Mufon ufo journal 1980 12. december


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Mufon ufo journal 1980 12. december

  1. 1. ""MUFON UFO JOURNALNUMBER 154 DECEMBER 1980Founded 1967lOFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF MUTUAL UFO NETWORK, INC.i$1.50f^7%;1>s» • . *Tehachapi Mountains UFO (circle). See California Report, Page 16.
  2. 2. The MUFONUFO JOURNAL(USPS 002-970)103 Oldtowne Rd.Seguin, Texas 78155RICHARD HALLEditorANN DRUFFELAssociate EditorLEN STRINGFIELDAssociate EditorMILDRED BIESELEContributing EditorWALTER H. ANDRUSDirector of MUFONTED BLOECHERDAVE WEBBCo-Chairmen,Humanoid Study GroupPAUL CERNYPromotion/PublicityREV. BARRYDOWNINGReligion and UFOsLUCIUS PARISHBooks/Periodicals/HistoryMARK HERBSTRITTAstronomyROSETTA HOLMESPromotion/PublicityTEDPHILLIPSLanding Trace CasesJOHN F. SCHUESSLERUFO PropulsionDENNIS W. STACYStaff WriterNORMA E. SHORTDWIGHT CONNELLYDENNIS HAUCKEditor/Publishers EmeritusThe MUFON UFO JOURNAL ispublished by the Mutual UFONetwork, Inc., Seguin, Texas.Membership/Subscription rates:$15.00 per year in the U.S.A.;$ 16.00 foreign. Copyright 1980 bythe Mutual UFO Network. Secondclass postage paid at Seguin,Texas. POSTMASTER: Send form3579 to advise change of addressto The MUFON UFO JOURNAL,103 Oldtowne Rd., Seguin, Texas78155.FROM THE EDITORThe Meier hoax (no quotes necessary) is so blatant that we hope noone is fooled by this charade. Unless Meier or others who claim to be-lieve him wish to dispute the charges against him, Kal KorfPs exposeshould be the last word. We hope so.Whats going on in China? In addition to the military pilots case inthis issue, we have a new report on sightings in China scheduled for anupcoming issue. Why does arch skeptic Phil Klass misrepresent the stateof U.S. radar when he should know better? Will 1981 bring some reso-lution to the convoluted mystery of people who claim knowledge ofcrashed UFOs and retrieved humanoid bodies? The Fund for UFO Re-search expects to make a grant next year for an in-depth study of someabduction claimants. Will this baffling question be illuminated? Andcan the Fund make a difference in helping to obtain answers? WillCitizens Against UFO Secrecy force some new disclosures from theCIA?We have no shortage of interesting questions as we enter 1981. Letus pledge a renewed effort to work together and to support - asactiveinvestigators or as contributors - one or more of the worthy (andneedy) organizations in the front line of the battle to obtain the un-varnished truth about UFOs.,i CIIn this issueTHE MEIER INCIDENT: INFAMOUS HOAX 3By Kal K. KorffLETTER FROM CHINA 7By Paul DongUFOs AND U.S. RADAR. 7By Richard HallUFO SIGHTED FROM AIRCRAFT 8By Harold R. ChandlerSTATUS REPORT ON ALLEGED CADAVER PHOTOS 11By Leonard H. StringfieldCALIFORNIA REPORT ("New California UFO Photos") 16By Arm DruffelIN OTHERS WORDS 19By Lucius ParishDIRECTORS MESSAGE 20By Walt AndrusThe contents of The MUFON UFO JOURNALare determined by the editor, and do not neces-sarily represent the official position of MUFON.Opinions of contributors are their own,and donot necessarily reflect those of the editor, thestaff, or MUFON. Articles may be forwardeddirectly to MUFON.Permission is hereby granted to quote from thisissue provided not more than 200 words arequoted from any one article, the author of thearticle is given credit, and the statement "Copy-right 1980 by The MUFON UFO JOURNAL,103 Oldtowne Rd., Seguin, Texas" is included.2
  3. 3. THE MEIER INCIDENT: THE MOST INFAMOUS HOAX IN UFOLOGYBy Kal K. Korff(©1980,KalK. Korff)According to the book UFO . . .Contact From The Pleiades, a Swisscitizen named Eduard "Billy" Meierhas had over 130 contacts with aliens,recording over 3,000 pages of quotesfrom them, and has taken hundreds ofclear pictures of their craft. He has al-so been given rock and metal sampleswhich, according to his story, defyconventional explanation. The bookgoes on to state that an investigationconducted by Wendelle Stevens,Thomas Welch, Britt-Nilsson-Elders,and Lee Elders, has shown all ofMeiers claims to be genuine.If the events described above weretruly factual, it would certainly be oneof the most remarkable occurrencesthe world has ever seen. Unfortunate-ly, as we shall discover, none of thepurported events appears able to with-stand careful scientific scrutiny.According to the book, Meiersfirst experiences with extra-terrestrialsbegan on January 28, 1975. However,according to articles written by Wen-delle Stevens and published in the nowdefunct Argosy UFO, dated March1977 and May 1977, Meiers firstsighting of a UFO occurred on June2, 1942 while he was only five yearsof age. Subsequently, Meier has alsoclaimed that during that same year,he was invited to take a ride on a pear-shaped UFO by a "very old man."2According to press releases de-signed to help promote the bookssale, Jim Lorenzen, Director of theAerial Phenomena Research Organi-zation, supposedly endorsed the bookas being a genuine representation ofthe facts. However, he did not. Thiswas a partial quote, taken out of con-text, as Lorenzen went on to say thathe considered the Meier photographs"art" not science.3Wendelle C. Stevens, a one-fourthpartner in Genesis HI Productionswhich published the book, says Meiersought no publicity from anyone con-cerning his alleged experiences. Yet itis a documented fact that Meier in-formed Mr. Wilfried Falk of Mann-heim, West Germany, that he plannedto write a book about his experiencesas early as 1977.4 A1SO; according toJim Lorenzen, Stevens once describedMeier to him as "a sort of person whogets great satisfaction out of foolingauthorities."5The book alleges that some ofMeiers pictures were analyzed bycomputer and shown to be authentic.It further goes on to imply that DeAnza Systems of San Jose, California,did some of the analysis of the Meierphotographs.A check with Mr. WayneHeppler,the manager for De Anza Systems,produced a categorical denial that ananalysis was ever done."There was no analysis perform-ed. What we did was some enhancingto make certain parts of the picturestand out." exclaimed Heppler."So your firm did not do an anal-ysis?""No." replied Heppler."But the book implies that youdid, and furthermore it claims that viacomputer analysis the Meier photo-graphs were shown to be authentic."I stated."That is garbage!" replied Hepp-ler. "Look, what these guys did wascome down to De Anza Systems claim-ing that they wanted to buy a com-puter from us. So we took one of theirpictures, one showing the UFO, andenhanced it to make certain parts ofthe picture stand out. Then they tookpictures of it, left, and stated that theywould get back in touch with us. Andwe havent heard from them since,"exclaimed Heppler.I then asked Heppler if De AnzaSystems had the technical capabilitiesto do such an analysis, and he replied:"No. We are in no position to do ananalysis."Finally, I asked Heppler who themen were who had visited De AnzaSystems. He told me that it was JimDilettoso and Thomas Welch. Heppleralso said he knew of WendelleStevens.6In an as yet unpublished paper,Wendelle Stevens states that athorough analysis of several of theMeier photos was conducted by NeilDavis of Design Technology in Poway,California. A further check with De-sign Technology brought the informa-tion that their analysis had by nomeans been conclusive, and that itcertainly did not prove the validity ofthe Meier photographs.^Another claim made in the bookUFO. . .Contact From The Pleiadesis that Meier once photographed aSwiss fighter attacking a UFO. Yetwithin the photograph itself, thereis no visible evidence of this eventtaking place. After this was broughtto their attention, Genesis III claimedthat the pilot did not see the UFO,but that it had merely been trackedon radar. If this were the case, onewonders how the pilot could possiblyhave attacked something that he wasunable to see? Also, if one relies on astrictly cursory examination of thephotograph in question, it will benoted that the UFO appears to beflying too low to have been pickedup on radar!The book goes on to say thatthere were many witnesses to the(Continued on next page)
  4. 4. (Hoax, continued)events described by Meier. Yet thebook fails to give any statements bythe witnesses, the names of the allegedwitnesses, or descriptions of what thewitnesses saw. Instead, what one isleft with are pictures of Meier sittingin a room full of unidentified people,which in itself proves nothing.Another of Meiers interestingclaims is that the aliens informed himthat they originated from the star sys-tem of "the Pleiades." This on itssurface is illogical, since the term"Pleiades" is an Earth term for thatparticular cluster of stars. It wouldbe a tremendous coincidence indeedif the aliens also called their homestar system by the same name. Evenmore damning, however, is that thePleiades are only some tens of millionsof years old, and thus still relativelyunformed stars. According to astro-nomers, they are neither old enoughnor stable to have formed planetscapable of supporting life. In fact,their generally gaseous state can beeasily viewed in the photo of thesestars that appears in the book!"It is alleged that over 3,000 pagesof notes were taken by Meier duringhis encounters, and that the aliensgave Meier the most sought after prizeof all -wisdom. If this were the case,it was very basic wisdom indeed, sinceall of the_ supposed quotes are of apseudoreligious nature, while advo-cating a belief in reincarnation andpantheism.Dr. James Hurtak, a languagespecialist who has read most of Meierswritings in the original German, hadthis to say about them:"As an aside, I have had the op-portunity to readjarge portions of theSemjase correspondence (some elevenvolumes of German material viaMeier). From the standpoint ofhighercriticism - thelinguistic use of Egypt-ian-Aramaic and Egyptian-Hebrewnames (of divinities) and stylistic af-finities — is latter day patch-work."All this shifting play of corre-spondences by which everything, as itwere, is cheated of its individual logiccreates a mood of pensive jesting,spirited allusions, and even sublimetravesty. By all standards of genuineancient knowledge (e.g. Egyptology,Semitics, etc.), this civilization whichlays claim to being 5,000 years intothe future has not offered much inthe way of a quantum jump over whatour ancestors had 5,000 years ago,(inthe way of intellectual transforma-tion)."9In addition, the "Talmud Imman-uel," claimed by Meier to be the trueNew Testament hidden until recently,proved to be nothing more thanLuthers version of the New Testamentwith added passages exhibiting thesame style as the Semjase manuscript(Meiers alleged space "source") andcontained exactly the same stylisticerrors characteristic of Mr. MeiersGerman!10The book claims that Meierscamera has been jammed at just shortof infinity for several years, whichhampered the focus on some of thephotographs. Since this appears tohave been the case, and if Meier didexperience over 130 contacts withaliens as claimed, then one mightwonder why Meier never bothered toget his camera repaired, so that hecould have taken clear sharp picturesof these "remarkable" events. Evenmore curious however is the apparenttotal ignorance of Stevens, Elders,Welch, et. al (who, mind you, are sup-posedly "highly competent" investi-gators) as to even the most basic prin-ciples of camera operation. Even pre-suming that the focus of Meierscam-era is "jammed just short of infinity";virtually any camera clerk in the coun-try knows that because of the depth offield characteristics inherent in allcamera optics, (regardless of the makeor