THEMUFON UFO JOURNALNUMBER 147Founded1967OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONOF MUTUAL UFO NETWORK, INC.,1920s UFO or Lens Reflection, Tex...
TheMUFONUFO JOURNAL(USPS 002-970)103 Oldtowne Rd.Seguin, Texas 78155RICHARD HALLEditorANN DRUFFELAssociate EditorLEN STRIN...
REPORTED OBSERVATIONS FROM AIRCRAFTOVER AUSTRALASIA, 1977-1979.By Keith Basterfield- ,  (MUFON Representative for South Au...
(Australasia, Continued)SCALE :J BRISBANELocation of AustralasianUFO/Aircraft Incidents, 1977-79observers.Port AugustaOur ...
EVALUATION OF MEDICAL INJURIESRESULTING FROM UFO CLOSE ENCOUNTERSRichard C. Niemtzow, M.D.and - • . •John F. Schuessler(Pr...
FIGURE 1WhangareiTASMANSEASQUID BOATSofdbourneCape Cpfno bellClarenceKaikoursyRiversdalenhgtonSOUTHISLAND-, r-aikoura East...
NEW ZEALAND RADAR-VISUAL-FILM CASES:A SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSIONBy Bruce S. Maccabee, PhD(MUFON State Director for Maryland)Par...
(New Zealand, Continued)/ "Yes, andgoing around at4:00."Thevisual target appearedto drop back or just goout of view,which ...
(New Zealand, Continued)The leadinglightsat the main entrance to Wellington harbour wouldhavebeen about 21°east ofCape Cam...
(New Zealand, Continued)0030 NZDT on 31 December.23Obviously the photograph wouldnot have revealed the positions of those ...
(New Zealand, Continued)the sea. The reporter noted the reflection of the light in the sea in his first taped messages, bu...
(New Zeland, Continued)surveillance radars, both ofwhichwere definitely receivingechoes from the aircraft at this time.Alt...
(New Zealand, Continued)COMMENT Y: Irelands discovery that no fishing boat was reported near the position of the UFO sight...
(New Zealand, Continued)occurred. This UFO was almost certainly a brightly-lit squid fishing boat caught in the act. It is...
N.C. TRAININGCONFERENCEThe North Carolina unit ofMUFON will hold its 4th AnnualLeadership Training Conferenceon June 21 an...
By Ann DruffclMagnetic Anomalies and UFO Flight(This is Parf / of a two-part article. Thematerial originally appeared in P...
(California Report, Continued)are minor, but definite, and may beeither higher or lower relative to thenormal magnetic fie...
(Directors Message, Continued)the convenienceof their readers and topromote MUFON in North Carolina.We appreciate this met...
Lucius ParishIn Others WordsWorldwide UFO reports areincreasing dramatically, according toCharles Tucker of IndianasIntern...
DIRECTORSMESSAGE byWaltAndrusBy the time some of our Journalreaders have the opportunityto perusethis issue, the llth Annu...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Mufon ufo journal 1980 5. may

237

Published on

Published in: News & Politics
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
237
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Mufon ufo journal 1980 5. may"

  1. 1. THEMUFON UFO JOURNALNUMBER 147Founded1967OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONOF MUTUAL UFO NETWORK, INC.,1920s UFO or Lens Reflection, Texarkana,Arkansas. Photo found at the Historical Museumand Submitted by Bill Leet, who is investigatingfurther.MAY 1980$1.00
  2. 2. TheMUFONUFO 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. BARRY DOWNINGReligion and UFOsLUCIUS PARISHBooks/Periodicals/HistoryMARK HERBSTRITTAstronomyROSETTA HOLMESPromotion/PublicityTED PHILLIPSLanding Trace CasesJOHN F. SCHUESSLERUFO PropulsionNORMA E. SHORTDWIGHT CONNELLYDENNIS HAUCKEditor/Publishers EmeritusThe MUFON UFO JOURNAL ispublished by the Mutual UFONetwork, Inc., Seguin, Texas.Subscription rates: $8.00 per yearin the U.S.A.; $9.00 per yearforeign. Copyright 1980 by theMutuaJ UFO Network. Secondclass postage paid at Seguin,Texas. POSTMASTER Send form3579 to advise change of address toThe MUFON UFO JOURNAL,103 Oldtowne Rd., Seguin, Texas78155.FROM THE EDITORMUFON has decided to assemble a special publicationonreported abductions of human beings by alien beings. Due to thelength and complexity of investigation reports already on hand, thecases do not lend themselves to adequate treatment inthe Journalwithout severe condensation. A number of intriguing cases havebeen submitted, but most would practically fill an issue of. theJournal iffully reported. Therefore, this is a call for manuscripts —especially investigation reports, but newspaper stories and otherreferences will provide useful supplementary information.We wouldlike to concentrate on 1970s cases and to publish as stronga sample,of