Mufon ufo journal   1977 11. november
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Mufon ufo journal 1977 11. november






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds


Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Mufon ufo journal   1977 11. november Mufon ufo journal 1977 11. november Document Transcript

  • The MUFONUFO JOURNALNUMBER 120 NOVEMBER1977Founded 1967I OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF$1.00MUTUAL UFONETWORK, INC. IMajor Lawrence J. Coyneand Crew Chief1973 Helicopter Case(See story, Page 3)
  • MUfONJOURNAL103 Oldtowne Rd.Seguin, Texas 78155RICHARD HALLEditorWALTER H. ANDRUSDirector of MUFONPAUL CERNYPromotion/publicityREV. BARRY DOWNINGReligion and UFOsANN DRUFFELCalifornia ReportLUCIUS PARISHBooks/Periodicals/HistoryMARJOR1E FISHExtraterrestrial LifeMARK HERBSTRITTAstronomy ,ROSETTA HOLMESPromotion/PublicityTED PHIIUPSLanding Trace CasesDAVID A SCHROTHSt. Louis/Mass MediaJOHN F. SCHUESSLERUFO PropulsionNORMA E. SHORTDWIGHT CONNELLYEditor/Publishers EmeritusLEN STRINGFELDCommentaryThe MUFON UFO JOURNAL ispublished by the Mutual UFONetwork, Inc., Seguin, Texas.Subscription rates: $8.00 per yearin the U.S.A.; $9.00 per yearforeign. Copyright 1977 by theMutual UFO Network. Secondclass postage paid at Seguin,Texas. Publication identificationnumber is 002970. Returnundeliverable copies to: TheMUFON UFO JOURNAL, 103Oldtowne Rd., Seguin, Texas78155.FROM THE EDITORThe apparent disinclinationof NASA to undertake an open-ended UFO study at this time should not be interpreted as a totalrebuff, or as a sign that the Carter administrationwill do nothingabout UFOs. Many signs suggest that there is"more to come"inthisstory, and there are many different ways and different levels ofinvolvement by which the Federal government could participate inor "encourage" UFO research.Some small indications of possible administration maneuversbehind the scenes appear in Len Stringfields account of hisexperience at the UN, and also reports from countries half a globeapart that have reached me. Two MUFON foreign representativeshave reported sudden interest on the part of their governments incertain UFO cases, wherein they have contacted private UFOgroups or individuals for information. With the known history ofother countries looking to the U.S. for leadership in UFOinvestigations, these could well be signs that UFOs are beingdiscussed seriously inWashingtondiplomatic circles. We shall haveto wait and see whether this is merely wishful thinking, or correctinterpretation of straws in the wind.(Cover photograph furnished by National Enquirer)CONTENTS:Helicopter Case Update 3By Jennie ZeidmanThe Birdwood UFO 4By Keith BasterfieldNASA Letter (News) ; 6What Can We Learn From Hypnosis of Imaginary "Abductees"? 7By Alvin H. LawsonThe UFO Status Quo 10By Leonard H. StringfieldUFO Related Information From the FBI Files 12By Bruce S. MaccabeeCalifornia Report 15By Ann DruffelIn Others Words 17By Lucius ParishDirectors Message 18By Walt AndrusMagazine Hoax Exposed 20By Ann DruffelAstronomy Notes 20By Mark R. HerbstrittThe contents of the MUFON UFO JOURNAL aredetermined by the editor, and do not necessarilyrepresent the official position of MUFON. Opinions ofcontributors are their own, and do not necessarily reflectthose of the editor, the staff, or MUFON.Articles may beforwarded directly to MUFON.Permission is hereby granted to quote from this issueprovided not more than 200words are quoted from anyone article, the author of the article is given credit, andthe statement "Copyright 1977 by the MUFON UFOJOURNAL, 103 Oldtowne Rd, Seguin, Texas" isincluded.
  • HELICOPTER CASE UPDATEJennie Zeidman(MUFON Field Investigator,Columbus, Ohio)The Coyne helicopter-CloseEncounter of October 18, 1973, nearMansfield, Ohio, continues to be ofinterest to both serious investigatorsand "throwaway" skeptics. Within afew months of its occurrence, the four-man crew had divided the NationalEnquirer award for the best case of1973, and Philip Klass had published(with dark insinuations that the crewshould return the money) that theobject was merely "a fireball of theOrionid meteor shower."At the request of Dr. J. A.Hynek,Ihave been working on this case sinceMay 1976. I have personallyinterrogated each of the crew and afamily of five who apparently witnessedthe event from the ground.* My workrepresents over 18 hours face-to-facewith the witnesses, the study of severalhours of tapes made with them byHynek and others as early as the dayfollowing the event, plusmanyhoursofadditional investigation and analysis.The general details of the case arewell publicised;my specific findings are:•The object was in continual view forapproximately 300 seconds.•The object, as a red light, was visibleon the eastern horizon forapproximately 90 seconds before itturned and began its run toward thehelicopter.•The object definitely decelerated,and maintained a hoveringrelationship over the helicopter foras long as ten seconds.•The ground witnesses wereapparently within 1,000 feet of theactual encounter; they corroboratethe crew testimony.•There is no. physical evidence toindicate that the 1,800 foot - 1,000feet per minuteclimbor the apparentradio malfunctions were inanywayaproduct of the objects proximity.•The object presented to the crew aprecisely defined opaque ovalshape,slightly domed, without wings,engine pods, empennage, logo,numbers, windows, strobe, orrotating beacon.•The ground witnesses described theobject as "pear shaped," "like ablimp," "bigas aschool bus," "biggerthan the helicopter."•At no time was there an overall. luminosity to the object or anirregularly defined train or trail. Thelights were emitted from specificpositions on the otherwisefeatureless object.•The event took place at the shore ofCharles Mill Lake, which is 997 feetabove sea level. Thus, at the lowestaltitude noted (1700 ft. msl) thehelicopter had a near 700footmarginof safety.•As it proceeded away from thehelicopter, the objects intensityremained quite bright until it"snapped out" on (or over) thenorthwestern horizon.•Klass and Coyne have never met.Klasss contact with the witnesses(and hence the basis of his "rigorousinvestigation") consisted of threelong distance calls to Coyne and atalk-show chat with crew memberHealey. Klass never talked at all tothe other two crew members and ofcourse did not knowofthe existenceof the ground witnesses nor theexact site of the encounter.A full report, coveringthe details ofmy work,will be publishedby CUFOS.Meanwhile, I refer readers to FlyingSaucer Review Vol. 22, No. 4, for mydetailed arguments against the meteorhypothesis, and to FSR Vol. 23, No.4,for a discussion of the ground witnesstestimony and my arguments againstthe possibility that the object was aconventional aircraft.^Credits forfindingthe ground witnesses and thefirst two interviews with them are due to WarrenNicholson, MUFON State Section Director,Ohio, (Civil Commission on Aerial Phenomena,Worthington, Ohio) and to William E. Jones,MUFON Field Investigator (formerly CCAP, nowCUFOS).UFO upsetsa trawlerLisbon•An unidenified flyingobject (UFO) upset aPortuguese trawlers electricalsystem recently setting off itsalarm sirens, the official newsagency Anop- reportedyesterday.The UFO, emitting aglaringlight,hovered above the300-ton Pardelhas offSouthwest Africa (Namibia)foreight minutes then departed athigh speed, Anop said.Buenos Aires Herald11/25/77 . - . .