model of the camera involved) aphotograph of any object located be-tween five or six feet from the cameraand infinity (which in camera termi-nology means anything over 50 feetaway) will still be in perfect focus inany normal daylight exposure. Onlyobjects closer then the 5 or 6 feetdepth of field limit will appear fuzzyand out-of-focus, with the "fuzziness"increasing the nearer the object is tothe camera.This fact alone would seem to bea very serious flaw in the Genesis IIIresearch, and casts serious doubt, onthe possible authenticity of the Meierphotos.Concerning physical evidence, thebook goes on to say that the Pleiadean"cosmonauts" gave Meier some crys-tals which were unique, and not gener-ally known to Earth technology. Inaddition to these, Meier was also givenfour metal samples, and one biologicalsample.I spoke with Dr. Marcel Vogel, ascientist who conducted a series oftests on the Meier samples and whoseopinion of them totally contradictswhat the book claims. Marcel inform-ed me that only the first sample wasunique. It consisted of aluminum, sil-ver, and thalium, with each of thethree elements having a high degree ofpurity. The other samples were foundto be ordinary crystals consisting ofquartz, citrine, amethyst, and silversolder, none of which proved to be ofextraterrestrial origin, and they do notsubstantiate the claims made in thebook.11 Another independent analy-sis was conducted by Dr. Robert E.Olgilvie, a professor of metallurgyat the Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology in Cambridge. Olgilviesfindings verified Vogels, proving thesamples to be terrestrial in origin, andnot unique.12The last seven pages of the bookgives the reader a lesson in pseudo-religious archaeology, in which theauthors connect the Pyramid ofCheops, the Temple of Hathor, andthe Parthenon of Greece to the Pleia-des. Also included is the Devils Towerin Wyoming, which played a promi-nent role in the movie "Close Encoun-ters of the Third Kind." While itmakes for interesting reading, ithas little to do with Meier and his al-leged experiences.Computer Analysis of MeiersPhotographsFirst generation copies of ten ofMeiers more popularly-known photo-graphs, three of which appear in thebook, were forwarded to GroundSaucer Watch Inc., in Phoenix, Ari-zona, for computer analysis.The following modes of computerenhancement were utilized:*Edge Enhancement*Color Contouring
  5. 5. *Pixel (picture cell) DistortionTest*DigitizingIt is the opinion of the entireGSW photographic staff, that "Allof the pictures were hoaxes and thatthey should not be considered evi-dence of an extraordinary flyingcraft."(1) Most of the analyzed photo-graphs are extremely light (insuffi-cient density) above the UFO image.This tends to mask any supportivestructures above the UFO.(2) The UFO images are out-of-focus when compared to other fea-tures of comparable distances from thecamera. This is indicative of the UFObeing close to the camera.(3) Utilizing the camera lens size(42 mm) and the focal length of thecamera, all calculations place the UFOimages at distances between four andsix feet (1.2 to 1 & meters).(4) Atmospheric effects on dis-tance features in the pictures is notnoticeable on any of the UFO images.This indicates that the UFOs are posi-tioned at a close point to the camera.(5) Shadows on the UFOs andthe foreground/background featuresdonor correlate.(6) The three types of hoaxphotography utilized were:(a) A suspended model witha string;(b) The double exposuretechnique;(c) The double print method.For specific criticisms of Meiersphotographs, let us examine each ofthem individually.Meier reported that the large treein tne foregroundof one picture is 156feet (46.6 meters) from the camera.Computer analysis reveals that theUFO is in front of the tree. Thebranches, have been interpreted to bebehind the UFO. The density (greyvalue) of the shadow (bottom) portionof the UFO varies appreciably fromfeatures in the tree. Measuring theangle of the sun as it strikes the treesand comparing it to the UFO, it iseasy to observe the difference.There is photographic evidenceto suggest usage of the double printtechnique. The double print techniqueAllegedPleiadean spacecraftEdge enhancementshowing supportingstring or wireconsists of two negatives, one of theUFO model and the other of an out-doors scene. Then you place bothnegatives in the enlarger and printthe picture. The UFO model is closeto the camera.Computer digitizing scan of theedges of the UFO and foregroundfeatures in another picture revealsthat the UFO is in the same plane.Pixel (picture cell) displacement re-veals a smooth edge on the UFO witha uniform density, which is indicativeof closeness to the camera. There isevidence above the UFO of a linearstructure, representing a supportivedevice (i.e., string or wire).In the photograph shown withthis article, one can note the obvioussupportive string or wire above theUFO revealed under edge enhance-ment processing. Sizing of knownfeatures indicates a model with dimen-sions of less than eight inches (203mm) in diameter. Also, there are dis-crepancies with regard to the shadowson the UFO.Photographic analysis of six addi-tional pictures has revealed similarserious discrepancies and evidence offakery. Ground Saucer Watch finallyconcluded that: "It is our opinion thatall of the analyzed photographs arehoaxes, both crude and grandiose,andthat they should not be consideredevidence of an extraordinary flyingcraft. All of the evaluated frames canbe duplicated with a basic camera anddarkroom equipment. . .the incidentsare an updated, 1980 version of theGeorge Adamski claims of detailedphotographs and contacteeism withspace people."One thing that immediately be-comes noticeable is the fact that thebottom portions of the UFOs inMeiers photographs are always dark,(Continued on next page)
  6. 6. (Hoax, continued)as would be the case if the objects inquestion were small models at a fairlyclose distance from the camera. If theobjects were of any appreciable size;say 20-30 feet in diameter, the bot-toms of the craft would not be as darkas they are. This is an obvious point,visible to the naked eye.Also note that the photographwhich shows the UFO in front of thetwo log piles is a cropped down ver-sion of the original. Curiously, whenthe original uncropped photograph isexamined, there is a distinct lack of aground shadow on the hill below theobject where, under normal circum-stances, one would readily expect tofind one. ,In one particular sequence ofMeiers photographs, a UFO appearsto be circling a tree. Although Gene-sis III claims that the entire sequencewas taken in a period of a few seconds,a close examination of the changingcloud patterns in the background actu-ally indicates that the pictures musthave been taken over a much longerperiod of time — far longer than the"few seconds" ascribed to the incidentby both Meier and Genesis III.Genesis Ills counter explanationthat "clouds change quickly in thatarea" falls flat when one checks theweather report of the day in questionand discovers that the winds were onlyblowing at 15 miles an hour.^Further examination of this se-quence turns up evidence that theUFO penetrates the limbs of the tree,as if the UFO were resting on itsbranches. Even more startling, how-ever, is that when the original site wasvisited, there was no sign of a tree everhaving been there! Based on thesefindings, it must be concluded thatboth the tree and the UFO werecleverly superimposed onto photo-graphs showing nothing but a normalcloudy day.Not only are Meiers experiencessaid to be continuing to this very day,but to bring the reader up-to-date onhis latest experiences, Genesis III isplanning the release of UFO. . .Con-tact From The Pleiades Volume IIsometime in late 1980 or early 1981.In addition to the claims alreadymentioned, Meier has also stated thathe has travelled back into time andmet with Jesus Christ. Jesus, as thestory goes, was so pleased with Meier,that he appointed Meier as one of hisdisciples. Meier, however, returnedback to this day and age to avoid beingcrucified.Meier also claims to have visitedother planets, to have travelled in timeto both the past and the future, and tohave taken close range photographs ofthe Apollo-Soyuz space capsule link-up in 1975, prehistoric pterodactyls,San Francisco sinking into the bayafter a major earthquake, and evenone of Gods eyes. (Curiously, whenasked why he didnt photograph bothof Gods eyes, Meier replied that it wasimpossible since the other eye waswinking at one of his Pleiadean com-panions!).Summary and ConclusionAfter a careful review of all of themajor purported events as stated byGenesis HI and those individuals in-volved with the Meier case, it can beconclusively shown that none of theevents as claimed contain the slightestshred of evidence to support their au-thenticity. Therefore it must be statedthat the Meier case gives every appear-ance of being nothing more than agrandiose and elaborate hoax. It is cer-tainly the most extravagant of all ofthe known contactee cases containedwithin the records of UFOlogy.Perhaps Wendelle Stevens in aletter to Jim Lorenzen put it best:"As you well know, Jim, the bookwas never designed to present anyhard facts..."ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSI would like to thank the follow-ing individuals who have helped thisauthor tremendously during the courseof his investigation.Mr. William H. Spaulding andGround Saucer Watch Incorporated,13238 North 7th Drive, Phoenix, AZ85029. Jim Lorenzen, Director of theAerial Phenomena Research Organiza-tion, 3910 East Kleindale Road, Tuc-son, AZ 85712. Ray Stanford of Pro-ject Starlight International, P.O. Box5310, Austin,. TX 78763. NuclearPhysicist Stanton T. Friedman, UFO-logists Alvin Stanley Reed, BarbaraReed, Dr. Marcel Vogel, Dr. J. AllenHynek, Dr. Richard F. Haines, WilliamL. Moore, Colman VonKeviczky,Harry Lebelson, and Richard Hall.Also my thanks to Mr.Wayne Heppler,Dr. Robert Ogilvie, Robert Sletten,Steven Ciacciarelli, Raj Reddi, and Ms.Sarah M.Rea.REFERENCES1. Lorenzen, Jim.. APKO Bulletin. Vol-ume 28, No. 10, June 1980, Page 2.2. Ibid.3. Lorenzen, Jim. APRO Bulletin. Vol-ume 28, No. 2, August 1979, Page 1.4. Spaulding, William H. Ground SaucerWatch Inc., Phoenix, Arizona. Con-tinuous correspondence August 1977to date.5. Lorenzen, Jim. APRO Bulletin. Vol-ume 28, No. 10, June 1980, Page 2.6. Heppler, Wayne.De Anza Systems, SanJose, California. Interview May 1980.7. Lab Technician. Design Technology,Poway, California. Interview May1980.8. Hynek, Dr. J. Allen. Continuous cor-respondence May 1976 to date.9. Lorenzen, Jim. APRO Bulletin. Vol-ume 28, No. 10, June 1980, Page 2.10. Hall, Richard. MUFON UFO journal.Number 150, August 1980, Page 8.11. Vogel, Dr. Marcel. San Jose, California.Interview June 1980.12. Lebelson, Harry. New York City, NewYork. Personal Communication Octo-ber 1980.13. Spaulding, William H. Ground SaucerWatch Inc., Phoeniz, Arizona. Contin-uous correspondence August 1977 todate.14. Employee. Schweiz MeteorologischeZentralanstalt. Interview May 1980.MAINICHI DAILY NEWS,Toky», Japan - Oct. 20,1930 CR: T. KatsumuraUFOsSightedInNorthSpainLERIDA, Spain (AFP) -Several unidentified (lyingobjects responded to policesignals for 90minutes near thisSpanish town Saturday beforedisappearing at the crack of.dawn, police reported.About 5.30 a.m. the UFOs. appeared over the area, 150kilometers (94 miles) west ofBarcelona, emitting a stronglight. Several witnessesspottedthe object, including a policepatrol that signaled the UFOswith a blue light on the roof ofoneof the police cars.