them as possible. The publication will provide a handy referencevolume for anyone desiring to know the types of events that havebeen reported, what investigation has been accomplished, and thepatterns — if any — that they show. Such a volume could helpanalysts to evaluate this burgeoning problem and to decide where itstands on the list of investigative priorities. American and otherinvestigators world-wideare requested to submit case histories inaform suitable for publication.In this issueREPORTED OBSERVATION FROM AIRCRAFT OVER AUSTRALASIA 3By Keith Basterfield . •EVALUATION OF MEDICAL INJURIES RESULTING FROM UFOCLOSE ENCOUNTERS 5By Richard C. Niemtzow, M.D. and John F. SchuesslerNEW ZEALAND RADAR-VISUAL-FILM CASES, Part II 7By Bruce S. MaccabeeCALIFORNIA REPORT, Magnetic Anomalies and UFO Flight 16" By Ann DruffelIN OTHERS WORDS 19By Lucius ParishDIRECTORS MESSAGE , 20ByWalt Andrus . .The contents of The MUFON UFO JOURNAL aredetermined by the editor, and do not necessarilyrepresent the official position of MUFON.Opinionsof contributorsare their own,and do not necessarilyrelfect those of the editor, the staff, or MUFON. -Articles may be forwarded directly to MUFON.Permission is hereby granted to quote from thisissue provided not more than 200 words are quotedfrom any one article, the author ofthe article isgivencredit, and the statement "Copyright 1980 by TheMUFON UFO JOURNAL, 103 Oldtowne Rd.,Seguin,Texas" is included.
  3. 3. REPORTED OBSERVATIONS FROM AIRCRAFTOVER AUSTRALASIA, 1977-1979.By Keith Basterfield- , (MUFON Representative for South Australia)There have been at least sixreported UFO observations fromobservers in aircraft over Australasiawithin the last 2 years. Twomade majorheadlines around the world, namely theValentich1(Victoria,Oct. 21,1978) andthe New Zealand2(Dec. 1978) aircraft/radar/visual/film cases, and I will notreview these here. Four otherobservations have been reported ofunusual objects inthe sky worthy of burattention. These reports areGoondiwindi3(Queensland, 1977);Kunanurra4(Northern Territory, 1977);Port Augusta5(South Australia, May1978); and Whyalla6(South Australia,Dec. 1978). Investigations are stillcontinuing into the last named.GoondiwindiThe reporter was travelling as apassenger on a B.P.A. trilander flyingbetween Cunnamulla and Brisbane inQueensland, when the incidentoccurred at about 3 a.m. on Sept. 10,1977. Mr. H was sitting next to the pilotof the trilander when approaching theGoondiwindi airport; both noticed whatthey first took to be another aircraftapproaching on a similar but oppositecourse. The pilot confirmed through airtraffic control (Brisbane and Sydney)that no other traffic was known to be inthe area as they made their finalapproach to land.As the aircraft and the unknownwere on what appeared to be aneventual collision course, the trilanderpilot took evasive action and Mr. H onthe starboard side saw the unknownapproach the airport, pass lowover therunway, and move away to a positionSW of the runway.They landed, but while refuellingthey observed that the object"hovered" and "moved abouterratically" to the SW. Meanwhile Mr.H in discussing the object with waitingpassengers found they had seen it passsoundlessly at low altitude over therunway.Half an hour later the B.P.A. flightcontinued on to Brisbane. Sitting onceagain by the.pilot, as they ascended,Mr. H watched the unknown movetoward the aircraft, then pace it at asimilar rate of speed on the starboardside, before it turned away from theplane in a SE direction, disappearinginto the distance. Mr. H said that at notime was any shape discernible, onlytwo bright lights positioned above andbelow (at an angle) what seemed to be a"thick-body." The "lights" were not theusual type .fitted to aircraft, beingdescribed as• changing color fromorange to white in a "psychedelic"manner.The incident was apparently notreported to any authority.KunanurraAt 5:30 p.m. on Dec. 9,1977, a Mr.Lindsay McKenzie-Smith and his wifeHelen were flying in a light aircraft at aposition approximately 100 km east ofKunanurra, Northern Territory (some370km SSW of Darwin).The plane waspiloted by Mr. McKenzie-Smith whohad 750 hours flying experience.On that day they had already madeseveral flights within the NT sinceStarting at about 9:30 a.m. thatmorning, and were on their way fromLegune to Victoria River Downs(VRD). The terrain in the area isextremely rugged and isolated, andboth people were feeling tired aftercommencing this last leg at about 