
"It should be no surprise that the simplest reality tests of the Napolitano story were not made. Hopkins' failure to search for witnesses actually makes sense in this context...."
Actually, he did look for other witnesses and supposedly, more were found. Guy needs to get his facts straight. The supporter link MP listed notes those alleged witnesses. Or, you can read Hopkins' book.
Posted by: JoeMB | August 26, 2007 at 02:06 AM
>Actually, he did look for other witnesses and supposedly, more were found. Guy needs to get his facts straight. The supporter link MP listed notes those alleged witnesses.
Hopkins didn't search for the witnesses cited on the linked page. They came forward of their own volition. Two of them are "Richard" and "Dan," whom Hopkins never met and who probably never even existed except as characters in Linda's story. Another is Janet Kimble, who is discussed in Hansen's book (I couldn't quote everything). A fourth is Javier Perez de Cuellar, UN secretary general, who publicly denied any UFO sighting or abduction. (We are asked to take Hopkins' word that de Cuellar privately said the opposite.) Then there are a couple of unnamed witnesses.
I believe this case has been thoroughly debunked.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | August 26, 2007 at 09:02 AM
About Eusapia:
THE Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research for August, 1910, contains a detailed and instructive report by Mr. W. S. Davis of two sittings with Eusapia, held on April 17th and 24th, 1910, at the house of Professor Lord, of Columbia University. Professor Jastrow's brief account of these sittings was quoted in our Journal for July (pp. 335-342), and we would recommend those of our readers who are interested in the details of the case to study Mr. Davis's article.
Another of the sitters concerned in the exposure, Mr. James L. Kellogg, writes to us to supplement Mr. Davis's report as follows :
NEW YORK, July 15th, 1910.
He discusses the question from the viewpoint of conscious imposture, whereas a number of students consider Eusapia a hysteric and an irresponsible person. We all consider her a conscious trickster, for the following reasons: When she entered Professor Lord's house from the street, she greeted us cordially, shook hands with us, talked with us in a most sensible and businesslike way, thiough an interpreter, Mr. Livingston, and was in a perfectly normal condition. I called her attention to a table we had which was of approximately the same dimensions as her own, but which had a top of one inch boards instead of one-half inch, as had the table she brought with her in the automobile. She took my hand and led me to her table, rapped it on the top and it resounded something like a drum. She then led me back to the table we had offered and rapped on this, showing that it had a much deader sound. This, and all the other things which she did, indicated that she was exceedingly conscious and knew exactly what she was doing. While in full possession of her mental faculties she took her seat at the séance table, and when we also were seated she deliberately proceeded to secure certain reprehensible advantages which were to facilitate all the trickery which was to follow. She laid her plans to deceive us within a very few minutes after she entered the house and before there were any pretensions of hysteria or trance. "Jockeying" for the foot substitution was one of the first things Eusapia did, and she certainly knew what she was doing it for. The "phenomena" which occurred later, when she was in the so-called hysterical condition, were all. dependent upon traps which she set shortly after she entered the house. Her preliminary manoeuvring while in her normal condition not only required skill, but she. was cautious in making up her mind whether it would be safe to proceed with the "phenomena," as was shown by the way she questioned us in order to discover whether we were likely to seriously interfere with her methods.
The production of " phenomena " ran on smoothly on the two occasions mentioned for over an hour without any indication of an abnormal condition, and not until after the lights were lowered did she feign hysteria.
Her table is built exclusively for trick purposes. The weight, length, breadth, depth, etc., must be in accordance with her specifications, and the whole thing is devised for the very tricks which she performs. In fact, it would be rather ruinous to her performance to use a table of any other make, and this table is demanded by Eusapia when she is engaged and when she knows what she is doing and when she is full of business shrewdness. Likewise the curtains are demanded at the same time, and she certainly knows what she proposes to do with them.
Again, trance and hysteria usually constitute a part of the stock in trade of all physical mediums, and I see no reason why we should assume genuineness in the case of Eusapia and only pretence in others.
I purposely managed to feel Eusapia's wrist several times throughout the evening, and often could distinctly feel the pulse beat. I could not detect the slightest acceleration or nervousness on her part, and I doubt if there was a person in the room who had cooler nerves or was more self-possessed than the performer who was entertaining us.
Another point is this : Those here who accept Eusapia, insist that we should not have permitted her to perpetrate fraud, for we could have obtained genuine phenomena had \ve demanded them. The fact that we had another séance a week later, when we did not allow her to perpetrate fraud, makes no impression upon their minds. Moreover, Prof. Miller states that at séances previously attended by him he noticed that the volume of phenomena appeared to depend upon the amount of liberty which Eusapia was able to secure, and that when she was held in check, manifestations proportionately lessened. {1}
{1} CL the Naples Beport, Proceedings, Vol. XXIII., pp. 323 and 327, where the investigators explicitly state that this did not occur in their experience.--ED.
I also want to make it clear that we did not deliberately invite fraud at the séance of April 17. We simply obeyed Eusapia and accepted the conditions imposed upon us. It should also be noted that at the second séance we were exceedingly gentle with the medium, and made it a special point not to give her any excuse for claiming that we were severe. All of the ladies and gentlemen in our party will testify that we merely replaced Eusapia's hand and foot whenever she undertook to secretly slip either away.
Our séances were preceded by eight others, which were attended by Prof. Miller, and no evidence of anything supernormal was obtained, though a very great amount of evidence of imposture was secured. In addition to these evidences of actual fraud, it was also clearly shown that as to her " hysteria," she had a perfect knowledge of all that transpired while under its influence, and she seldom loses an opportunity to make every point count in her favor. . . . She also makes careful preparation, as outlined above, for her trickery when she is in her normal mental condition, even though the phenomena may not be presented until her professed hysteria.
In view of all the facts, I think that Prof. Jastrow's rather severe article on Palladino in the American Review of Reviews for July, 1910, was entirely logical, and hence justifiable. . .
Posted by: Vitor Moura | August 26, 2007 at 11:28 AM
Michael Prescott: Just letting you know I started my own Blog Spot on Paranormal Research...
http://eteponge.blogspot.com/
My most recent blog topic deals indepth with the "Scientists Claim To Recreate OBEs" news story that has been inaccurately reported lately.
Posted by: Eteponge | August 26, 2007 at 05:23 PM
It appears that there is some kind of Divine Plan that does not permit us to have absolute truth, if there is such a thing, in these matters. - Michael Tymm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We may never be allowed to know absolutely 100% for certain that there is life after death because the death of someone we love is the ultimate lesson in separation, which I believe has everything to do with with "why we are here." If we knew absolutely for certain that one day we were going to be reunited with our loved ones in the Spiritual Universe it would reduce the level of emotion we feel when someone we love dies. The more emotional the experience the more powerful and long lasting the memories it creates. Death of a loved one is the ultimate separation experience. Many people who have NDE's remark on the overwhelming feelings of oneness and connectedness they felt on the other side. I believe it may not be possible to fully become a separate, unique, individual in Heaven. It may be obligatory to first spend time in the Physical Universe and experience enough separation, over and over again until it is thouroughly imprinted on the soul what it means and how it feels to be separate. God may not allow us to know absolutely for certain that there is life after death - because death of a loved one is the #1 most powerful lesson anyone has to suffer while on this earth. We are spiritual beings having a physical experience and from the moment we are born and we separate from our mothers life is a never ending lesson in experiencing separation.
Posted by: Art | August 27, 2007 at 11:32 AM