  • THE BIRDWOOD UFOBy Keith Basterfield(A report on an alleged observationofan unusual aerial object at Birdwood,South Australia, July 30, 1977. Apreliminary report appeared inNo. 118,Sept. 1977. This report is copyrightedby UFOR (SA) Inc.)(1) Summary of details as given bythe reporter (based on interviewsAugust 26 & 27, and September17,1977).Date: Saturday, 30 Jul 77 , ,Time: 1540 CST (0610GMT)Location: Approx. 5 Km NNW ofBirdwood, on the Birdwood toWilliamstown road, some 32 Km NEofAdelaide, South Australia.Duration: 3y2 minutes.Reporter: High school scienceteacher. Male. Aged 36 years. PhD inorganic chemistry. Name withheld onhis request. Available on file.Account: "I was driving along theBirdwood-Williamstown road about 5Km from Birdwood when I noticed anobject in the sky. I thought for a whilethat itwas an aircraft, but then I realized-• that it was not. It was descending froman altitude of 1-2 Km at a 15-20° glidepath. As it approached the ground, itsnose lowered and it settled between aclump of trees and a powerpylon about400 meters from the road. As I got outof my car, a cream 1969-1970 Toranastopped behind me and the driver gotout and shouted, did you see that ?."I replied that I still could andpointed it out to him. We observed theobject for 3 minutes; during this time1took particular notice of the positionofthe object andother reference points sothat Iwould be able to estimate its sizeand location. It then raised its taila littleand slid backwardsand upwards alittle,then it accelerated vertically todisappear in three seconds. Icalculated4its verticalvelocity to be on the orderof6000 Kph."At no time did it emit any light orsound. Its descent and departure didnot seem even to disturb the foliage ofthe trees. Its ascent was also noiseless-not even a supersonic bang."(2) The object as described"When it came downitcamedownnose up, a bit like a Miragecoming in,many, many times bigger than that andinstead of rolling as it touched, it juststopped there. Iwouldsayits speedwasround about 120 Kph coming in,because itwas parallelingme and thenitjust stopped dead."As it approached the groundjustbehind some trees,the nosedippedandit stopped. . It descended at a glideangle of 15-18°.. .Velocity slowed downtremendously as it approached theground and then * dipped its nose andwas down."It was first noted at an angularelevation of some 35-40° to the righthand side of the car through the closeddrivers window, descending at about aminus 15°angle from the horizon,towards the ground. Initially seen atabout 1-1% minutes and 2-3 Km Southof where itwas reported to havesettled.The ascent: ". . .then it just wentvertically straightup. Iwould say almostinstantly to a very definite supersonicspeed. . .It lifted off and went tail firstbackward, then levelled off and wentvertically upwards. Within threeseconds it was lost to view almostdirectly overhead."Size: ". . .probably about the 60meter mark in length. . .about tenmeters thick. . .probably about 20-30meters wide and this rear section washigh from the ground level about the 20meter. . .""I would estimate the average partof itto be 5-8meters inheight, length50-60 meters and I would conjecture thatits width could have been in the 20meter mark.. .Its width beingabout onethird of its length."Color: ". . .it was a light pinkishcolor. Salmon pink. It just appeared aclear color to me. Inother words it wasjust an object and I was only gettingreflected light from it. Idont thinkit hadany source of its own.. .There was notmetallic luster. It wasnt shiny, but notdull. A light pink incolor. Asatin finish."Shape: "It seemed to have a littlebit of a drooped nose and this was allscalloped. Like one of those fan shellsthat I used to collect when I was akiddie. Itsmoothed out intojuststraightlines as it went back, and then the rearsection of it seemed to point a littleintothe air, and it had these two other, italmost looked like an airfoil surfaces,but Iwouldnt say exactly.. .1didnt seeany landing gear as such. I didnt seeany legs or pegs."It had a rounded front, i.e.,a threedimensional point. The rear tailsurfaces were visible through the firstgap in the main body upon settlingdown. The underside of the entire thingwas concave—this was noticed as ittook off. The two tail pieces were alsoconcave underneath."Effects: The reporter says thatthere wasnounusual noisenoted atanystage throughout the observation, andno movement of vegetation was notedby him. The weather was clear skiesand light winds.Itwas not noted if therewere any livestock in the paddock
  • concerned at the time.(3) Reactions according to thereporter:("I was sitting there and quitefrankly it absolutely stunned me. Notthat Ididnt believesuch thingsexist butfor me to actually see one myself. . ."Ilooked at it for about three minutes.That was two getting over the shockand Iwas considering goingacross to it.I would have gone right up to it andknocked on its hull if it stayed therelong enough."His immediatereaction was to lookagain. Then he saw it coming down andso stopped his vehicle. He got out,crossed the road and watched—amazed. Then the other person arrivedand after the object had gone he talkedto him for. 10-15 minutes about it. Hedoesnt know why he didnt thinkto goover to the spot after the object had left.He says he considered life to probablyexist elsewhere in the universe, didntthink too much about UFOs prior tothe event, . but .has clearly .seensomething beyond him.The reporter stated that there was .a woman in the car withhimat the time.The following comments are made:"The passenger in my car, though,is very adamant. She doesnt want toopen her mouth to .anyone, anywherefor fear of ridicule. . .1 dont think that Icould convince thisparticular person.Itshattered her belief enough as it is. Avery, very religious woman, elderlywoman."At the interview on September 17,1977, he stated that he was infact doinga "demonstration drive" at the timeandthat the person with him was a"student". Age, early twenties. A veryreligious or Christian person. She tooka quick look at the object and thendidnt want anything more to do with it.She remained inthe car when he lookedat it. In his opinion she was in a stateof"shock" or similar. She was very quieton the way back, but still sees him.Comments on the people inthe carwhich pulled up:"The bloke ran across to me andsaid Did .you see that, did you seethat?. To which I said, Yes. There it isover there. We both stood justlookingat it for about three minutes... A man,awoman, and three children.""I stopped when it stopped and as Igot out of my car, another man got outof a car behind me. He was driving anearlier model Torana, big bloke and heran up to me and said Hey did you seethat ? and I said, Yes, there it is. "The man was described as 55yearsold, stout, balding, grey suit, tie,whiteshirt, monacle, early model whiteTorana. SA registration—clean. Theman mentioned having heard of themagazine of which the reporter iseditor. The reporter gave this man oneof his business cards. They did notdiscuss telling anyone about the event.Record of Investigations To Date:1. The. reporter telephoned UFOR(SA) Inc. on the evening ofAugust26, 1977 and related details of hisreport. Arrangements were madefor two visit thelocation together with the reporteron August 27th.. 2. The location of the reported eventwas inspected by two investigatorswith the reporter, paying particularattention to the ground beneaththe location where it was stated tohave "settled". Nothing out of theordinary was noted. No sign of anydisturbed grass, tree branches, noholes, indentations, burns, etc.3. A detailed inspection of thelocation was made on September4,1977, when photographs andrough measurements of the areawere taken. The area was furtherinspected on September 11, 1977,for refined measurements andfurther pictures to be taken. Theoccupants of the houses to thenorth and south of the paddockconcerned were interviewed buthad heard, seen, nor felt nothingthey considered out of theordinary.4. A further personal interview wasundertaken on September 17,•1977, to check on several points.Photographs and tape recordedinterviews are on file.5. Soil samples were taken onNovember 27,1977, and forwardedto the ACOS consultant for tests.APPENDIX A:NOTES ON INTERVIEWCONDUCTED SEPTEMBER 17, 1977We called on- the reporter at hishome in a quiet residential suburb. Thereporter is married with two childrenaged 7 and 3. He is an Australian aged36 years; his wife was born in Belgium.He used to be a Major in theregular Australian army and is now onthe reserve list. However, hisoccupation for the last few years hasbeen that of a teacher. The family liveina housing trust home and run a FordCapri sedan motor car. As we talked tohim his wife returnedhome and for therest of the evening she remained in thelounge where we were talking to herhusband.Appearing a very friendly,confident person, he answered all ourquestions in a forthright manner andgave the impression of a person whowas adamant about that which he hadobserved. Discussions centered onwhat he had reported but deviated intotopics of astronomy and physics. Hementioned he had a PhD in organicchemistry but that he couldnt get anywork with that so turned to teaching.(Continued on next page) rj
  • (Birdwood UFO, Continued)During the interviewwe clarified allpoints that we wished to and the onlyreal discrepancy noted in thisinterviewas opposed to previousdiscussions wasthat he now says he had a youngwoman in the car with him. Previouslyhe had mentioned that his companionwas an elderly lady.When queried about the possibilityof locatingthe other people inthe whitecar he said that the man intimated tohim that he read the magazine of whichthe reporter is editor. The reporteragreed to put an item inthe Novemberissue of his magazineand ask the otherman to get in touch with him. Nodevelopments have occurred so far.(11/27/77). We suggested the use ofhypnosis to try and find thisother mansname or car registration number, butthe reporter firmly declined this.We asked re: the young ladywhohad been in the car with him,as to thepossibility of talking to her. He said shedid not wish to talk to anyone.NASA Letter DeclinesUFO "ResearchActivity"December 21, 1977Honorable Frank Press, DirectorOffice of Science and Technology PolicyExecutive Office of the PresidentWashington, DC 20500Dear Frank:In responsetoyour letter ofSeptember 14,1977,regarding NASAspossible roleinUFO matters, we are fully prepared at this time to continue responding topublicinquiries along the same linesas we have in the past. Ifsome new element of hardevidence is brought to our attention, inthe future, itwould be entirely appropriatefor a NASA laboratory to analyze and report upon an otherwise unexplainedorganic or inorganicsample; westand ready to respond to any bonafidephysicalevidence from credible sources. We intend to leave the door clearlyopen for sucha possibility.We have givenconsiderable thought to the question ofwhatelse the UnitedStatesmight and should do inthe area of UFO research. There isan absence oftangibleor physicalevidence availablefor thorough laboratory analysis. Andbecauseof theabsence of such evidence, we have not been able to devise a sound scientificprocedure for investigating these phenomena. To proceed on a research taskwithout a disciplinaryframeworkand an exploratory technique inmind wouldbewasteful and probably unproductive. Ido not feel that we could mount a researcheffort without a better starting point than we have been able to identify thus far. Iwould therefore propose that NASAtake no steps to establish a researchactivityin this area or to convene a symposium on this subject.I wish in no way to indicate that NASAhas come to any conclusion about thesephenomena as such; institutionally, we retain an open mind, a keen sense ofscientific curiosity, and a willingness to analyze technical problems within ourcompetence.Very truly yours,Robert A. FroschAdministrator (NASA)
  • WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM HYPNOSISOF IMAGINARY "ABDUCTEES"?(This, the first of a three-part article,starting with the November 1977 issue,is a continuationof the paper presented"by Dr. Lawson at the 1977 MUFONUFO SYMPOSIUM in Scottsdale,Arizona, on July 16,1977andpublishedin the 1977 MUFON UFOSYMPOSIUMPROCEEDINGS.)ABSTRACT: Imaginary UFO"abductions" were inducedhypnotically in a group of subjects (Ss)of varied ages with no significantknowledge of UFOs. Eight situationalquestions comprising the majorcomponents of a "real" abductionwereasked ofeach S. Responses indicatedawide range ofimaginativeinvention,butan averaged comparison of theimaginary sessions with "real"abduction regressions from theliterature showed no substantivedifferences. Many presumably obscure"patterns" from UFO literatureemerged in the imaginarynarratives. Inaddition, there was evidence that effects were manifest during someof the hypnosis sessions. Theimplications of the study for futurehypnotic regression of CloseEncounter cases, and for abductioncases now deemed of the highestcredibility, are unclear at this time.IntroductionSome remarkableabduction caseshave recently been the focus ofresearch in Southern California. Eachof the cases emerged under hypnosis,and each is uniquely interesting; buttogether they pose questions forufology of perhaps unparalleledseriousness and complexity.Summaries of six of these imaginaryhypnotic "abductions" follow.In view of this complicated study;some observations and speculationsabout abduction reports are in order:Professor ofEnglish,California State University,Long BeachBy Alvin H. Lawson*(Copyright Alvin H. Lawson, 1977)1. "REAL" AND IMAGINARY SsCONSCIOUS MEMORIES OFUFO ENCOUNTERSIt has been supposed that a majordistinction between allegedly real andimaginary witnesses is that "real" Ssusually have a vivid conscious memoryof at least part of the UFO event.However, a recent regression castsdoubt on this thesis and indicates thatsome imaginary Ss may develop post-regression conscious "memories" of aUFO encounter.;In an attempt to analyze multiple-witness testimony more thoroughly,two pairs ofSs, a man and woman, anda set of identical female twins, weregiven simultaneous imaginaryabductions. The protocol followed wasidentical in each case, except that thetwins were asked to hold hands duringtheir session. The Ss were able to heareach other during the hypnosis. Somecontrasting details follow:COUPLE(1) Each individual had a distinctexperience(2) Male S asked to be awakenedmidway(3) Female S "borrowed"exam detailsfrom male S after hewas awakened(4) After awakening, couple could notaffirm they had not had a "real"abductionTWINS(1) Both shared a near-identicalexperience(2) Neither asked to be awakened(3) No borrowing; narratives weresupplemental with few differences(4) After awakening,twinsagreed their. :experiences were imaginaryThe most significant contrastbetween the two is that, despiteextensive discussion, the couple wereunable afterwards to saywhetheror not,they had actually experienced a CE-III.Thisfindingshows that "real" witnessesmight similarly confuse fact with fancy,a possibilitywhich could cast doubt onthe credibility of many established CE-IHs. (It may be objected that weinadvertently chose a couple who hadactually experienced an abduction,though before the session neither hadany conscious memory of such anevent-in part or whole.)The twins apparently sharedexperience suggests that additionalhypnosis of multiple Ss will reveal muchabout the many psychologicalmysteries in "real" cases. Theirseemingly identical experiences mayhave involved paranormal communi-cation which, as we will see below,maybe a significant aspect of all closeencounters.2. DOMINATION BY ONEWITNESS IN MULTIPLE-WITNESS ABDUCTIONSMultiple-witness abduction caseshave usually been dominated by oneofthe witnesses: one is more observant,often seems less negative in his or heremotional response to the event, andisinclined to be more cooperative andeven more articulate withinvestigators.Betty Hill, Charles Hickson, SandyLarson, and Elaine Thomas are .good(Continued on next page) _
  • ._ (Abductees, Continued) ;: .examples in their respective abduction -incidents of domination" (in thisrestricted sense) over their fellowwitnesses. It is interesting that even themale S of the imaginary couple (seeabove) requested to be awakened,thereby indicating a less activeinterestin.the proceedings and so deferring tohis more intrigued partner. Themeaning of this dominationpattern isunclear, but Charles Tarts discussionof what he terms "discrete alteredstates of consciousness" (or d-ASC)may have relevance to the emotionallytraumatic experiences of UFOabductees: • persons illusion in a givend-ASC can sometimes becommunicated to another person - .in the same d-ASC so that a falseconsensual validation results.*Exactly how one abduction witnessmight communicate an "illusion" toanother is not known, but if it isreasonable to expect witnesses toundergo an alterationofconsciousnessduring the excitement .of a UFOencounter, the single-witnessdomination pattern may tell ussomething about the "reality" of UFOabductions. To the extent that suchexperiences are "real", their sensoryrecord may depend largely ifnot totallyupon the sensibility of a single witnesswho, through some mysterious means,induces or otherwise communicates asensory experience of an abduction tofellow witnesses.Thus multiple-witness abducteesmay merelybe sharing inthe abductionillusions of another witnesssdominating sensibility-rather than trulyparticipating in actual events-illusionswhich their memories or hynoticsessions ultimately "recall". Of coursewe are left with a series of still-bafflingquestions, not only about reportedabduction-caused physical and*In States of Consciousness (New York,1975), pp. 223-224.physiological effects,;- but also aboutwhy the dominantwitness undergoesthe "illusion" of a UFO experience intriefirst place: in short, what isstimulusfor the event which witnesses describeas a UFO abduction? These and otherquestions may lead us to wonderwhether the elaborate explanationsoffered are any less exotic--orimprobable-than what some witnessesevidently believe has happened tothem.3. WHY ARENT THERE MOREINTERRUPTED ABDUCTIONS?, Of the hundred-odd UFOabductions reported, none has been ahalf-way affair. Each has a wholeness orintegral quality (although details andduration vary) which differs from otherclose encounters. Many witnesses havereported, for instance, that a CE-I orCE-II was in progress when anapproaching vehicle or otherinterruption apparently caused theUFO to leave. Occasionally there havebeen CE-IDs where the entities havemade a hurried departure apparentlybecause of some human,intrusion. Butno partial abductions ,have beenreported and I think that is verycurious. .It could be suggested that alienswith sufficiently exquisite knowledgeand control of time could well knowinadvance when such interruptions weregoing to occur, and so schedule theirabductions accordingly. But this idea,aside from itsETassumptions, doesnotexplain the persistence of reportedinterruptions of other kinds of closeencounters, nor why .only abductionsshould be unique in this regard.It seems to the writer thatabductions, for whatever reasons, arequalitatively distinct from other typesofUFO experiences. One may speculatethat their wholeness or psychologicallyintegral nature, along with allegedmental effects such as time-lapses,amnesia, and blackouts, suggests-inthe absence of unambiguous physicaldata--a psychic rather than a simplephysical interpretation. This relativeabundance of psychic effects does notseem typical of other UFO sightingsand close encounters, where the ratioof physical to psychic effects isroughlyreversed. But even ifabductions shouldprove to be some sort of mentalphenomenon, the question of why-ifabductions are the ultimate in closeencounter experiences-they arefundamentally different in these waysfrom other UFO adventures, is anotherin a long line of puzzlers whichcannotbe ignored by thoughtful researchers.4. WHY DOWITNESSES MEDICALHISTORIES PARALLELUFO"PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS"An interesting pattern in "real"abduction narratives is that details ofwitnesses personal medical historiesare sometimes reflected intheirallegedphysical ^examinations by aliens onboard the UFOs. For instance, in herNorth Dakota abduction Sandy Larsontold of havingher sinuses "scraped"byher alien examiner. Butshe had had hersinuses operated on by an MDpreviously. In the Woodland, Californiacase (see Appendix #1)a woman, whowas allegedly abducted with her twosisters in 1971, described how she was"catheterized" (had urine drawn fromher bladder) by a grasshopper-eyedalien and his human-like femaleassistant; she later revealed that shehad been catheterized while in ahospital. There are other examples inthe literature, and it is probable thatmore parallels might be found if adiligent search of abductees personalmedical records were made.But such parallels are not limitedto"real" cases; one of our imaginaryabductees narratives involvedpersonal medical history as well. Underhypnosis a college student told ofhaving a large mask-like apparatus putover her face duringher "examination"
  • on board a UFO; afterward sheremembered that a similar mask wasused when she was given atonsilectomy as a child.Thus?- there is an irresistible.invitation to see a basis in memoryand/or imagination for at least somedetails of "physical examinations"during alleged UFO abductions.Further, if medical histories play asignificant part in abduction narratives,there is no reason why ofherbiographical data could not similarlyemerge during other aspects of the UFO encounter tale. This does notnecessarily mean that all such details, are baseless; rather, it tells us that theinterplay of imagination and memorymay make determination of theunvarnished truth very difficult indeed.5. SIMILARITIES BETWEEN UFOABDUCTIONS AND ANIMAGINARY "DIVINEVISITATION"The possibility of a significantrelationship between UFO encountersand events of religiousmythology suchas "miracles" and "visitations"has beenwidely noted, and particularly byJacques Vallee. In order to test thisidea, we enlisted a student volunteerwho described herself as a "rebornChristian" with a serious religiouscommitment. The S was hypnotizedand told that an unspecified "divinefigure" would visit with her. The datafrom her session suggest obviousparallels with UFO abduction1 narratives. A general summary of thef imaginary regression follows:1. S sees "divine figure" floatingtowards her. .2. S is fascinated by the beings eyes.3. S senses "power" inbeing,is drawn. to him.4. S istouched bybeing,feels soothed"special".5. S, being "talk" about heaven, endof world.6. S sees being float upward "in acloud", and disappear.7. S feels positive about experience,,"Glad Ive been picked!"One can interpret this scene asa ratherroutine UFO close encounter: The Ssaw an alien entity float towards her.She was fascinated by its eyes and shewas aware of an exotic power in it. Atone point she was tranquilized by itstouch. They communicatedtelepathically about another world andabout the end of this world. Finally theentity floated upward "in a cloud" anddisappeared. Afterward, the S felt veryspecial about her experience.There are doubtless other parallelsin the Ss narrative, though these fewsupport the hypothesis that UFOencounters and alleged miraculousreligious events have a closely relatedor even common origin. If religious"miracles" such as allegedly occurredat Lourdes and Fatima were "real"events, either physicallyor psychicallyfor the immediate witnesses, a similarcase maythusbe made for the "reality"(in the same restricted sense as forreligious events) of UFO closeencounters. To reversethe argument,ifthere isnorelationship between the twoclasses of alleged phenomena, whythen the substantial parallels? (Somemay find the similarities unconvincing;others may object that the hypnoticprotocol utilized leading questionswhich predetermined the desired data.Ido not feel these responses have merit,though Iwill not take time to argue thepoints beyond suggesting*--yet oncemore- that replication of each and all ofour hypnosis experiments beattempted before our data arerejected.)*Supposing, then, that a case for aUFO-religious mythology parallel tohave been made (both here and byothers), vast questions remain as to thenature and meaning of the commonstimuli for religious events such asLourdes on the one hand and the Hillabduction on the other. Is a divinelightthus cast on the Hills?Or, were Fatimaand Lourdes caused by ET and/orpsychic phenomena? The questions getcuriouser and curiouser!(To be continued)*It should be noted thata partialreplication of ourexperiment took place during a public sessionofthe International. UFO Congress in Chicago,June 25,1977. Three voluntary "abductees"werehypnotized and reported patterned imaginaryCE-IIFs. Two "real" witnesses, however, hadunsatisfactory hypnosis experiences, arid nomeaningful comparison was possible.POSTAL EXCHANGEThe MUFON program of tradingcancelled foreign stamps to a collectorin exchange for current U.S. postagestamps continues to be successful,thanks to generous contributions byMUFON members. This program helpsto underwritethe expense of extensivecorrespondence, and results in betterinformation exchange internationally.We would like to thank HarryCohen, editor of Aerial PhenomenonClipping and Information Center(APCIC), for a recent contribution andpledge of contributing stamps on aregular basis.. (APCIC offers a UFOnewsclipping service for $5 per month.For more information, write H.. R.Cohen, P. O. Box 9073, Cleveland, OH44137). .Please continue to send cancelledforeign stamps inany quantityfrom 5to500. It takes a lot of them to equal thevalue of current U.S. stamps. (Send toRichard Hall,441839th St.,Brentwood,MD 20722).