  7. 7. LETTER FROM CHINALetter from Mr. Chow Ching Tung who isacrew of Certain Unit of the Air Force: —The press reported the flying sau-cer case which took place in Australiaon 21 October 1978. A 20-year-oldpilot reported that a large elongatedobject flashing with green lights circledin the sky above the airplane he wasflying and a few seconds thereafter,he and his plane were missing.r The second day after this case, itwas on Monday 23 October 1978 wealso sighted a very peculiar phenome-non. Our Force is stationed in a cer-tain airport of Kansu Province. OurMain Group crew members togetherwith several hundred people in theairport were watching a film show inthe open-field square. A few minutesafter the -film show, at 20 hours and4 minutes, the whole audience in sud-den amazement was looking at the skyand talking to each other, expressingpuzzlement, surprise, and alarm.At that time, the sky was fine - -cloudless and windless - - with starsspreading over the sky. When I lookedup, I saw a peculiar big object movingfrom eastward to westward, fromabout 60 degrees angle to overhead.After about 2-3 minutes, it was ob-structed by a house at 60 meters dis-tance to the west and could not besighted any more.This object was very prominent.It had two searchlight-like white lightsdirected forward and another light atthe back. The light beams illuminatedwhat seemed to be smoke or cloudnear the object. Its speed was not fast;it was marching ahead in a straightline. The object was huge. It occupieda visual angle of 30-35 degrees. Itlooked as if it had a very big objectin its center, but this could not besighted clearly. It was not a fallingstar, nor locusts or birds. It was sure-ly not an airplane; we are all air forcefighter personnel so this can be de-finitely established. It was not veryhigh, estimated at about 6,000 to8,000 meters. It was a very peculiarphenomenon, something never sight-ed before. A few days later, we allwere still talking about it. If we hadhad a camera to take a photo, it wouldUFOs AND U.S. RADARBy Richard HallIs U.S. defense radar so all-encom-passing that UFOs would be definitelydetected regularly, or is it less thanperfect - in fact, more like Swisscheese in its coverage - asanobserverof defense matters recently reported?At the Smithsonian InstitutionUFO symposium in September 1980,Philip Klass (Senior Avionics Editorfor Aviation Week) strongly assertedthat UFOs could not be flying freelythrough our air spaces and go unde-tected. He used .this as an argumentthat UFOs do not exist except as mis-taken observations. He also arguedthat there are too many UFO reportsfor them to be spaceships, and sincethe U.S. government could not keepa secret for over 30 years, UFOs area myth.Aviation Week has the reputationof being a handmaiden to the Penta-gon, which has led some people to be-lieve that Klass is an anti-UFO propa-gandist for the Defense Department.That view may be simplistic, but evenassuming so, one can legitimately raisethe question of Klass accuracy andhave been marvelous. Some one said:"It was a pity. It was quite possiblethat it was a flying saucer." There-after we watched the newspaper care-fully for a report, but none appeared.Thousands of us personally sightedthe same phenomenon.Washington Post, Nov. 14,1980Chinese Panel to Study UFOsPEKING, Nov. 13 (AP) - Chinahas set up an association to study un-identified flying objects which report-edly have been sighted in many partsof the country, the official New ChinaNews Agency Xinhua said. The agencysaid yesterday more than 100 UFOsightings have been reported in fiveprovinces in south-central and eastChina. Some reports described the ob-jects as long, others as saucer like oras balls of brilliant light, the agencysaid.reliability as a reporter on othergrounds.A rival publication, Defense Week(300 National Press Bldg., Washington,D.C. 20045; weekly, $500 per year)on November 10 reported a view ofU.S. radar portraying it as much morefallible than the Defense Department— or Klass — would have us believe.The newsletter, whose content makesit obvious that it is not a Pentagonapologist, reported that Russianbombers had been able to fly through". . .enormous gaps in U.S. Defenseradars." To slip past the computer-ized Semi-Automatic Ground Envi-ronment (SAGE) radar network inthe U.S. and Canada, the bombers". . .need only to fly below about10,000 feet." Similarly, the far northradar networks have floors of about1,500-3,000 feet.The newsletter said that theRussians simply locate the gaps andfly through, ". . .as drug smugglersdo routinely." The ease with whichillegal drugs are transported throughour "infallible" detection networkfrom Central and South America isscandalous.As a supposed expert on aviationelectronics, Klass should be aware ofthese weaknesses. Why then does heignore well-known facts about radarand use the alleged lack of radar UFOsightings as an argument against UFOsat the same time that other skepticscite the fallibility of radar to discreditreported sightings?Radar UFO sightings have beenreported by the North American AirDefense Command (NORAD) and byother elements of the military andcivilian radar network.. No doubtKlass would argue that such reportsare too few and far between to becredible. No doubt he would pooh-pooh the idea that many more suchsightings have been classified undersecurity regulations, although a num-ber of pilots and radar operators have(Continued on page 9)
  8. 8. UFO SIGHTED FROM AIRCRAFTBy Officer Harold R. Chandler(California Highway Patrol)On August 9,1979, at about 0900hours, I took off from Gasquet, Calif.,Airport about 17 miles east of Cres-cent City, Calif., on the north coast.My destination was Red Bluff, Calif.,about 165 miles southeast.About one hour later my flighthad progressed to a point about 120miles southeast and about 8 milessoutheast of Hayfork, Calif. My alti-tude was 8500 ft. mean sea level andabout 4000 feet above ground level.The terrain is mountainous and ruggedwith deep canyons.I had just started a slow descenttoward the valley to the east. MywifeJanet was flying the right seat, my 8year old son Scott was in the left rearseat, and my son Wade, age 7. wasseated in the right rear. As usual dur-ing a climb or descent, I was watchingfor other aircraft as was my wife. Imight add at this point that my wife isa licensed pilot. At about 10:00 hoursmy wife brought to my attention twoaircraft off to my right front and be-low. She gave me an astonished lookand told me to look. I crabbed theplane to the right and put the nosedown. At that time about 3500 to4000 feet below and to my front,were two disc shaped craft sort ofwhite in color. Other than their ob-vious shape that I saw, they were fly-ing at a very high speed. The craftwere flying in the canyon very low tothe ground (contour flying).The hills rose up on both sides ofthe craft. No wings or any type of con-trol surfaces were visible. The craftwere flying close together with oneoffset and to the left rear at 100+feet. The craft, from the distance Isaw them, were not much bigger thanthe craft. I was flying (1947 Piper Tri-Pacer PA-22). The wing span wasabout 30 feet. The craft I saw were(Continued on next page)^•p^t ^N*«JT i 4 -*?? M4 ^
  9. 9. (Radar, continued)surfaced to testify to that effect. A-gain, even if we assume that the casefor legitimate radar UFO sightings isweak, why does KJass ignore valid rea-sons why radar sightings probablywould be only sporadic that are in thepublished literature?As Robert M. L. Baker and othershave noted, radar targets that dontconform to the profiles of known air-craft or missiles are programmed outof computer systems or ignored as ir-relevant. Such "erratics" or "anoma-listic targets" are not systematicallystudied, at least as far as is publiclyknown. Our radar surveillance andtracking systems, Baker says, ". . .areeven more restrictive and thus, evenless likely to provide information onanomalistic phenomena than are as-tronomical sensors." ("Symposium onUnidentified Flying Objects," Hear-ings, House Committee on Science andAstronautics, July 29, 1968).In The UFO Handbook (Double-day, 1979), Allan Hendry also reviewsthe capabilities of radar networks, in-cluding NORAD (p. 230), and suppliesa number of reasons why military ra-dar as presently configured is far froman infallible detector of UFOs, if theyexist as solid objects flying throughour air spaces.Thus, research by Defense Week,Dr. Baker (astronomer-engineer), andAllan Hendry, directly contradicts therosy view of Phil Klass that our radarwould automatically detect all UFOs.To paraphase skeptic JamesOberg, how does Klass "calibrate as tohis sophistication" when he ignoreshighly relevant information about thespecialized and restrictive uses of radarthat contradict his position? And toparaphase skeptic Robert Scheaffer,"which do wethrow out?" - DefenseDepartment professions of infallibil-ity that reek of soothing syrup forpublic consumption, or apparentlymore objective information from re-liable sources that paint a differentpicture?Footnote: I have personally talkedwith dozens of military and civilianradar operators and pilots who havebeen involved in radar UFO cases,most of which were never publicly re-ported. There is no doubt in my mindthat U.S. military and civilian radarhas frequently tracked solid, unex-plained objects in the atmosphere per-forming in inexplicable ways. Radarobviously could be a useful scientifictool for studying UFOs if it were to beapplied for that purpose. Certainly itis not infallible, but systematic scien-tific study of radar UFO reports (sofar not done) could yield importantinformation pro or con about UFOs.A RADAR CASEIN POINTOne of the cases obtained inFreedom of Information Act suitsis an "Air Intelligence InformationReport" on U. S. Air Force Form112, dated 18 March 1958, describ-ing radar-visual UFO sightings in thePanama Canal Zone by Anti-AircraftDefense personnel on March 9-13,1958. The 7-page intelligence report,though rich in descriptive detail, doesnot include technical informationabout the types of radar used. lack-ing that information, the case can-not be fully evaluated. However, de-fense radar did track — and observers(Continued on next page)(Aircraft, continued)flying up, over, and down the otherside of the hills going northeast. In amatter of seconds after my first ob-servation, I started a time-distancecheck on the craft based on the hillsbelow me. The craft started turningnorth toward the Trinity Alps northof Weaverville. I had them in sight forabout 20 seconds and they covered an"estimated" distance of about 35mfles, turning north past Weaverville.They appeared to accelerate. Whenthey passed under me they were atabout 600-700 mph and from thatpoint on accelerated toward the moun-tains due north, and I can only esti-mate 1500 mph.It does not seem reasonable thata piloted conventional aircraft wouldbe contour flying in and out of can-yons, low level, at that speed. I can-not rationalize a pilot reacting thatfast. The craft blended in with thelight-colored peaks to the north andI lost sight of them.No other aircraft was around meat the time. It was a beautiful flyingday with scattered alto-cumulusclouds. My wife and my oldest sonScott saw the craft as plainly as I had.We are all in excellent health with20/20 vision.Upon my arrival at Red BluffAirport I checked in at the FlightService Station. The attendant I con-tacted was not particularly interestedin the sighting. I checked Notice toAirmen reports on military operations.I found a notice of low level trainingoperations N.E. of Marysville, Calif.,with T-39 aircraft north of Sacra-mento, but I know these particularaircraft and they are much slower anddistinctive in appearance. What wasobserved was not any aircraft withwhich I am familiar.I made no further attempt to re-port the incident until I met Mr. Tay-lor of MUFON out of Sonora, Calif.,while I was at work one day. He sug-gested that I document the incident.My occupation is California StateTraffic Officer, California HighwayPatrol. I have an A.A. degree, 3 yearsof college. I am 38 years old and havebeen in police work approximately 15years. I have a commercial, instru-ment, and flight instructors ratings,with approximately 1,000 hours flighttime. I am a graduate of two policeacademies. My wife, Janet, has a She has been a social workerand is a licensed private pilot.Editors Note: The sighting wasinvestigated by Paul C. Cerny withDr. J. A. Hynek and Marvin Taylorand a MUFON report form was com-pleted on October 28, 1980. Sketcheswith the report indicate that Chandlerdescribed the UFO as a featurelesslens-shaped disc, seen from variousperspectives. Paul Cerny has forward-ed a copy of the report to Dr. RichardF. Haines, Bay Area physicist, for hiscontinuing study of pilot sightings(over 3,000 reports). Dr. Haines worksclosely with the MUFON Bay Areagroup.