  • THE UFO STATUS QUOMY ADVISORY ROLE FOR GRENADASUFO MISSION AT THE UNITED NATIONSBy Leonard H. StringfieldOn November.14,1977,1got wordfrom Dr. Wellington Friday,Ambassador At Large for Grenada,that Iwaschosen to serveas his adviserat the United Nations where he wasscheduled to propose the establish-ment of an agency, within the UnitedNations framework, to study UFOs.As Inow look back on my five daysspent in New York with GrenadasPrime Minister and his delegation, andbeing witness to their dramaticendeavors at the UN, I must hasten tosay that myexperience inplaying a partin the affairs was rewarding. I sawhistory being made and I have thesatisfaction of getting a good insideglimpse at diplomatic manuevers,especially on an issue so sensitive as theUFO!Before departing from Cincinnati,Sunday, November 27th, I ponderedthe possible pitfalls of such a boldventure. I could see the cynical pressbeing amused by the blatant antics ofaflyspeck Caribbean island nation; and Icould see the great powers, secretlyknowledgeable of the UFO, gloweringdown at a country so puny, poor, andpolitically unstable who would darechampion the UFO instead of takingissue with other world problems likehuman rights in South Africa or theownership of the Panama Canal.But, in my point of view, I sawGrenada as a nation standinglegitimately alongside other nations asamember of the UN. Moreover,Grenadas Prime Minister Sir Eric10Gairy seemed willing to risk his politicalfuture as he crossed swords in supportof the UFO in open forum — a mattertoo longdelayed inthe UN. Itwas inthisspirit, that I was willing to serve asadviser.The man behind Grenadas UFOthrust was Prime Minister Gairy.Openly admitting he witnessed a UFO.and knowing of other UFO closeencounters on his island, he addressedthe UNs 32nd General Assembly,October 7, 1977, requesting.that theUFO question be placed on the agendafor serious review and that steps betaken to establish an agency for ". . .coordinating and disseminating theresults of its research."• It was Gairys Octoberaddress that I first became involved asadviser. Following a meeting in NewYork on September 16, 1977, when Imet Grenadas. Ambassador to theUnited States, Franklin Dolland, athismissions office, Iwas introduced to Dr.Friday. Duringa privatemeetinglater atmy hotel, Friday asked ifIwould submita paper to him describing the objectivesfor serious UFO research. I promptlyresponded with a 4-page guidelinewhich I later learned was used as thetheme in the.Prime Ministers address.As "official" adviser, I was greetedSunday, November 27, at LaGuardiaAirport by limousine and a Grenadastaff member.Shortly after arrival at the RogerSmith Hotel I got into action. Dr.Friday, in a nearby room, gave me arough draft of his address for reviewand editing. Working far into the nightand rising early Monday to resume, Ihad sharply edited the 45-page text.Parts were deleted, parts added, and -Jstatements factually corrected orrhetorically rephrased. Friday,however, had done his homework well.He had searched UN files, exhumingold data from the 1960*5 when the lateSecretary General U Thant hadexpressed his interest in theworldwideUFO problem. He had also uncoveredmany records showing that MajorColman Von Keviczky of ICUFON hadpressed the UN in 1966 to act on theUFO question. Friday had alsoincluded in his draft many quotes fromDr. Hyneks two books, The UFOExperience and The Hynek UFOReport, and, from my book, SituationRed, The UFO Siege.On November 28th, the daywhenDr. Friday was scheduled to make hisaddress at 3 p.m. in the GeneralAssembly, the phone in his roomjangled all morning. One call standingout above the others occurred whileAmbassador Dolland and I wererushing some last minutecopy changeswhich were to be delivered to his mission office for typing. It came fromCoast Guard Commander John Feigle, Ia member of the U.S. delegation. In apolite manner, he at first offered theUnited States hopeful support forGrenadas UFO stand at the UN,eventhough the text ofFridays address wasunknown to him. Then Feigle inquiredabout Grenadas objectives whichdrewfrom Friday only a rhetorical response.Feigle then stated that the U.S. positionwas based on the Condon Report.Friday, indicating some annoyance,
  • stated that he wasaware ofthe CondonReport, that he knewof new UFO datasince the reports release in 1969whichmade the Condon Report invalid, andthen promised to call back. In a matterof minutes, Friday and I discussed andformulated Grenadas policy. We hadhoped for US support but hopes werefading fast. Our decision:.Stand firm!Dr. Fridays hour-long oratory,following the Prime Ministers openingstatement, was in my opinion, amoment for history. Sitting with theGreriadan staff, I watched the reactionof delegates representing certaincountries which I knew beforehandwould be mentioned as havinga part inUFO affairs.. Notably, only theCommunist Chinese delegate aroseduring the talk,and smilinginscrutably,strolled but of the assembly. - The U.S., as expected, requestedtime for rebuttal, but any chance fordebate was cut short as the delegatefrom Nepal had asked foradjournmentto allow time to review Fridays text.The next meeting was scheduled forWednesday, November SO.Disap-pointingly, I had no recourse to openmy briefcase where I had stored UFOdata to offer Dr. Friday ifneeded in thedebate.- " - - .* - • - -The day at the UN ended but theday of the diplomat never ends.Meetings and phone calls gofar into thenight. For me, I was privileged to beinvited by the.Prime Minister as hisguest to see Close Encounters of theThird Kind at the Ziegfield Theatre.Arriving by limousine, with adequateSecret Service cover, weavoided alongqueuing line outdoors and went up theback stairs to reserved seats. Inot onlysaw the movie"royally but never felt soprotected, as stone-faced agentsdeployed to seats nearby.The next two days, November 29and 30, were focused on extensivework on the draft resolution which wasscheduled for presentation at theGeneral Assembly at 3 -p.m. ofNovember 30. Both days were activefor the U.S. delegation. Calls camefrom Delegates, Commander Feigle,and John Krindler.After consulting theWhite House, they said they could"sympathize" with Grenadas effortsbut could not support the existingdraftresolution. Several items were toodemanding, such as the linesunderscored from the text as follows:"(1) Requests the Secretary-Generalto consider the scope and variousaspects ofthisitemand to undertakefor consideration bythe 33rd sessionof the General Assembly, a surveyofthe UFO phenomenon whichshouldinclude...(b) the results of studies. and such documentation and otherdata pertinent to this item as may beprovided from records of repre-sentative governments, the. committee on the Peaceful Uses ofOuter Spaces, etc. etc."On Wednesday at 11:30 a.m., apress conference was held at PrimeMinister Gairys suite at the PlazaHotel. I was there with my briefcasecontaining UFO data just in case it wasneeded. Gairy fielded questions aboutthe UFOs by the media well, and, ofcourse, there were political questionsabout human rights in his country andabout alleged Chilean Communistsoperating in his country. This heemphatically denied, calling his politicalopposition "liars". Gairysaid Genada isa quaint, non-military, religious countrywhich rejects communism as he does.In my opinion, at no time was Gairyevasive, nor lacking in forthrightanswers to questions on UFOs orpolitics. •:At the close of the conference, thePrime Ministerwaspressed td share hisopinion of the movie, "CloseEncounters of the Third Kind". He saidthat he was "favorably impressed" andthen asked that I state my views. As Igave my critique, the Secret Serviceagents standing behind me had quietlyushered in the U.S. delegates, Feigleand Krindler. They had kept anappointment with Gairy for adiscussion of the draft resolution. Inbounds of .protocol, the meeting wasconducted behind closed doors.In essence, the closed-doorsession was triggered bya maneuverbythe British UN delegation. Having metwith the U.S. team they had averredthat the establishment of an -UFOagency in the UN, on the basisproposed by Grenada, would beprohibitive in measure of cost and time.The U.S. agreed and reiterated that theterms in the draft resolution were toodemanding.Once again the resolution wasreworked to a more moderate posture,however, the salient points remainedintact. The last word I had beforedeparture from New York, December1st, was that the U.S. was in a"supportive" mood of the draftresolution, probablyknowing thatgiventime for more diplomatic maneuversthe final wording of the documentwould hopefully be revised more to itsliking.On December 7th, the draftresolution (with few changes) wasshelved until next years GeneralAssembly to be convened inSeptember1978. This wouldallow the delegatesofmember nations to consult with theirhome governmentsfor anevaluatiorioftheir own UFO status quo.Dr. Friday, a man of great vigorand an astute diplomat, toasted mydeparture from the Roger Smith Hotel.He thanked me for my contributionsand we agreed that the UFO had wonnew international respectabilitythrough Grenadas efforts. The UnitedStates got off the limb at the UNwithout embarrassment. Perhaps, theU.S. was hoping that by the time acrucial vote would come up inSeptember 1978, that Prime MinisterGairys views might change on theUFO. After all, President Carter hadgifted him, during a diplomaticexchange in September 1977, with acopy of the Condon Report.11