  10. 10. (Radar, continued)did see — objects that have not beenexplained.Excerpts from the intelligence re-port follow, reported by Capt. VernonD. Adams, USAF, Assistant Directorof Intelligence, Caribbean CommandAOC. The report originally bore aCONFIDENTIAL classification.During the period 9 through 13 March,three unexplainable radar contactshave been made by equipment locatedin the Canal Zone. On two occasions,aircraft were vectored into the area bythe radar sites, with negative results.Interrogation of scope operators hasindicated that returns (images on ra-dar scope - - Ed.) were strong andeasily distinquished from cloud for-mations. . . Generally the tracks weretriangular with speed of movementvery erratic. Movement appears attimes to be evasive action. The inci-dent of 9-10 March was tracked bygun laying radar. During period ofobservation, radar maintenance per-sonnel checked out their systemthoroughly. In addition, lock wasbroken (electronic "lock" onto trackedobject - - Ed.), however, the equipmentimmediately picked up target and lock-ed on. A second trackingradar situatedon Taboga Island (Pacific Ocean side ofPanama - - Ed.) locked on the return.Target generally remained in same areahalfway between radar sites.Personnelstationed at sites reported seeing redand green lights. . .for only a shortperiod. A commercial flight volunteer-ed to investigate target. He was vec-tored within a hundred yards of targetand reported negative sighting. Targetfaded out at 0208R on 10 March.About 8 hours later another radartarget west of the canal was seen for a-bout 2 hours, and a T-33 sent to inves-tigate saw nothing. On March 10 at2003R, Capt. Harold E. Stahlman,Operations Officer, 764th Anti-Air-craft Operations Center, was notifiedof an unidentified object approachingfrom the west. It was later identifiedas a Chilean airliner, but at 2045R twoadditional radar targets were observedin the vicinity of Fort Kobbe onSearch Radar, then on Track Radar atFort Amador. The latter unit obtaineda radar lock-on of two objects about100 yards apart moving in a "slight cir-cular path" over Fort Kobbe at about2,000 feet altitude. The weather was"clear, visibility unlimited, no wind10reported." What happened next sug-gests "typical" UFOs:An attempt was made by members ofthe Radar Site, Flamenco Island, to ob-serve the objects by searchlights.Whenthe light touched the objects, theytraveled from an altitude of two thou-sand feet to ten thousand feet in fiveto ten seconds. This was such a rapidmovement, that the Track Radar,which was locked on target, brokethe Track Lock and was unable tokeep up with the ascent of the ob-jects. . .no balloons were in the airat that time.To recap, two separate radar unitshad a fix on two apparently solid ob-jects moving in a curved path over theCanal Zone. When searchlights wereshone on the objects, they were ob-served visually and (confirmed by ra-dar) one abruptly climbed 8,000 feetat a speed that computes to be betterthan 500 m.pJi.Earlier the same day, the TabogaIsland radar site had tracked an uni-dentified target moving in an "erraticto a triangular shaped flight pattern"with a speed that was "variable, fromhovering to approximately one thou-sand miles per hour."Track Radar indicated that the objectmoved away from two United StatesAir Force jet aircraft that were ap-proaching. At that time the speed ofthe object was calculated at approx-imately one thousand miles per hour.Skeptics, such as Phil Klass, mayseize on the fact that in the two in-stances when aircraft went to investi-gate unidentifiedradar targets, nothingwas seen. However,tucked away in the"Supplement to AF Form 112" is achronology of events indicating thatwhen the T-33 went to investigate onMarch 10, "UFO was observed to a-void jet. As soon asjet got close, UFOappeared to move away for severalmiles, then stop." An identical seriesof events occurred during the famousJuly 1952 Washington, D.C., radar-visual sightings when jet interceptorstried to close in on UFOs detected byradar.The same chronology or log readsas follows for the searchlight incident:24:00. Radar advises that as soon assearchlight was employed, the objectbecame evasive. Object now at 10.0(10,000) feet, 7800 yards from site.Two returns, one at 10.0 feet, otherat 08.Several other radar and/or visualsightings over the 5-day period are in-cluded in the intelligence report, butthose cited here are sufficient to makethe point. Apparently solid objectshave been detected by radar, oftenvisually confirmed, performing in waysinconsistent with any known objectsor phenomena. The reports have re-ceived no organized or systematicstudy and instead have been brushedaside, ignored, or debunked.UFO DATA MART(A service for members/subscribersonly, except commercial businesses.You may request "wanted" items,"for sale," request information ex-changes, free, jCORRESPONDENTS WANTEDNationally and internationally.Would like to correspond with otherUFO investigators. Gayle McBride,P. 0. Box 46, Winston-Salem, NC27102.Would like to exchange UFOcuttings (clippings) with MUFONmembers anywhere. Bob Taylor,731 Hagley Rd. West, Quinton,Birmingham B32 1AJ, England.RESEARCH PROPOSALS WANTEDSend for proposal form and guide-lines. Limited funds are now availablefor scientific research projects, $100to $1,000 or more depending on scopeand merit. Computer studies, investi-gative tools, compilations of referencedata, in-depth physical evidence casestudies, etc. We are looking for newideas. Fund for UFO Research, Box277,Mt. Rainier, Md 20822.
  11. 11. STATUS REPORT ON ALLEGEDALIEN CADAVER PHOTOSBy Leonard H. StringfieldI believe at this writing that thestatus of my research into the legendof retrievals of crashed UFOs and therecovery and secret study of alien hu-manoids rests in limbo. Whether or notI should continue my probes, despitethe encouraging procurement of testi-monials from 20 firsthand sources, de-pends on the resolution of two seriousissues. One concerns my present posi-tion relative to the controversy center-ing around the photographs in my pos-session, which allege to show an alienhumanoid cadaver cryogenically pre-served inside a glass case at Wright-Pat-terson AFB. This issue, which involvesfar more than photographs, also showssigns of somebody cleverly playingtheir hand at hocus pocus. The otherissue relates to a sudden shift to si-lence of my key informants coinci-dental with a dry-up, of 29 potentialsources. It is, of course, too early tomake a judgment on either issue. Per-haps the mystery of silence, so obvioussince early October 1980, can be at-tributed to nothing more than apathyor the diversion of politics, football orthe effects from inflation and reces-sion.But, considering the sensitivity ofthe subject, I cannot help but wonderif somebody in a powerful positionpressed the "silence" button. And, onemay also speculate about the timelyrelease in August, 1980, through theauspices of Williard Mclntyre, of an-other set of photos alleging to show aburnt alien body recovered from aMexican crash site, in 1948. Accordingto Bill Spaulding of GSW, his analysissuggests that the "alien" body in thephoto was a monkey used in earlymilitary rocket tests.In intelligence circles they call it"disinformation." Its basic purpose isto discredit, defuse, or destroy a truth,a belief, a persons character to meetan objective - ad infinitum. Some-times it requires a master plan involv-ing many people; sometimes it is asimple strategem using only a wellplaced rumor —or a photograph!On the assumption that theSpaulding analysis is correct (or, forthat matter not correct), the Mclntyrephotos, released publicly through re-searchers Charles Wilhelm and DennisPilichis (during the time I was at apeak getting firsthand reports withpromises of more to come), stand agood chance of being discredited. But,the master plan - if you will - mayhave other designs, such being that apall of doubt and suspicion will be castover any photograph(s) that may sur-face showing alien cadavers, and be-yond that, any serious research intothe story ofcrash/retrievals.The photos I possess, allegedlyshowing alien cadavers, have not, for-tunately, been publicly released withmy endorsement. The story aboutthem as told in this report is complexand seems shadowed with strong over-tones of conspiracy. Disinformation?If so, the simple strategem was the useof photographs. What a way to cooloff a hot subject. Whatever the grandstrategy, if that be the case, I feelurged to set the record straight re-garding my role in the handling ofmy set of controversial photographs.To offset a wild rash of rumors andspeculation, and some recently con-trived slurs to destroy my credibility,here are the facts about my involve-ment in the issue of photographs: Myfirst contact in the photo affair was"B" of New York who called me onJune 30, 1979, to relate knowledge ofa person, "M", in New England whohad allegedly been under surveillancebecause of possession of vital Intelli-gence information, and photographsconcerning UFOs and related subjects."B" was aware of limited covert inter-play of certain people in the case.Wanting no involvement, he gave methe name of person, "J" as my con-tact, and who would serve as my inter-mediary and consultant to this date. Ireached "J" by phone on July 9,1979. Negotiations for me to procurephotographs and other data concern-ing alien bodies at Wright-PattersonAFB were conducted with "J" mostlyby phone. And, I learned of "Ms"perilous involvement with the author-ities as a security risk.Discreet arrangements were madefor the three of us to meet in *************** March 22, 1980. Here,I was shown three 8 x 10, black &white photos and sepia-toned slides,depicting alleged alien bodies in "deepfreeze" at Wright-Patterson. "M" ex-plained that the photos were only apart of a number of photos he had inhis possession showing different viewsof the body and also one or moreshowing a "landed" UFO at an AirForce base. His source for the bulk ofhis photos was an unidentified Intelli-gence employee, but he said that hehad also a free flow of informationfrom another prime source. Combin-ing this material, "M" was in positionto present some profound lectures,but, he confessed, his candor withprivileged information soon becamehis undoing. In short, it led to an ab-rupt confrontation with the Intelli-gence community, the results of whichI choose not to reveal at this time. Butif "Ms" story was true, I reasoned, itwould be ample reason for his cautiousnegotiations with me. My main thrustin our eyeball-to-eyeball meeting wasto gain "Ms" trust in me and to even-tually get to see or use in someway,the more spectacular photos he claim-ed to possess. Also, to make our long(Continued on next page)11
  12. 12. (Photos, continued)trips to**** meaningful in serving ourmutual interests, I offered him two op-tions to consider for release of hisphotos. One outlet was to feature thephotos (with convincing backup data)in my next monograph as a powerfulfollow-up to The UFO Crash/RetrievalSyndrome; the other suggestion wasfor me to release the photos, pluswhatever support material he couldprovide, at the forthcoming MUFONsymposium in Houston in June 1980.If all went well, according to"M," I should expect additionalphotos for future use, perhaps in timefor my next paper. However,he stress-ed the point that he wished to writehis own book someday in which hewould not only publish his best photosbut expose the whole sordid story ofhis UFOmisadventures.It was obvious to me that "Ms"ultimate objective in our joint venturewas to avenge his mistreatment at thehands of the authorities. Yes, Houstoncould be the testing ground agreed toby both "J" and "M," and yes, Iwould play the game, despite therisks, to get to the bottom of a deep-ening mystery. The prints producedby "M" in Erie were not impressive,but maybe my expectations were toogreat. Blown up to 8 x 10s, they ap-peared to have been reproduced sev-eral times since duplicating the orig-inals. The most striking print, show-ing a view of the full body in a glasscase, appeared retouched. I was sus-picious. When questioned, "M" ex-plained that he, too, was puzzled byit but accepted the irregularity on thebasis that the photo was one of a settaken in similar surroundings and usingidentical cryogenic accoutrement. Healso pointed out that some of the orig-inal 4 x 5 prints were stamped on thereverse side, "Top Secret, Wright-Pat-terson AFB," with a number and anofficers initials. He did not bring theseprints, however, so I requested xeroxcopies showing this legend on theback. They never arrived. Of signifi-cance, "M" brought two photos, 8 x10 blow ups from slides (also on handfor review) each showing differentviews of what appeared to be dismem-bered or maimed bodies. Excess graini-ness and shadows obscured details, butin evidence was a tilted head, a sectionof arm and a bent leg with foot. These.two unusual photos, like the others,showed the standard accoutrements,such as downdraft units and beakersnear the head emitting vapors. I lookback now and wonder about these twophotos. Why would some one fakingphotos go to the trouble of producinga macabre scene, and why would thatsame someone who had used the bestof props for other views become sosloppy if trying to portray a dismem-bered body? If staged, there was noth-ing clever about it. The pictures wereridiculous. I remember telling "M"that these photos looked more gen-uine than the one which seemed toshow retouching.Before leaving **** "M" allowedme to pose, holding the three photo-graphs in my lap. Communications in-tensified through April and May. Icalled "J" on a weekly basis and longletters came from "M" explaining hisprecarious position. He claimed thathe would have to take every precau-tion because he had reason to believethat he was under constant surveil-lance.On May 6, 1980, came a bomb-shell. A local colleague who had myposed photo, taken in ****, broughtinto my office a copy of the July is-sue of UFO Sightings, a new pulpmagazine published by Myron andIrving Pass. Featured in this issuewas an article by David McCarthy,titled "The Quest For Teleporta-tion," that included a full page pictureof a humanoid body lying face-up ina glass case equipped with downdraftunits and beakers emitting vapors.The caption read, "A prototype cryo-genic freeze chamber. The person in-side is actually a mannequin encasedin special protective mylar foil." Ex-cept for the bodys position in theglass case, and some extra accoutre-ments outside the case, the picturewas strikingly similar to the oneprint that "M" had revealed in ****The next day I called "J", who, stun-ned by my disturbing revelation, pro-mised to call "M" that evening. Thenext day I called again to learn thathis source believed he knew the ans-wer and would write to me soon.Needless to say, I could rationalizemany possible answers in what ap-peared to be a game of hocus pocus.What was "Ms" hand in it or was hebeing used? And, what part, if any,did the timely July issue of UFOSightings, a new publication whichreached the newsstand in May, havein the overall riddle? I had dozens ofquestions that needed "Ms" explana-tion.On May 7, 1980, Bob Pratt, atrusted friend and seasoned writerfor the National Enquirer, visitedCincinnati on a special non-UFO as-signment. During lunch, I let him inon my puzzlement. I showed him thephotos posed in Erie and a xeroxedcopy of UFO Sightings. When I ex-pressed my desire to dig deeper intothe mystery without publicity or tip-ping my hand to research, he pledgedhis cooperative silence.Correspondence from SourceOf salient interest are excerptsfrom letters I received from "M," fol-lowing my request for an explanationof the suspect picture in UFO Sight-ings. In a letter, dated May 7, 1980,addressed to "J" from "M" (xeroxedcopy sent to me by "J" for my file)I quote the following:Dear J:After buying a copy of the issueand examining the photographs onpage 41, I thought a letter would bebetter than a phone call. The photois without question identical to oneof the many different photos I dohave and identical to the one I sentto MR ("M" identifies "MR" as aprobable FBI agent) back in March1979. . .(Seven paragraphs omitted here whichcriticizes the phony stories publishedby the Pass Brothers in their maga-zines, Ancient Astronauts and OfficialUFO.)The photos I have are from a reliablesource and I have many of them show-ing a) mangled humanoid forms, burn-ed or whatever, b) clear black andwhites, c) color representations of twototally different types of aliens and,d) different bodies of the same typeas illustrated in article in question. MayI suggest that the mannequin conceptis also phony. First, for what purposewould such an institution build a man-Iged mannequin? Why so many differ-ent types? It doesnt add up. Of12
  13. 13. course, they dont have all the picturesdo they? Even the chambers in whichbodies are enclosed are slightly differ-. ent in some of my pictures, especiallywhere the bodies are of a differentrace..."Other notable points in "Ms"letter to "J" follow:MR had a copy of the photo and itis the one that appears in the arti-cle. . .tens crash/retrieval projectis the biggest blockbuster in yearsif not the biggest thing in UFOlogy...I know they know I have photographicevidence somewhere. . . I can nowprove pretty conclusively that therewas a real conspiracy to silence meinvolving among other things, thealien bodies. . MR and H are govern-ment agents and their main interest inme was the photograph evidence onalien bodies. . .Now, I can only saywhat I have been saying all along andwhat I told Len, my source is goodand reliable and that the photos werefrom Intelligence files. I have no wayof telling their authenticity except whywere they TOP SECRET in the agen-cy?My next letter came from "M"dated May 20, 1980, from which ex-cerpts follow:. . .Some thoughts on the situation:First, if I were you and you plan tomention the photographs in the mag-azine, I would stay clear of condemn-ing or debunking the magazine. . .thiscan only hurt your presentation as Iam sure anybody who knows anythingabout UFOs already is aware of thestatus of that magazine. Instead, Iwould say that the photo appearedin a magazine and. then hold up theglossy print of that photograph (oneof those Im sending you) and say Iam holding an actual photographicprint of this picture made from thenegative which I have access to. Thengo on without any further delay andtell how the picture may have gotteninto print: via me to an FBI agent. . .Either that or the magazine didntknow what they were printing - andthat, too, is a possibility. . .one morepoint I need to stress re the authentic-ity of the pictures: All I can say is thatthe source is reliable, the pictures didcome from where I said and that I havehad some of these since early 1978...I cannot even say that my sourceknows for sure what they really are. ..On June 2, 1980, "Ms" promisedprints arrived. Developed by a localtrusted photographer at his expensewere eight 4 x 5 prints mounted two-up on cardboard. Seven showed differ-ent views of an "alien" body, all en-cased under glass, each showing similardown draft units around the body,each with beakers emitting vapors nearthe head. Two photos showed the"flesh" of the body tinted in a fadedpink. But, one photo stood out; it hadbeen tentatively promised while I wasin **** and to me it was the mostthought-provoking of the lot. It show-ed bones of a rib cage from which wasextended an arm bent at its elbow,leading to a bulbous wrist, and inview only four fingers with claw-likenails. In many ways the hand lookedsimilar to my drawing of an alienhand appearing in my first and secondmonographs on the subject of crash/retrievals. According to "M" thisphoto was procured by his Intelligencesource who got it somehow from asecret study which had been conduct-ed at a university inPennsylvania.Even at this early stage,on a wist-ful premise there is official "orchestra-tion" for leaking tidbits of good in-formation, I could not help but enter-tain the notion that perhaps this wasthe key photo, the real one. Perhapsthe others, which could be questionedbecause of the UFO Sightings article,could actually act as a defuser or the"safety valve," so to speak,that couldbe used against me if necessary in myfuture research efforts.Also enclosed in the envelope ofprints were alleged back-up memoran-da pertinent to "Ms" confrontationwith the authorities. I believe that ex-posure of their sensitive contentswould not serve a meaningful purposein this report.Speculation about high intriguecan be fun, but aware of tricks, andsome perils, I weighed all the issues.Whatever was afoot, I reasoned, Iwould go to Houston and ever socautiously "drop the bomb" as "M"commented in one of his letters.The Houston AffairUp to the last week it was notactually decided whether I would getto Houston. There was a question oftransportation and who could makethe trip. Finally, the word "go" camefrom Tom Deuley, Maryland research-er. He, in his camper, would leaveWashington, D.C., with Dick Hall,editor of MUFON UFO Journal, andpick me up enroute, each sharing theexpenses. In a quiet moment on theway, I showed Hall the photos, thememoranda and a xeroxed copy ofUFO Sightings. As I recall, he agreedthat I was involved in a "damned-ifyou-do-or-dont" situation, that thealien corpse photos were questionableand made more so by the picture inUFO Sightings. He also said he recall-ed seeing the picture somewhere be-fore and dubbed the retouched photo"Oscar." He also agreed that I shouldgo through with the venture but skipany reference to the memoranda. Ata later stopover, I showed the photosto Deuley. He was impressed by theclaw-like hand and rib cage photo butwondered about the others. Shortlyafter arriving .in Houston, June 6,1980, a brief meeting was called byWalt Andrus to review the photos.Attending were Paul Cerny, Bill Leet,Tom Deuley, his brother Bruce (aphoto expert), and Dick Hall. Andrushad already agreed that I could haveabout 10 minutes to present my mes-sage about my special research pro-gress at the next days main meeting.The stage was set. I wrote my messagethat evening, being very generous withthe word "ALLEGED" in reference tothe photo prints. The next day JohnSchuessler, Deputy Director ofMUFON, introduced me to the audi-ence ahead of the featured speakers.My message is a matter of record, pub-lished in July issue of the MUFONUFOJournal. As everyone who heardmy statement, or talked with me then(and since) can verify, I made it em-phatically clear that the photos I car-ried, in a briefcase at my side, couldbe hoaxes (like others I had seen) andthat the photos would have to be au-thenticated before releasing to themedia. I did not show the photos tothe audience, or later to the inquiringmedia.As the day wore on, and as pre-arranged, I showed the photos selec-tively to a few more close researchers,{Continued on next page)13