  • UFO RELATED INFORMATION FROM THE FBI FILES: Part 2By Bruce S. MaccabccMUFON State Director for Maryland(Copyright Bruce S. Maccabee, 1977) •As of July 31, 1947, the FBI wasofficially involved with the UFOphenomenon. Agents were ordered tocarry out intense investigations ofreports which came to their attention.The Washington office began toaccumulate a mass of UFO-relateddata. This would seem to be an idealsituation for an investigative agencythat wanted to understand what wasgoing on. However, only two monthslater the FBI left the center stage andbegan its retreat into the shadows. Tounderstand part of the reason why,it isnecessary to consider the types ofreports that the FBI investigated.By the time Gen. Schulgencontacted the FBI (July 10, 1947) theFBI had a collection of newspaperclippings and teletype messages. Thefirst teletype message was rather brief,to say the least. It read: "About 12so-called flying discs passed overDarlington, S.C. approximately 5:30PM today. Advise ifwishdetails."11Twoother teletype messages that had beenreceived by July 10 were moredetailed, but they were reports ofmechanical hoax devices which wereapparently typical of the hoaxes thatwere perpetrated duringthe early daysof UFOs. On July 7 a report was filedfrom Shreveport, La., of an object thathad "Made in USA"writtenon it. It wasa disc which reportedly landed andsmoke issued forth. It wasfound tobeathin aluminum disc, 16 inches indiameter with coils of wire attached.The Army at Barksdale Field retrievedthe disc befoore the FBI agent had achance to look at it.12On July 8a"disc"was found near Rpswell, N.M. This"disc" was hexagonal inshape and wassuspended from a balloon. This "disc"was sent to Wright Field by a special12plane for analysis.13On July 9 theresident agent in Burbank, Cal., calledthe main FBIoffice to report that afirein a nearby wood had been caused bythe landing of a "flying disc". A furtherreport on July 10described the disc asbeing made of aluminum, about twofeet in diameter, and "having a sort ofradio tube in the center of the disc."By the time the FBIhad agreed toinvestigate UFO witnesses (July 24,1947 communication to Gen.Schulgen), the files contained severalmore reports of hoax objects and onlythree reports that could be consideredgood. These reports will be referred tolater. The hoax reports included areport from Twin Falls, Idaho, about adome, wires and "tubes similar to radiotubes". It was about 30 inches indiameter and apparently had somewiring burned off and "looked asthough something might be missing".This saucer was reported by a womanwho claimed she had heard a noise likea collision in her back yard.14Anotherhoax object was found by Mr. . . .(name crossed off) in Laurel, Md. Hecalled to report that a buzzing objecthad landed in his back yard "and themachinery is still buzzing".15Stillanother object was reported fromBlack River Falls, Wisconsin. It was alarge, possibly cardboard, disc that hada small propeller attached to the side.16A disc found in Seattle on July 16wasanalyzed by the ONI (Office of NavalIntelligence). It had a hammer andsickle painted on it.The three good reports in the FBIfile at the time of the response toGeneral Shulgen all came from theArmy Air Force (AAF) and were thefollowing. (1) Two meteoro/ogiste inVirginia wrote "We hesitate to makethis report concerning our pilot balloonobservations in regards to a flying discbecause of the considerable nationalskepticism regarding the subject atpresent. However, local newspapersinform us that the U.S. Governmentadmits no authority for such a ship orobject and for its flights. Then wemustassume this strange object to beforeign." The report goes on todescribe several sightings. "Mr. . .(name removed) has observed thisstrange metallicdisc on three occasionsthrough the theodolite while makinghispibal observation during the last sixmonths. Miss Baron (name accidentlynot removed) has reported observingiton one occasion. Miss Barons reportagrees with Mr.... observations exceptas to the color which she reported as adull metallic luster. Mr . . . . lastobserved this disc in April 1947(underlining by present author) at the1100E Pibal Observation when theballoon was at 15,000 feet. Thedisc wasfollowed for 15 seconds, apparentlymoving on level flight from east to westto the far north of the station. Theobject was a metallic like chrome-shaped something like an ellipse with aflat level bottom and a domelike-roundtop. The disc .appeared below theballoon, was much larger in size in theinstrument (sic; this may mean itappeared larger than the instrumentpackage hanging below the balloon),and shined like silver. Itwas impossibleto estimate the height or speed of thedisc except that it appeared to bemoving very rapidly. Miss Baronobserved the disc whenher balloon wasat about 27,000 feet. All daysobserved were either clear or with veryfew clouds and good visibility." Thisreport was received by the FBIon the22nd of July. Itstands out as one of thehighly credible pre-Arnold reports.Aside from the early dates of thesightings, one is struck by the detaileddescription by trained meteorologists
  • using instruments to track and observethe "saucer". One isalso struck by the,in retrospect, amusing references torriaiiy sightings of "this disc" and "thedisc" as if there were only one objectof its type which had been seen onseveral occasions. It is clear from thereport that the meteorologists wereafraid that "the disc" representedforeign technology of which the U.S.government should be made aware.They even suggested that theoccurrence of flying discs might besufficiently serious that if they sightedsuch a disc again they should considerending their weather measurements toobserve the disc: If sighted again, wewdndef if it would be a good idea todrop the balloon and instead makeobservations on this disc."The second :and third reports inthe FBI file by July 24 were bothsightings from the air in southernWisconsin. They both took place onJuly 7, the second at 1145 CSTand thethird at 1430 CST. Each was a twoobserver report, withan A.F. captaininvolved in the second sighting. Thesecond report stated: "saucerdescended verticallyedgewise throughaltocumulous clouds, stopped at 4000ft. and assumed horizontal position andproceeded in horizontal flight from ahorizontal position for 15 secondscovering 25 miles and again stoppedand disappeared." This observationwas made from an altitude of about 800feet above ground, while the "saucer"was estimated to be about 4000 ft.above sea level. The speed of thesaucer was estimated at 6000 mph.The third report stated:"Observed in horizontal flight in ahorizontal attitude for a period of 20seconds covering 22 miles. By the timepilot had removed his camera from theglove compartment of his plane, the -saucer disappeared and againreappeared approximately 10 milesfarther along its course after 6secondsmaking its final disappearance." Thisthird observation was made at analtitude of 3500 ft. above sea level andthe saucer was estimated to have beenat an altitudeabout 1000 ft. lower. Thespeed of the saucer in the third reportwas estimated at 3690 mph. Theweather during both of the sightingswas clear ("CAVU") with scatteredaltocumulus clouds at 6000 ft. Both ofthe above reports were sent via theCivil Air Patrol in Wisconsin to theCommanding General at Boiling AFB.There was no suggestion that theobservers might have been mistaken orthat they were attempting to create(independent) hoaxes.I have presented these threereports indetail to show thatthe FBI didhave some interesting evidenceavailable which could not be explained:as simple hoaxes by the time thedecision was made to investigate UFOreports/Although it wasnt the job ofthe FBI to investigate aerialphenomena, itwas the job of the FBI toinvestigate subversion within the U.S.Thus, ifall reports of saucers had been(a) clearly hoax objects and/or (b)clearly mistakes of observers, the FBIcould have concludedthat therewasnoreason to investigate. However,with afew good, detailed observations ofwhat seemed to be real craft thatexhibited capabilities far beyond ourown, the existence of hoax reportsbecame more suspicious because onecould argue that a foreign power (e;g.,Russia) was flying a new type ofaircraftover the USA (for intelligence purposesor whatever)while trying to cover up itsflights by discrediting witnesses bymeans of hoaxes. To be more explicit,suppose John Doe (orKenneth Arnold)reports seeing a flying disc. Whether ornot he gives a detailed description isimmaterial. Then soon after manyotherpeople also report seeing objects in thesky and also they report findingobjects. Suppose, moreover, that theobjects which are found have the samegeneral shape as the descriptions ofobjects reportedly seen in the skybut that they are clearly hoax devices.Then John Does (and KennethArnolds) story is discredited, and thefew discs that the foreign power has arefree to fly wherever they wish (as longas they stay away from cities) becausethey "know" that whoever sees themwill not be believed.A- scenario as just described(Russia has real discs and flies themover the USA while "covering up" theflights by discrediting witnesses) mayhave been considered by the FBI in itsdecision to investigate,but in any.eventthe suggestion of subversion :andcreation :of hysteria. by a "foreignpower" was definitely made (seeSchulgens letter in Part I).Whateverreasoning may have been invoked toconnect the "bonafide" reports with thehoax reports, the FBIentered the UFO"arena" with the -intent to discoverwhether or hot any of the UFO reports.could be directly attributable : tosubversion. For example, Gen.Schulgen asked that Kenneth.Arnoldand Byron Savage (an RCA fieldengineer .who reported seeing a disc inMay 1947) be investigated"since theywere.among the first to sight the allegedflying discs. He. indicated that ,hedesired that -the investigation be.directed toward ascertaining whetheror. not either of these individuals haveany. subversive background or toascertain,whether or not they had anyulterior motives for reporting thesesightings."17(According to a note onthe document that included thisrequest, "a review of Bureau files failedto reveal any derogatory informationthat could be identified with theseindividuals.") Many of the teletypemessages to FBI headquarters andreports on investigations made afterJuly 30, 1947, were headed "securitymatter X", "internal security",- andsabotage". By the end of September, the FBIfile contained many reports, aboutequally divided between good reportsand poor reports/hoaxes. Many of thereports had been supplied by the AAFmerely as information for the FBI withno investigation requested. Many ofthese reports concerned sightings bytechnically oriented individuals (pilots,military personnel, scientists). There(continued on next page) 13