  14. 14. (Photos, continued)medical people and NASA personnel.Among the viewers were John Schues-sler, Alan Holt, Dennis Stacy, BillMoore, Stan Friedman, Jerry Clark,John Timmerman, Dr. Henry Mon-teith, and Dr. Richard Niemtzow. Iwanted their reaction. Most reservedjudgement, agreed that I should probemore for substantiation —and all stop-ped for a good look at the photoshowing the clawlike hand and ribcage. Nobody panicked. By the daysend, several people from the crowdstopped me to relate they knew ofnew sources with crash/retrieval in-formation. One knew of an "official"movie taken of a crash/retrieval.From June through September1980, UFO input was brisk. Newsources surfaced to relate stories oftheir experiences in military retrievaloperations and still more potentialsources loomed who seemed ready totalk, that is, according to intermedi-aries who seemed eager to help.Also, during this period, to myconsternation, I received my first re-ports from firsthand witnesses whotold of live entities in military cus-tody. One source saw three disabled"aliens" being helped by medics intoan ambulance from a crashed craft;another encountered a live one underunusual circumstances at a complexnear Wright-Patterson AFB; and stillanother claimed he played a vital rolein a retrieval operation in Hawaii, in1944. Surprisingly, by the first weekin October, 1980, I had 20 firsthandreports, 10 more since the publicationof my monograph, The UFO Crash/Retrieval Syndrome in January 1980.I felt confident, and if only a third ofthe 29 potential sources would comethrough as promisedby their inter-mediaries, I would be ready to startpreparing my next monograph byNovember 1980.During this period of euphoria,others in highly placed professionalpositions offered more encouragingnews. A physicist who had seen thephotos called me to relate that a col-league, "in position to know," com-mented that my photos were "genu-ine." Even my medical informantbroke silence in August to say that he14could not comment on the photo perse, but the body shown had similarfeatures to the body he had seen dur-ing autopsy. But, beneath the surfaceof encouragement, ominous new evi-dence had already begun its slow ero-sion process against "Ms" photo-graphs. No sooner than I had returnedfrom Houston in June, Dick Hall andJohn Schuessler both reported to methat digging into their magazine filesthey found a copy of Ancient Astro-nauts, December 1977 issue, with apicture on the cover showing "Oscar"the retouched humanoid body underglass — the same photo supplied tome by "M." Obviously the Pass Broth-ers, Myron and Irving, had been in-volved with a mysterious source sev-eral months before "M" obstensiblygot into the act. Under a banner head-line, . . . "Secret Chambers Beneaththe Empire State Building," the storytold of the discovery of an alien bodyunderground in cryogenic suspension.The story got more attention in Sep-tember 1978, when Official UFO dis-played a full page ad promoting a pos-ter showing the same recovered body.The copy read, "A specially SelectedLimited Edition Hand-Signed by Dr.L. K. Barnes." Price: $13.00. Indeed,the Pass Brothers involvement in thephotograph affair, dating back to1977, was a setback, but it came as nosurprise. The UFO Sightings article,seemingly timed to coincide with myHouston revelation, was the tip off ofmore to come. Fortunately, the mediawas not involved, and only a handfulof respected researchers had seen myset of photos. Although they express-ed concern for me, and, as one lament-ed that I was the subject of a "cruelhoax," I felt safe to quietly pursue myinvestigation into the deepening mys-tery. There was far more to the wholeissue than the photos, whether theywere real or bogus. Somewhere therewas a snake in the grass, the perpetra-tor being a sinister and powerful forcein the private sector, or, the Intelli-gence community was up to sometricks to discredit my work. I had tofind the answer —despite rumors andcriticism.I called "J" about the problemand he expressed dismay; but he didnthave the answers to the scores of ques-tions. All he knew was that "M" wasin hiding because of a new round ofsurveillance. I tried to reach the PassBrothers at S.J. Publishing, Inc. in Ft.Lee, New Jersey, for a committalstatement, but to no avail. The opera-tor simply stated that no phone forthat office was listed. I made otherprobes, trying to find a new clue, in-cluding a call to Jim Moseley in Ft.Lee, who might know somethingabout the Pass Brothers operation. Iknew Moseley since 1954, and al-though he published a satirical paperon UFOs for the "fun of it," he didhave a good handle on peopleinvolvedin research, including some shadyones. He promised to do some prob-ing. A week later, in September, hecalled me to relate that he talked withone of the former staff members ofthe Pass complex. Regarding the pic-tures, "They are phonies," said Mose-ley "According to the editor, thebodies were models, staged for enter-tainment purposes." He went on torelate that a set (six photos) werebought by the Pass Brothers for usein their magazines. But Moseley couldnot identify the photographer, orother specific details.New PhotoMore calls to "J", on a weeklybasis, in the hope to get "M" to an-swer questions. Stressed was the needfor more photographs, specifically, abetter shot of the claw-like hand andrib cage. Finally, a break in the silencecame on September 16, 1980, when"M" sent me an enlargement of thehand, arm, and rib cage photo. In thisphoto more detail was shown of theclavicle or collarbone. A note explain-ed that whatever the nature of thebones, they did receive TOP SECREThandling. They were shipped from anairbase in Florida to Wright-Pattersonand then on to the university in Penn-sylvania for study.In my continuing quest for in-formation, and keeping Dick Hall post-ed on all my ups and downs, I madeplans to go to Cleveland, Ohio, as aguest of the Cleveland UFOlogy Pro-ject (CUP) to bring a young lady forprofessional hypnosis based on herclaim to have had a possible abduc-tion experience in the Spring of 1980,
  15. 15. near Cincinnati. This trip was timedto coincide with a regular CUP meet-ing on September 20, 1980. At thelast minute, the girl could not makethe trip. Knowing most of the mem-bers of CUP, I decided to go anyway.While there, researcher Stan Tytko of-fered to experiment with my photos.On the assumption that the photosshowed unusual luminous highlightsof muscle in the torso, arms, and legs,he made a set of slides reversing thelights and darks. The results, whichwe agreed proved nothing, were none-theless interesting. The luminous areasof the body, in reverse, showed thecorrect position of the heart, kidney,and liver — all highly vascular organs.Coincidence?For the evenings meeting, I de-cided to show the slides and relate mygeneral progress and frustration incrash/retrieval research. I asked if thepress were present (no) and that noone take photos of the slides on thescreen. Again, I carefully stated thatthe pictures of the bodies were stillnot substantiated and that this testwas just one of a number of continu-ing probes to find the truth.Present at the meeting, by hap-penchance, were Charles Wilhelm ofCincinnati and Dennis Pilichis ofRome, Ohio, who had appeared liveon a TV station in Cleveland to pro-mote their photos purporting to showan alien body recovered in a MexicanUFO crash in 1948. (Wilhelm had re-leased these photos, received fromWilliard Mclntyre, on WLW-TV, Cin-cinnati, August 21, 1980. Right in mybackyard.) Both, recognizing the pic-tures on the screen as being identicalwith the Pass Brothers magazines,were quick to condemn the photos.Later, in a more cordial atmosphere,we managed to discuss our relativepositions. I said briefly that my re-search regarding my photos wentdeeper than what appeared on the sur-face, and I advised that they be carefulin regards to their source. — WilliardMclntyre, or better yet,his source, thealleged navy photographer. There wasno hiding the fact that possibly Wil-helm and Pilichis on one end, andStringfield on the other, were beingused as a media for purposes of dis-information.Sudden SilenceOn October 12, 1980, I talkedwith a new firsthand source who de-scribed his experience as witness of aretrieval operation in Yucca Valley,California, 1947. That was my lastfirsthand informant. My progress intocrash/retrieval research stopped thereabruptly. Since that date, I have runinto a brick wall. All sources —bothold and potential ones — all went si-lent. Intermediaries, who agreed topursue their sources, had one reasonor another to excuse their sourcessilence. Some could not be reached.One admitted his fear of reprisals.Others just disappeared. Another quitresearch and, after some disturbingexperiences, left town. It was hard tobelieve that 29 potential sources couldgo dry just as though somebody hadpressed a button. But the silencedidnt stop with the witnesses.The withdrawal into silence wentdeeper. On October 21, 1980,1 calledBob Barry, Director of 20th CenturyUFO Bureau, and who had made amajor contribution to my recentmonograph regarding privileged in-formation from his contact, a formerC.I.A. employee. Barry had promisedto be in touch with his source to gethis comments on my photos and myknowledge of cases relative to live en-tities in military custody. Said Barrybluntly, "My source cant talk aboutUFOs. He refused to answer any ofmy questions on the photos or thelive retrievals. . .Hes had his knucklesspanked. . ." For the record, Barryhad earlier asked his contact to com-ment on the body from a xeroxedcopy of my print I had sent him forthis purpose. On August 13, 1980,Barrys former C.I.A. friend respond-ed, attesting that he saw no similarityin the body or the head comparedwith what he had seen during a re-trieval . operation in 1962. Silencelikewise with my medical source, whohad sent me a statement in 1979, pub-lished in my recent monograph. In myconcentrated effort to get more spe-cific information relative to the hand,arm and rib photo, I called my sourcein October. His only remark was, "Icant comment on anything." A com-plete withdrawal, since his earlier ap-praisal of the photos in August 1980.The hand, arm, and rib photostill stands out as the key bit of evi-dence, unresolved. To my knowledge,the Pass Brothers dont have it, atleast not yet. Whoever might havefaked it would have had access tosome good anthropological bonesand the know-how to put them to-gether to create their monstrous"Piltdown."In pursuit of answers for thisone photo, I have consulted scien-tific experts. So far, I have receiveda response from Dr. Anthony Perzig-ian, Ph. D., Assistant Professor ofAnthropology at the University ofCincinnati, who examined the photoand sent me the following statement:Dear Mr. Stringfield:Earlier this month at your and Pro-fessor Harry Marks request I ex-amined photographs in your pos-session. Pictured were some unusualkind of creature which gave the ap-pearance of having a simian (ape)like thoracic anatomy, at least inso-far as one could tell from the ribcage. The limbs, however, displayedno particular simian like features. Theupper arm was significiantly longerthan the forearm in proportions onedoes not see in apes. The carpal orwrist region was quite indistinct; thehands gave the appearance of havingfewer than five fingers; the fingersseemed to have claws instead of themore common nails one finds amonghigher primates. This organism, if it isjust that, is quite peculiar and one thatI can not classify as to genus andspecies. Moreover, I would hesitate onthe basis of a photo or two to suggestthat it is some extra-terrestrial formvis a vis a fabrication. Best of luck inyour work..This report, in brief, tells the basicstory of my part in the misadventureof the "M" photos. There remainmany questions, and, of_ putting thejigsaw pieces in their right places.There are, indeed, more pieces to thepuzzle not yet revealed. As I write theclose of this report, long silence hasended from my source "M." In a letterdated November 27, 1980, he writesin part:. . .1 am in full realization of the posi-tion you are in, and I do remember(Confined on next page)15
  16. 16. California ReportBy Ann DruffelNew California UFO PhotosIn April of this year I learnedfrom Mr. Raymond Bayless that afriend of his, Mr. Wesley Frank, hadtaken a series of five photos of an un-identified object on February 13,1980. The series of sequential colorslides depicted the movement of alarge, luminous object along the ridgeof a hill in the Tehachapi Mountainsof California.Mr. Bayless is a noted psychic re-searcher, and he had been conductingpsychokinetic (PK) research with Mr.Frank for some time. He had foundthat Frank possessed considerable abil-ity in this area; for example, he couldproduce raps and audible rings on asmall bell under scientifically control-led conditions.1 He verified the integ-rity of the witness. In Bayless opin-ion, Franks statements regarding hisphotographs could be accepted as ra-tional and honest.Wesley Frank is in his thirties,unmarried and an intelligent, sensitiveindividual. He saw duty as a foot sol-dier in Vietnam. His work as free-lanceadvertising artist produces in him a(Photos, continued)telling you something like this duringour Erie meeting, but had no idea thatthe overtones were so serious.. .1 knowyou are being pushed to reveal proofsand facts and that discrediting has be-gun - and thats serious, but finally,it seems that you have struck a nervein the spinal cord of the jokers whoknow what IS happening. . .1 will tryto answer all of your questions in yourlast two letters and mail out to you thefinal picture soon.As long as my five fingers (notfour, please), can write, feel assuredyou will hear or see more about thiscase in a future issue of the MUFONUFO Journal. - December 2, 1980.need for peaceful periodic isolation,away from the disturbances of citylife.Enjoying the mountains in theirnatural beauty and solitude, he hadbeen in the habit of going 2 weeks ata time to the Tehachapi Mountains,which are about 130 miles from hishome in the San Fernando Valley.During these brief vacations he livedin a trailer belonging to friends.About 11:30 a.m. or 12:00 noonon February 13, 1980, he was photo-graphing cows, bushes, and junipertrees on the hills of the Piute Indianreservation, on a ridge about 5,000feet high. He was enjoying the viewover the Indian reservation; he hadalready taken two or three photosand was concentrating on a junipertree which had an odd and photo-graphically pleasing shape. His Olym-pus camera was loaded with filmwhich had a 64 ASA rating, and thef-stop was 16. He does not rememberthe shutter speed he was using at thetime.Out of the corner of his right eye,he noticed a white glow on a ridge 2or 3 miles across a small valley. Look-ing squarely at the glow, now in asoutherly or southeasterly direction,he realized that it was large objecttraveling slowly along the foothills ofthe Techachapi Mountains. The ob-ject^) seemed at times to be twobright spots clumped close together.One of the "objects" reminded him ofa bright glowing trail.His first thoughts were that thismight be either smoke or a runawaymissile. Realizing that a tripod-fixedcamera would produce a steadierphoto, he began to secure his camerato the tripod he was carrying withhim. This took a few minutes to setup, during which the object(s) contin-ued to move slowly along the ridge ofthe hill in the distance, in what was ap-parently a northeasterly direction.As Frank readied his camera tophotograph the strange object, he sawa B-52 high in the sky in the generaldirection he was looking. The aircraftwas very high, trailing vapor behindit. It made a sharp turn as it was some-where in the vicinity of the object(s)far below it, and headed back the wayit had come."I was watching the B-52," Franksaid in a recorded interview,"and outof the corner of my eye I noticed thething on the ground disappeared com-pletely. After the B-52 completed itsturn and continued on its formercourse, the object reappeared as in-stantly as it had disappeared." In-trigued, Wesley then took a picture ofthe object. It moved further along theridge and he took a second picture."After that 1just kept looking atthe object(s), but it didnt move anymore. The thought occurred to methat it was a runaway missile, and thatthe second glow attached to the mainobject was vapor or smoke. Then whentwo Phantom jets came over (travel-ing from east to west), they camedown and went across the hill wherethe object was. It disappeared again,and when the (Phantoms) were gone,it reappeared a little further along theridge of the hill. I took another shot,and then when the object movedagain, a fourth shot. It looked morelike one object when it reappeared,and the photos show this. I stoodthere and watched it."About 15 minutes after Wesleytook the fourth photo, two militaryhelicopters came by from over thePiute Mountains in the north. The twocraft crisscrossed the hill. Again theobject instantly disappeared. Wesley16
  17. 17. was struck by the fact that the heli-copters crisscross flight seemed to bea -search pattern. Since they came outof the north he assumed they wereArmy craft; there is an Army basesome miles away in that direction.Wesley was watching the object(s)across private ranch land which com-prised a small valley (altitude 3,800feet). This is the level land shown inthe accompanying photo. The identityof the owners and names of theranches concerned are being kept con-fidential until investigation is com-plete. Wesley judged that the objectwas on mountainous property belong-ing to a second large ranch owner be-yond the private ranch in the valleybelow him.The helicopters took some timeto complete their "search" pattern;Wesley lost track of the time butjudges it could have been 30 minutesor even longer. The two choppersthen disappeared back into the north-ern sky and the object reappearedonce more. It had moved still furthertoward the northeast, but abruptlychanged position. It was now seen ashort distance down the slope, be-tween the hill and the witness. At thispoint, Wesley took his fifth photo.Shortly afterward, the object disap-peared again. Although he remainedwatching, it did not show itself again.The duration of the entire episode wasbetween an hour and an hour and one-half.In actual walking distance, the ob-ject was about 7 miles from Wesleyslocation, but as previously stated, theactual distance as the crow flies wasbetween 2 and 3 miles. The object wasabout one-half moon diameter in ap-parent size.After Wesley Frank received hisslides back from the commercial de-veloper, he was relieved to see that thepictures depicted what had been vis-ible to his eyes. Raymond Bayless,the witness, and myself projected andstudied all five slides at Bayless homeand the consensus was that the pic-tures were worthy of in-depth investi-gation.The photos show clear, cloudlesssky - an unbroken blue except forremnants of what might be the B-52sdissipating vapor trail in some of them.The object itself is bright and lumi-nous in comparison with its mountain-ous surroundings. The color filmshows the predominantly green back-ground as varying shades of blue;Frank accounts for this by the bright-ness of the noonday light and the factthat the film was perhaps not idealfor the occasion. The object is barelyvisible on the slides, but in 8x10 blow-ups made later on, the image is be-tween 1 and 2 millimeters in length.The fourth slide, when projected,clearly showed a single object, nearwhich was a thin, white haze resembl-ing dissipated vapor or smoke. In thissingle aspect, the object revealed afairly crisp, convex bottom edge, butthe top was fuzzy like the entire ob-ject in the other four photos. It wasspeculated that the thin haze repre-sented the denser "vapor" or "smoke"which seems clumped onto the mainobject in the other four photos, but inthis one particular slide the "smoke"is being seen in another aspect.Wesley Frank is satisfied that thepictures are perfectly focused, exceptfor the nearest bushes in the fore-ground which were very close to thetripod and camera.Frank kept reiterating that the re-peated disappearances and reappear-ances of the object were like "turn-ing on and off a light." His first im-pression that the object was a crashed,runaway missile became untenable inview of the apparent ability to mate-rialize and dematerialize. He continuedto think that part of the image, atleast, might be "smoke," but whenthe developed slides revealed the ob-ject — even in its double aspect — asconcise and fairly substantial, he wasobliged to discard this tenuous hy-pothesis. As he picturesquely de-scribed his dilemma, "Smoke canttravel from here, to here, to here."He displayed the normal perplexityof a UFO witness trying to find a log-ical explanation for an illogical occur-rence.Frank is willing to accompany re-searchers to the site in an attempt togather documentation on the sightingand to explore the area in an effort tofind physical traces where the UFOevidently traveled along the ridge.In October 1980 two of Franksslides were analyzed by a microphoto-graphic technician who has recentlyoffered his services to MUFON in thisarea.^ He produced extreme blowupsof the object(s) and succeeded in en-larging the image to one inch in length.Further study by microphotographictechniques seemed to indicate that theobject was shaped more or less like atop, or generally conical. In his opin-ion, judging from his 25 years experi-ence in photographic work, the objectseems to have a vapor behind it (to itsleft on the blowup) and was spinningor gyrating. In the two photos whichdepict its movement from the ridgedown onto the hillside, this whirlingmotion is most evident. A rough es-timate of the objects true size is 200to 300 feet diameter.The grain of these blowups is, ofnecessity, very coarse and much de-finition is lost. Our hope is that thiscase will interest other photographicanalysts, particularly those with com-puter-enhancement facilities, whomight wish to participate in the in-vestigation.-^ Any forthcoming in-formation about these Tehachapiphotos will be shared with MUFONUFO Journal readers at a later date..One of the curious factors in thiscase, of course, is the fact that the wit-ness, Wesley Frank, has demonstratedPK abilities. Dothese factors - photo-graphing UFOs and psychic talents —go hand in hand? Thinking back onother cases, UFO photos and psychicabilities seem linked, such as withStella Lansing and Uri Geller. Perhapsit is more than coincidental that Wes-ley Frank was able to photograph aUFO.NOTES1. See JOURNAL OF THE SOUTHERNCALIFORNIA SOCIETY FOR PSY-CHICAL RESEARCH, Volume 1,1979, "Los Amplitude, Acoustical,Recorded PK with Target Objects:Experiments Conducted by WesleyFrank and Raymond Bayless," byRaymond Bayless.2. This photo analyst, who wishes hisname kept confidential, will be refer-red to in subsequent columns as Tim-othy King.3. A complete report on the investigationto date, on which this short column isbased, is available in MUFON, CUFOS,and Druffel files.17