  • (FBI Files, Continued)was even an early analysis of sightingsthat had been carried out by someonein the AAF (no name given). Itcontained 18 sightings up to late July1947, and broke these sightings intotheir various characteristics forcomparison according to Date, Hour(local time), Location, ObserversName, Occupation, Ground or AirObservation, Number of Objects,Altitude, Direction of Flight, SpeedDistance Covered, Length of Time inSight, Deviation from Straight Flight,Color, Size, Shape, Sound, Trail,Weather, Manner of Disappearance,and "Remarks". The analysis includedcopies of all the sightingsanalyzed, butthere was no conclusion expressed.However, associated with the analysisin the FBIfile,but not necessarily a partof it, is an updated page with nosignature which expresses someonesinteresting conclusions. The paper,which was verylikely writteninlateJulyor in August 1947, reads as follows:"From detailed study of reportsselected for their impression ofveracityand reliability, several conclusions havebeen formed:(a) This "flying saucer" situation isnot all imaginaryor seeing too muchinsome natural phenomenon. Somethingis really flying around.(b) Lack of topside inquiries (i.e.,lack of requests by top echelonmilitaryofficers), when compared to theprompt and demanding inquiries thathave originated topside upon formerevents, give more than ordinaryweightto the possibility that this is a domesticproject, about whichthe President, etc.know.(c) Whatever the objects are, thismuch can be said of their physicalappearance:1. The surface of these objects ismetallic, indicating a metallic skin atleast.142. When a trail is observed, it islightly colored, a Blue-Brown haze, thatis similar to a rocket engines exhaust..Contary to a rocket of the solid(propellant) type, one observation,indicates that the fuel may be throttledwhich would indicate a liquid rocketengine.3. As to shape, all observationsstate that the object is circular or atleast elliptical, flat on the bottom andslightly domed on the top. The sizeestimates place it somewhere near thesize of a C-54 or a Constellation.4. Some reports describe two tabs,located at the rear and symmetricalabout the axis of flight motion.-5. Flights have been reported fromthree to nine of them, flying goodformation on each other, with speedsabout 300 knots.6. The discs oscillate laterally whileflying along, which could be snaking."All of the previous information hasbeen presented to indicate the typesofreports and the sort of information thatwas available to the FBI by the end ofSeptember. About 60 non-trivial, non-hoax reports, some from FBI sourcesand many from AAFsources,were filedby the end of September. Also filedwere documents giving viewpoints onthe situation regarding "flying discs".All of this information played animportant part inthe decision ofthe FBIto end its official investigatory status.However, the FBI investigation mighthave continued anyway, if it hadntbeen for "the last straw", which I willdescribe shortly.However, first I would like topresent some information whichsuggested to the FBI that it might beinvestigating our own secret weapons.The document of interest reads asfollows:18"Special Agent Reynolds (callhimSA) of the Liasion Section, whilediscussing (flying discs) with Lt. Col.Garrett (Col. G) of the Air ForcesIntelligence, expressed the possibilitythat flying discs were, in fact, a .very .highly classified experiment of *heArmy or Navy. SA was very muchsurprised when Col. G. not only agreedthat this was a possibility, butconfidentially stated it was his personalopinion, that such was a probability.Col. G. indicated confidentially that aMr who isa scientist attached to theAir Forces Intelligence, wasofthe sameopinion.""Col. G. stated that he based hisassumption on the following: Hepointed out that when flying objectswere reported seen over Sweden, the"high brass" of the War Departmentexerted tremendous pressure on theAir Force Intelligence to conductresearch and collect information in aneffort to identify these sightings. Col. G.stated that, in contrast to this, we havereported sightings of unknown objectsover the United States, and the "highbrass" appeared to be totallyunconcerned. He indicatedthisledhimto believe that they knew enough aboutthese objects to express no concern.Col G. pointed out further that theobjects in question have been seen bymany individuals who are what heterms "trained observers", such asairplane pilots. He indicated also thatseveral of the individuals are reliablemembers of the community. He statedthe above has led him to come to theconclusion that there wereobjects seenwhich somebody in the Governmentknows all about.""SA pointed out to Col. G. that ifitis a fact experimentations are beingconducted by the United StatesGovernment, then it does not appearreasonable to request the FBI to spendmoney and precious time conductinginquiries with respect to this matter.Col. G. stated that he agreed with SAinthis regard and indicated that it wouldbe extremely, embarrassing to the AirForces Intelligenceif it later is learnedthat these flying discs are, in fact, anexperiment of the United States(continued on page 19) .
  • f fBy Ann DruffelNOTE: Walt Greenawald, the author ofthis months guest column, isa mechanicalengineer with 25 years experience inrocket engine research and development.In 1972, he observed a UFO overCalifornia from the window of acommercial airliner andsincethat time hasAIRLINE PILOTS AND UFOsSeveral years ago, after I hadbecome sufficiently intrigued by theUFO enigma to digest everything Icould afford on the subject, I had acasual conversation with a pilot friendof minewho flew for AmericanAirlines.He, being somewhat surprised at myinterest and position on the alienspacecraft theory, insisted that folkswho reported discoidal-shaped craftwere viewing airplanes at odd angles.Since that conversation, I wondered ifanyone had specifically polled a groupof airline pilots for their impressions ofthese controversial UFOs.I speculated that the average pilot,highly trained and with so muchresponsibility, would make anexcellent observer and would beconsidered a very credible witness.From their unique vantage point,observing airspace for hours on end foranything near the flight path whichcould endanger the airliner, I expectedthat they would see more than theirshare of UFOs.The following questionnaire wassubsequently sent to approximately170 airline pilots, mostly captains, allactively flying for a major US airline. Ireceived 24responses or a 14% return.1. In your opinion what is theprobability that some UFOs areintelligently controlled spacecraft fromsome other planet?ANSWERS: 0-10% Probability 16(69.5%)11-50% Probability1(4.5%)51-100% Probability6 (26.0%)2. Do you think there areintelligent beings elsewhere in theuniverse?ANSWERS: Only three pilotscould correctlyidentify this UFOresearch group.9. Do you think the UFOphenomena should be studied openlyby the U.S. Government?ANSWERS: Yes 14 (63.5%)No 8 (37.5%)10. Do you have a collegedegree?ANSWERS: Yes 17 (74%)No 6(26%)11. Most UFO sightings areexplained as known phenomena—approximately 80%. Give an opinion asto what you think the remaining20%may be (some rare, unknown thing,hallucinations, alien spacecraft, a newweapons system, etc.)ANSWERS: Six pilots, 25%,gavetheir opinion thatUFOs came froman alien source.Five pilots, 20.8%,responded thatUFOs probablywere caused by un-known phenomena.12. True or false: People withmore education are more likely toreport a UFO sighting?ANSWERS: Yes 4(20%)(right answer)No 16 (80%) ••"•••13. At least one major collegeoffers a course on UFOs forcredit?ANSWERS: Yes 13(56.5%)studied the UFO phenomena on acontinuing, volunteer basis. The followingarticle has been taken from a much longerreport written recently by Mr.Greenawald. The full report, includingtables and graphs,isavailableto interestedresearchers. .Possible 4 (17.5%)No 6 (26.0%)3. Have any of your flyingcolleagues ever reported (publicly orprivately) a UFOsighting?ANSWERS: Yes 8 (34.8%)No 15 (65.2%)4. What UFO literature have you .read (books, reports, privatepublications, magazines, etc.)?ANSWERS: Books 5 (22.7%)Magazines 5 (22.7%)Reports, articles 2(9.1%)None 10(45.5%)5. Does your airline have anofficial (or unofficial) policy on UFOsightings?ANSWERS: Yes 1 (4%)No 22(92%)Unknown 1(4%)6. For what is Professor GeorgeAdamski famous?ANSWERS: Only one pilot couldidentify Adamski,as an early "con-tactee" arid author.7. Who is Dr. J. Allen Hynek?ANSWERS: Only one pilot couldidentify Hynek, asan astronomer andUFO researcher.8. What did the CondonCommittee (University of Colorado)do? - .(continued on next page)15
  • ANSWERS: Yes 4 (16.7%)(right answer)Other 20 (83.3%)(responses like"hope not", un-known, "waste ofmoney", etc.)14. Have you ever seen a UFO?ANSWERS: Yes 5 (20.8%)No 19 (79.2%)One pilot reported two sightings inhis 23,000 hours, in the air, brieflydescribing them as:"In a mid-1948 night 50 miles westof Phoenix, Arizona, sighted a cigar-shaped o b j e c t , w h i t e - l i g h t e dproceeding south at high speed. Itappeared to hover then disappear. Theother pilot saw the same thing as I."And "In 1950, on a night trip to SaltLake City, Utah, sighted a delta-shapedobject, green lighted, proceeding west,south of the airport at what appeared tobe a rather slow speed. This sightingwas reported on TV by the other pilot."Another pilot reported the mostinteresting UFO event: "About 1964approximately 75 miles west ofAllentown, Pa., at 37,000 ft. and over a25,000 ft. solid overcast, an objectappeared as a small moon. Severalsmaller objects seemed to fly into andaway from the brightly lit object.Several other airline pilots in the areasighted the objects and questioned theNew York Center about it. The centerhad no radar contact with the object.The object was viewed for about 10minutes until we descended into theovercast. There appeared to be nowaythat the object would have been areflection because the overcast wassolid for at least 20,000 ft."This event appears to have.involved a rare "mother-craft" type ofUFO. . .similar sounding to thosereported over France inthe great flapof1954. This particular UFO may* havebeen relatively huge to have been seenby other nearby pilots, as normallyairliners are spaced far apart for safety,considerations.PILOTS ATTITUDES: One of themost striking results of this