  18. 18. (Directors Message, continued)son, Harry Griesberg, Dave Reneke,and the Australian Centre for UFOStudies. In this comprehensive entityreport for Australia and New Zealand,he has tabulated 65 cases spanning theperiod from 1868 through 1978. Herecognizes the fine work of DavidWebb and Ted Bloecher, Co-Chairmenof MUFONs Humanoid Study Group,in his introduction. This is publicationnumber ACUFOS D 3. For further in-formation on this publication pleasewrite to Keith Basterfield, 3 Park LakeDrive, Wynn Vale, 5127, South Aus-tralia. Keith has continued his investi-gation of the Frederick Valentich pi-lot/aircraft disappearance of October1978. He has received correspondencefrom the Department of Transportclarifying questions and providinganswers to those submitted. Any newinformation on this open case will bepublished in the Journal when avail-able.The Roswell Incident by CharlesBerlitz and William L. Moore,publish-ed by Grosset and Dunlap, New York,N.Y. is now available in most bookstores in hardback for $10.00. Leo-nard .Stringfield in his MUFON pub-lication "The UFO Crash/RetrievalSyndrome" has set the stage for Mr.Moores new book in which Bill de-tails just one of the cases Leonardhas listed, Bill Moores book is highlyrecommended for anyone interestedin delving into the intriguing allegedUFO crashes.Manor Books has released twopaperbacks dealing with the cattlemutilations. "The Terror" by MichaelD. Albers is non-fiction and the secondby John J. Dalton titled "The CattleMutilators" is listed as a science fictionnovel.Incidentally, cattle mutilationshave become news in Texas duringNovember. Prominent theories ex-plaining these precise surgical opera-tions are UFOs, satanic cult groups,or government measurements relatedto nuclear power plant contamination.After personally viewing a few animalsand interviewing the owners of de-stroyed livestock, I find it very diffi-cult to comprehend how a humancould perform such meticulous sur-gery in a pasture or cattle pen, espe-cially during darkness. Doctors ofveterinary medicine are equally baf-fled. If UFOs or their occupants areresponsible for over 8000 animaldeaths in the west and midwesternstates during the past 5 years, this isa very serious repercussion of the UFOphenomenon that remains to be re-solved.During the periods between UFOflaps when the public interest in UFOsseems to subside, this is the primetime for investigators and researchersto be trained and prepared for thenext outbreak of sightings. These lullsin UFO activity also create a commonproblem. When an apparent goodsighting is reported in the news media,field investigators from each of themajor UFO organizations plus manyindependent investigators descend up-on the area and sometimes overwhelmnot only the witnesses, but also thenews media representatives, with pre-mature statements of what was ob-served prior to conducting an investi-gation. The few vocal debunkers alsoget newsworthy attention by explain-ing the sightings from the comfort oftheir home or office easy chair with-out conducting an investigation. Therecent Anderson, South Carolina,sightings were a typical example.The Center for UFO Studies(CUFOS) and the Mutual UFO Net-work (MUFON) have been workingas a team since 1973 when Dr. Hy-nek first announced the formationof the Center on the Dick Cavett TVProgram. The names, addresses, andtelephone numbers of all MUFONState Directors, Assistant State Di-rectors, State Section Directors, andsome Consultants are on file atCUFOS in Evanston, 111., so UFOsighting reports received from lawenforcement agencies via the UFOhotline may be assigned to the near-est MUFON officer for investigation.The field investigator assigned to thecase is expected to send their reportto both MUFON and CUFOS. JohnTimmerman, Chairman of the Boardfor CUFOS, and Dr. J. Allen Hynek,Director, have communicated withyour Director and are asking whatthey can do to expand the cooperativerelationship between the two organiza-tions in order to be more effective.Preliminary discussions have resultedin proposing and implementing thefollowing actions:1. John Timmerman will mail acopy of the weekly log of all UFO re-ports received by CUFOS on the UFOhotline and other sources to MUFON.2. CUFOS is proposing thattheir new Field Investigators quarterlynewsletter be mailed to all MUFON of-ficers listed in their files. Your Direc-tor was receptive to this suggestion.3. Our MUFON "UFO SightingQuestionaire - Computer Input (Form2)" was designed to provide the perti-nent points for insertion into UFO-CAT, the computerized listing of re-ports, originated by Dr. David Saun-ders and now operated by Fred Mer-ritt, Vice President of CUFOS. Weencourage all investigators to com-plete Form 2 and attach it to Form 1when submitting your UFO sightingquestionaire. MUFON will forwardthe Form 2 to CUFOS for tabulationand listing in UFOCAT. Since MUFONdoes not have convenient access to acomputer for this purpose, it isimper-ative that these reports should be list-ed.4. Starting with 1970, MUFONhas had an officer of PEG or its suc-cessor CUFOS as a speaker at our An-nual MUFON UFO Symposium. Dr. J.Allen Hynek has consented to speak atour 1981 event in Boston. Officersspeaking have been Sherman J. Larsen1971 and 1975, Dr. David Saunders1972, Dr. Hynek 1970, 1973, 1976,1978, 1979, and Fred Merritt 1980.John Timmerman addressed MUFONsannual corporate meeting in 1980.5. The Center for UFO Studieshas been using the MUFON Field In-vestigators Manual for CUFOS investi-gators since 1975.These are only preliminary stepsto greater cooperation betweenMUFON and CUFOS so as to providemore effective investigations, research,and a united front in resolving this per-plexing enigma.We invite suggestions from ourmembers on how we may serve youbetter, thus making MUFON a moreeffective and stronger organization.18
  19. 19. Lucius Parishin others words, The October 7 issue of NATION-AL ENQUIRER reports that a Cali-fornia-based group, the InterplanetaryNetwork, claims that more than 1,500people around the world have beencontacted by extraterrestrial beings.Valerie Jean Ransone of the Networktermed the contacts "part of a preciseprogram of communication" on thepart of the aliens. An excerpt fromErich von Danikens latest book,SIGNS OF THE GODS, is presentedin the October 14 issue. Von Danikencites the theory of British researchersDale & Sasson, who contend that theBiblical "Ark of the Covenant" wasa miniature atomic"reactor which pro-duced "manna" for the Israelites 40-year journey. TV star Cindy Williamstells of her UFO sighting in the Nov-ember 11 issue of the ENQUIRER.Appropriately, she plays the part of aUFO "believer" in her new film,"Uforia."E. Lee Speigels "UFO Update"column in the November issue ofOMNI is devoted to UFO reports andresearch in the Soviet Union. Much ofthe information is taken from a Sovietpublication, OBSERVATIONS OFANOMALOUS ATMOSPHERICPHENOMENA IN THE USSR, whichhas recently been published in an Eng-lish translation by the Center for UFOStudies. The December issue of OMNIhas Harry Lebelsons report on UFOphotos taken at Silkeborg, Denmark,in 1979.An interesting article by Karl T.Pflock in the November issue of FATEexamines Thomas F. Monteleonestale of extraterrestrial contact. Mon-toleone has confessed that the accountis a hoax, dreamed up to provide "sub-stantiation" for contactee WoodrowDerenbergers stories of meetings withbeings from the planet Lanulos. Pflockhas quite a bit to say about authorJohn Keels acceptance of both theDerenberger and Monteleone accounts.In the December FATE, Australiannewsman Quentin Fogarty tells the"inside story" of the UFOs filmed offthe New Zealand coast late in 1978.The December issue of UFO RE-PORT features articles by Kal Korff,Jim Miles, Jerome Clark, D. ScottRogo, and Charles Bowen. Topicsinclude the contact claims and photosof Eduard Meier, the case of the Mexi-can pilot who was accompanied byUFOs, the aftermath of UFO abduc-tions, etc.A new film "docu-drama," writ-ten by lecturer/researcher Stanton T.Friedman and writer William L.Moore, is the subject of an article inthe December issue of STARLOG."The UFO Chronicles" examines theimplications of extraterrestrial .con-tacts from the aliens point of view.Approximately a third of the film willfeature the aliens (Zeta Reticulans)telling their side of the story; the re-mainder will be documentary filmfrom NASA, Jet Propulsion Labora-.tory, and independent UFO sightings.It all sounds extremely interesting, sowe can look forward to national dis-tribution of the film in comingmonths.Still more rehash and non-UFOmaterial in the No. 20 issue of TRUEUFOs & OUTER SPACE QUARTER-LY.A recently 12-page booklet, UN-USUAL MARTIAN SURFACE FEA-TURES, examines the anomalousphotographs taken by Mariner andViking space probes. Computer spe-cialists Vincent DiPietro and GregMolenaar have computer-enhancedthe Martian photos which show pyra-midal structures and what seems tobe a huge human (or humanoid) face.They draw no firm conclusions fromtheir research, but they feel the fea-tures to be very unusual and worthyof further investigation. Reproduc-tions of the original and computer-enhanced photographs are includedin the booklet. It is available for $2.00per copy (and a stamped, self-address-ed 9" x 12" manila envelope) from:Mars Research, P.O. Box 284, GlennDale, MD 20769. Posters of the Mar-tian "face" (17" x 21") are availablefrom the same address at $5.00 each.It is hoped the investigators will exam-ine such other intriguing Martian phe-nomena as "Inca City," the "search-light," and the huge "furrows" whichlook like sections of cultivated ground.UFO NEWSCLIPPINGSERVICEThe UFO NEWSCLIPPINGSERVICEwill keep you informed of all the lat-est United States and World-WideUFO activity, as it happens! Our ser-vice was started in 1969, at whichtime we contracted with a reputableinternational newspaper-clippingbureau to obtain for us, those hard tofind UFO reports (i.e., little knownphotographic cases, close encounterand landing reports, occupant cases)and all other UFO reports, many ofwhich are carried only in small townor foreignnewpapers."Our UFO Newsclipping Service is-sues are 20-page monthly reports, re-produced by photo-offset, containingthe latest United States andCanadianUFO newsclippings, with our foreignsection carrying the latest British,Australian, New Zealand and otherforeign press reports. Also included isa 3-5 page section of "Fortean" clip-pings (i.e. Bigfoot and other "mon-ster" reports). Let us keep you in-formed of the latest happenings inthe UFO and Fortean fields."For subscription information andsample pages from our service, writetoday to:UFO NEWSCLIPPING SERVICERoute 1- Box 220Plumerville, Arkansas7212719