poll was anemergence of an extremely skepticalviewpoint regardingthe reality of UFOsamong those pilots who had neverobserved something in the sky whichthey could not explain. Graphsavailable from the author indicate thatthe airline pilots studied by him were atleast twice as skeptical of UFO realityas the U.S. national average.Exploration of the reasons for thisvariance, most likely psychological innature, could very well be the subjectofsome future study.In contrast to the skepticism notedrelative to the belief in UFOs, airlinepilots are much more prone to acceptthat intelligent life exists elsewhere inthe universe. Results of Question 2show that 56% of the pilots polledbelieve that there are smart beings outthere. Comparing this to a survey ofparticipants in a Center for UFOStudies (CUFOS) conference atLincolnwood, Illinois, in early 1976, itwas learned that approximately 50% ofthose polled attributed UFOs to anextraterrestrial source. Inother words,pilots tend to support the ETI belief butgenerally refuse to accept that an alienhas arrived on this planet.These skeptical attitudes on thepart of the polled pilots should not beassessed without an evaluation of anindividuals knowledge on the subject.In an area so controversial as UFOs, itis not surprisingthat the most skepticalones are those who have notinvestigated the great wealth ofinformation available. The mostskeptical pilots had never heard ofAdamski, Condon, or Hynek, and hadread little at all on the UFO subject.Regarding UFOs,skepticism correlateswell with the ignorance factor.There also appeared to be adefinite trend of skepticism with age for,those pilots who had not sighted aUFO. The older pilots are. predominantlyskeptical.of UFO reality.rRegarding the feeler as to airlinepolicy on UFO sightings, only onerespondent said "yes" to this query,and added, "not official airline positionwhen making statements." I wouldpresume that he means that a pilotmayreport a UFO sighting on his own, andwhatever he says does not reflect theairlines position on the matter. Noother pilot reported that this particularairline had an official or unofficial policyon UFO matters.My own opinion is that all airlineshave an unwritten rule—DONTPUBLICIZE UFO SIGHTINGS ANDOUR AIRLINE! This is conjecture onmy part, but UFO stories associatedwith commercial airline travel is bad forbusiness. Anypilot reporting one to thepress is sticking his neck out.The most interesting characterfrom this effort was the pilot whoresponded that he never seen a UFO,had never talked to another pilot whohad seen one, had read some booksand articles, and was 100% convincedthat some UFOs were alien spacecraft.He even admitted that he carried aloaded 35-mm camera in the cockpit—just in case.CONCLUSIONS:1. Airline pilots see significantlymore UFOs than the average person,20.8% as compared to 8% of the U.S.population polled in 1973. In early 1977,the National Inquirer reported in theirown poll of airline pilots that 11.4% hadseen a UFO, somewhere between thetwo previous percentages.12. Airline pilots are significantlymore skeptical regarding the realityofUFOs than is the average citizen.3. Airline pilots "shoot the bull"about UFOs.16 (continued on next page)
  • Lucius ParishIn Others WordsThe October 18 issue ofNATIONAL ENQUIRER reported onthe new NASA examination of UFOreports since 1967. This preliminarystudy will determine if a furtherinvestigation is necessary. A total of 92UFO sightings were reported to theENQUIRER, following its "OperationSkywatch" on September 10,according to an article in the October25issue. This issue also contains averyinteresting item about a Martianformation which resembles a ruinedcity. The November 8ENQUIRER tellsof the Defense Departmentscontinuing interest in UFO reports. Dr.Robert Jastrow, director of NASAsGoddard Institute for Space Studies,gives his views on the likelihood ofcontact with extraterrestrialswithinthenext 40 years in this same issue. Aproposal for a United Nationsexamination of the UFO subject isdiscussed in the November 15ENQUIRER.The November issue ofREADERS DIGEST contains an anti-UFO article by Ronald Schiller. He"explains" specific UFO cases byusingKlassic methods, apparently unawareof the total inadequacy of Klass"research."Another report on the AcapulcoUFO conference appears in theNovember 7 issue of NEW WEST.Some errors are evident, but it is agenerally interesting report on thegoings-on. A related article in this issuedeals with Steven Spielbergs film,"Close Enclounters of the Third Kind."The Vol. 1, No. 3 issue of NEWREALITIES has three articles ofinterest: a survey of Ufology after 30years, a report on Ray StanfordsProject Starlight International, and stillanother examination of the Acapulcoconference.Wendelle Stevens article on UFOactivity in the area of Virginia Beach,Virginia, and William Leets report onKentucky UFO cases are about theonly two items ofinterest inthe #8issueof TRUE FLYING SAUCERS & UFOs.Decembers UFO REPORTcontains articles by Wendelle Stevens,Brinsley Le Poer Trench, John A.Keel,and others, including an interestinginterview with Dr. James Harder.The January issue of OFFICIALUFO contains a couple of semi-decentarticles, but the remainder of the issueis total garbage. Ditto for JanuaryANCIENT ASTRONAUTS, whoseonly redeeming feature is a reprint ofone of WendelleStevens good articles.Leonard Stringfield has beeninterested in UFOs since that day inAugust, 1945, when three glowing"blobs" affected, the engines of theplane in which he was flying. In lateryears, his interest was responsible forproducing the CRIFO (CivilianResearch, Interplanetary FlyingObjects) periodicals, NEWSLETTERand ORBIT.These excellent additions to UFOliterature were followed by his firstbook, INSIDE SAUCER POST 3-OBLUE. His latest book, SITUATIONRED, THE UFO SIEGE!, is, in thewords of the sub-title, "An Update onStrange and Frequently FrighteningEncounters." Essentially, it is a reporton the events ofthe 1973 UFO flap, pluslater happenings which Stringfield hasinvestigated. It is filled with reports ofsightings, landings, occupant andabduction cases—the fascinating andoften mind-boggling events whichmake even the most seasoned UFOresearchers ponder the vastcomplexity of the subject. In relatingUFO cases which he has heard fromvarious sources, Stringfield provides awealth of potentially importantmaterial, but one might wish for a bitmore documentation for these stories.However, SITUATION RED iscurrently well worth your attention.The rather dramatic title is thepublishers choice, not the authors,incidentally. The book is available for$8.95 from Doubleday &Co., Inc., 245Park Avenue, N.Y., NY 10017.Readers who are interested inLeonard Stringfields earlier writingsmight like to knowthat the full set of 36CRIFO publications is available fromthe author (4412 Grove Avenue,Cincinnati, Ohio 45227) for $18.00.Copies of his first book, INSIDESAUCER POST 3-O BLUE, are alsoavailable at $3.00 each. All items arewell worth the price, in my estimation.California Report, continued4. Airline pilots are grossly under-informed about the UFO phenomena.5. Older pilots tend to be moreskeptical than younger pilots regardingUFO reality.(There is only one comment which canbe added to Walts splendidstudy. Whyin the world hasnt the U.S.Government made use ofthisvast built-in monitoringsystem—all the pilots onthe U.S. airlines—to gather detailedand expert UFO reports?—AnnDruffel)NATIONAL ENQUIRER, Feb. 8, 197717
  • Directors MessageBy Walt AndrusAs promised, Columbia Picturesepic film "Close Encounters of theThird Kind" made its nationwide debutDecember 14, 1977, opening in 460selected theaters. Preliminaryattendance figures indicatethat itcouldsurpass "Star Wars" in popularity,although this prediction is premature,since both continue to run week afterweek in major theaters. Nearly everypublication has given "CE3K" favorablereviews as an entertainmentfilm,thatleaves viewers very impressed as theydepart from the theater. StevenSpielberg has built up the final scene toa climaxwhich could only be describedas "beautiful". Others come awayfeeling that it has religiousconnotations, which was also inten-tional in the Script. An evaluationof the film by scientific UFOlogistswould lack the enthusiasm expressedby motion picture film critics. Eventhough actual UFO cases were theinspiration for the story, Hollywoodsensationalistic techniques embellishedthe action, lighting, and sound effectsfar beyond the real event, causingsome phases to ring of Walt Disney,while others are reminiscent of ahorrible nightmare. A prior concernthat the hiimanoids depicted and theshapes of the craft might influencefuture UFO sighting reports may bediscounted, since nothing new wasinjected into the film in this respect.MUFON has received numeroustelephone calls from newspaperreporters coast to coast, inquiringwhether the influence of "CE3K" hascaused the number of UFO reports toincrease and to what degree. Since wehave been going through a very lowintensity period, the impact of the filmwould be significantly apparent ifit hada bearing. To date, it has only been aconversational item. Since it has onlybeen showing for a few weeks, itwould18be premature to speculate upon itsoverall influence. However, we do notbelieve that it will create an abnormalnumber of hoax reports.On the other hand, the film hasmany positive aspects which we predictwill be forthcoming.(1) Older UFO sighting reportsby respectable citizens,that have beenshared only with their immediatefamilies due to the fear of ridicule,willnow rise to the surface. The personalfeeling that the experience was "toofantastic" for anyone to believe hadcompelled the observer to remainsilent.(2) Even though the film isconsidered science-fiction by a largesegment of the population,there will bethousands of competent scientists,engineers, educators, etc., who willrecognize this scientific problemand bemotivated to volunteer their servicestoward its resolution.(3) It may provide the necessaryincentive to individual nations to opentheir own UFO investigations studyifthey are presently in the evaluationstage.Just as we recommend that everyMUFON member should beconversant with the contents of theMUFON "Field Investigators Manual",viewing the film "CE3K" is essentialgroundwork for recognition of reportsthat may be so influenced by thisHollywood extravaganza.Needless to say, we aredisappointed that Dr. Robert Frosch,NASA Administrator, in his responseto Dr. Frank Press, Scientific Advisorto President Jimmy Carter, did notrecommend that NASA launch theirown investigation into the study of theUFO phenomenon. We should not bediscouraged, because they clearly keptthe door open for response to anybona fide physical evidence fromcredible sources. For further details,please read acopy ofDr. Froschs letterto Dr. Press published in this issue ofthe Journal.-As readers have no doubt noted,each recent issue of THE MUFONUFO JOURNAL has contained an addfor the "1977 MUFON SYMPOSIUMPROCEEDINGS". For those who mayhave forgotten to order or who arerelatively new on the UFO scene,MUFON still has copies available ofprior Symposium Proceedings for 1973at $3.25, 1975 at $4.00, and 1976 for$5.00 postpaid. Allother years are outof print and no longer available.Plan your 1978 vacations so thatyou may attend the Ninth AnnualMUFON UFO Symposium to be heldJuly 29 and 30, 1978 (Saturday andSunday) at the Dayton ConventionCenter in Dayton, Ohio, former homeof Project Blue Book at Wright-Patterson AFB. Confirmed speakersare Ted Bloecher, RayFowler,RichardHall, Leonard Stringfield, and MajorDonald Keyhoe.If "CE3K" was found to beinadequate by UFOlogists as adocumentary on UFOs, the new TVseries directed by Jack Webb, titled"Project UFO", may have a far greaterimpact on the viewingpublic. Allegedly,it is based upon sightingreports takenfrom the files of Project BlueBook, andwill, hopefully, be more factual incontent. Please consult your local TVstation program listings for this seriesscheduled to start in February.At the Eighth Annual MUFONUFO SYMPOSIUM in Scottsdale,Arizona, on July 16, 1977, Bill Pitts,MUFON State Director for Arkansas,disclosed preliminary informationconcerning telephone conversations,correspondence, and personal(Continued on page19)
  • Directors Message Continuedinterviews with influential governmentpeople in Washington, D.C., in theirinquiry into the status of the UFOsituation in the United States. Bill wasapparently selected as a contact due tohis work in organizingand chairing theFort Smith UFO Conference, whereinall the major UFO organizations wererepresented. Since NASA has giventheir response to President JimmyCarter via Dr. Frank Press, Bill Pittsfeels that he can now be more specific.Starting on February 11, 1977, Billreceived an unsolicited telephone callfrom the office of the Secretary of theAir Force Liaison for LegislativeInquiry(S.A.F.L.LI.) at the Pentagon. Aftersending a letter with the UFOinformation requested, he receivedanother call on April 4th. This wasfollowed by another phone call on May11from Mr. William Montgomeryof Dr.Frank Press office, in the ExecutiveOffices of the President. While inWashington, D.C. from July 4to 10,Billmet with Mr. Stanley Schneider,Assistant to the Director (Dr. Press)onJuly 6 for approximatelytwo hours. Mr.Schneider had been handling the mailon UFOs for Dr. Press, as well asserving as the initial contact andsubsequent contact with NASA onUFOs. This information and otheritems were discussed with Bill duringthe two hour session in the ExecutiveOffice of the President. During thismeeting, BUI was told that NASA wasbeing contracted in order to take thematter of UFOs away from the U.S. AirForce and, hopefully, establish anagency which could give an honesteffort toward a solution. Nothing of aconfidential matter has been disclosedin Bills statements herein, but only aconfirmation that he would providenames and dates at an appropriatetime.FBI Files continuedGovernment.""SA subsequently discussed thismatter with Col. L. R. Forney of theIntelligence Division of the WarDepartment. Col. Forney stated that hehad discussed the matter previouslywith Gen. Chamberlain. Col. Forneyindicated to SA that he has theassurance of Gen. Chamberlain andGen. Todd that the Army isconductingno experimentations with anythingwhich could possible be mistaken for aflying disc.""Col. G. of the Air ForceIntelligence subsequently contacted SAand indicated that he had discussed thismatter with Gen. Schulgen of theArmyAir Forces. Gen Schulgen hadpreviously assured both SA and Col. G.that to the best of his knowledge andinformation no experiments were beingundertaken by the Government whichcould be mistaken for flying discs. Col.G. indicated to SA that he had pointedout his beliefs to Gen. Schulgen andhad mentioned the possibility of anembarrassing situation arising betweenthe AirForces Intelligenceand the FBI.Gen. Schulgen agreed with Col. G. thata memorandum would be prepared forthe signature of Gen. McDonald, A2 toGen. LeMay, who is in charge ofResearch and Development in the AirCorps. Col. G. indicated that thismemorandum will set forth thecharacteristics of the objects seen byvarious reliable individuals. Thememorandum will then request Gen.LeMay to indicate whether or not anyexperiments are being undertaken bythe Air Forces which could possibly beconnected with any of the observedphenomena. Col. G. stated that when areply is received from Gen. LeMay, acommunication will be addressed to theBureau.""SA will follow this matter closelywith Lt. Col. Garrett and Gen.Schulgen so that the Bureau will bepromptly advised of all informationregarding the flying discs,especially anyinformation indicatingthat they are, infact, an experiment of someGovernmental agency."On Sept. 5, 1947, the FBI receivedthe following note from Gen.Schulgen:18"In answer to a verbal request ofyour Mr. S. W. Reynolds, a completesurvey of research activities disclosesthat the ArmyAirForces has no projectwith the characteristics similar to thosewhich have been associated with theFlying Discs." (signed) Geo. F.Schulgen, Brig.General, USA;Deputy,Asst. Chief of Air Staff - 2.This officially laid to rest thepossibility that the US government hadany devices which could havegenerated flying disc reports, althoughthe possibility was again discussed in1950.20(To be continued)Part 3 will appear in December 1977 issue ofThe JournalREFERENCES11. document;FBI document;FBI document;FBI document;FBI document;FBI document;FBI document;FBI document;FBI document;FBI document;filed 7/6/47filed 7/7/47filed 7/8/47filed 7/11/47Wed 7/1V47filed 7/11/47filed 8/20/47filed 8/19/47filed 9/15/47filed 8/19/5019
  • MAGAZINE HOAX EXPOSEDBy Ann DruffelIn the January 1978 issue ofOFFICIAL UFO, the title of a leadarticle blared out the startlingnewsof"The Night an AmericanTown DiedofFright". The story was listed on themagazines cover as "Saucers Loot andBurn Chester, Illinois: StorySuppressed by Officials".The skepticism with whichobjective ufologists and investigatorsmet this "information" was justifiedwhen followup research by the BentonEvening News, Dlinois, and theSouthern Illinoian of Carbondale,Illinois, revealed the entire story to befraudulent:Neither reporter Bob Nesoff norJoseph Arimond found the town ofChester looted, burned, destroyed orotherwise damaged by UFOs or anyother marauders.OFFICIAL UFO, until a fewmonths ago, was a fine magazinepublishing honest research. TheChester hoax, however, follows hardupon its July 1977 issue in whichanother blatant hoax was publishedand later exposed by MUFON UFOJOURNAL then-editor, Dennis Hauck.The Chester, Dlinois, story in theJanuary 1978 issue was written bysomeone purporting to be "City SheriffLuke Grisholm" (an admittedpseudonym), who conveniently statedin the article that he was leaving townafter revealing the facts of the UFOassault on his home town and movingelsewhere so that he could not belocated.The article contained the followingfalsehoods:1. That giant UFOs repeatedlyswept over the town, setting homesandother property in flames. Investigativereporters from the above-mentionednewspapers could find no evidence offire or other destruction.2. That the entire town of 5,300experienced a night of terror from thecontinually attacking, low-level UFOs.The truth is that not even ChestersMayor nor any of its citizens who wereinterviewed have any idea of whatattack the author was writing about.3. The "City Sheriff LukeGrisholm repeatedly called nearbyChanute Air Force Base to send jetfighters to chase away the UFOs. Thetruth isthat Chester has no Sheriff, buta Police Chief, Harold Howie, whodenies the entire story as a deliberatecanard.4. That Channel 8 went blank ontelevision sets in Chester, followed bythe appearance of an alien figure,presumably from one of the attackingcraft. There was no verificationwhatsoever of this rumor.In New York, OFFICIAL UFOseditor, Jeffrey Goodman, attemptedweakly to defend the article by statingthat it had been submitted by afreelance writer and that themagazines staff had tried to check outthe story. Evidently,their methods ofchecking leave much to be desiredGoodman would not comment further.OFFICIAL UFO is distributedwidely throughout the United Statesand Canada, as well as overseas.Publication figures are not available,but about 150,000 newsstand sales perissue are claimed.It has become plain thatinformation published in OFFICIALUFO is untrustworthy and that themagazine no longer deserves thesupport of ufologists. In view of itswidespread popularity, however, wewonder how many more hoax articlesmust be printed before theunworthiness of the magazine isuniversally recognized.(Credit: James A. Williams, Benton, Illinois, forlocal news reports)IMark R. Herbstritt.stronomyNotesTHE SKY FORJANUARY 1978Mercury —For a fewdays around thellth, it may be seen low in thesoutheast before sunrise. At greatestelongation west, the planet is about 14degrees above the horizon at sunrise.Venus — It is too close to the sun forobservation, being in superiorconjunction on the 22nd.Mars — In Cancer, it rises at aboutsunset and isvisibleallnight,oppositionbeing on the 21st.Jupiter — Moving from Gemini intoTaurus, it iswell up inthe east at sunsetand sets before dawn.Saturn — In Leo, it rises about threehours after sunset and islowinthe westat sunrise. On the 20th, it is 1.1degreesnorth of Regulus.The Quadrantid Meteor shower in theconstellation Bootes occurs Jan. 1-4.