4:30p.m.The aircaft, a Cessna 206, wascruising at 1,675 meters, just afterpassing over the Pinkerton Ranges(300-340 m high), when HelenMcKenzie-Smith told her husband thatanother aircraft was coming towardsthem. Helen estimated that she firstnoted the "object" when itwas about 5km distant, flying at a lower altitudebelow the visible horizon. It was easilypicked up against the green-brownbackground. Both of them logicallyexpected the "object" to be a plane butrealized it wasnt as it approached.The object passed below andbehind the plane at an estimated 1,370m (making it aboutSOO m below them).In order to observe it further the pilotbanked the aircraft approximately 90°,but upon turning, the ^object hadapparently disappeared from sight. Theplane then continued on its formercourse and within 5 minutes of theobservation attempted to report itsposition as is normal practice at thisstage of the flight. (They also planned toask if there wasany traffic in the area).Mr. _ McKenzie-Smith tried severaltimes but could not transmit on VHP orHF for the next 20-30 minutes. Heeventually raised Darwin (VHF) beforeapproaching and landing at VRD.The object appears to have comeno less than300m from the aircraft, andLindsay says that "the object gave nodepth perception, its size and heightwere hard to estimate" as he onlysawitfor some 30-40 seconds. It was an ovalor lenticular shape, appearing metallicand at an estimated 300mseemed to be9 m long, by 2.75-3m wideand probably1 m thick. It had well-defined edges anda dull or non-reflecting surface, similarto anodising (white-grey). Both viewersthought it peculiar that there was noshadow on it — the sun was settingbehind them and should have reflectedon the leading edge of the object butdidnt. The object flew sideways just likean airplanewing.The incident was not officiallyreported but came to the notice ofUFOR(FNQ) who interviewed the(continued on next page)
  4. 4. (Australasia, Continued)SCALE :J BRISBANELocation of AustralasianUFO/Aircraft Incidents, 1977-79observers.Port AugustaOur third case presents us withsomewhat of a mystery. A light aircraftpilot who was flying from MountGambler to Adelaide overhead a radioconversation concerninga UFO. It wasthe evening of May 3, 1978 (althoughthe exact time is not known) when hisradio came to life and he heard anaircraft near Port Augusta calling theAdelaide airport, to report a visualsighting of a bright light, which had itseems also been picked up on theplanes radar. The entire story wasntknown as our informant was landing atthe time.Investigations were initiated byUFOR(SA) and a check made of thetwo airlines flying in the area plus thelocal St. John Air Ambulance Servicebased near Port Augusta; also theDepartment ofTransport and theRoyalAustralian Air Force were contacted.There were two planes inthe area at thetime, neither of which reportedly hadobserved any unusual phenomena. Asearch of the airport flight servicerecords revealed a police report oftwored flares being sighted 8 n.m. southofWhyalla at 8:58 p.m. but nothing else.An advertisement placed in severallocal papers failed to solicit anyresponse for visual observations. TheRAAF declined to answer our queryforany details they might have.Overall we were left with not beingable to do much more than record apossible event.WhyallaThis case came to the ears ofUFOR(FNQ) who forwarded it itUFOR(SA) for investigations, whichhave not yet been finalized. A man waspiloting a light aircraft from Adelaide toWhyalla, South Australia, on Dec. 30,1978, at about 11 p.m.flyingat 2,800 m,speed 220 knots. Over Alford henoticed what to him appeared to beanother aircraft flying parallel at anestimated 24 km distance.He checked with Adelaide but wasadvised that there was no traffic in thearea. Looking back to the object herealized that there were no navigationlights on it, it was merely an elongatedwhite light with a blue tinge around theedge. It stayed with him until he turnedleft in the Whyalla circuit area, and itstopped movinguntil the plane came onto the downwind leg of the circuit. Atthis stage it closed in on the plane veryquickly, so the pilot landed as fast as hecould. The object turned away anddisappeared. , . .PolicyThe Goondiwindi, Kunanurra,Port Augusta, and Whyalla incidentshave all come to our knowledgeprivately. None has appeared in themedia and only Whyalla can besubstantiated from official records.The Department of Transport isthe government departmentresponsible for oversight of all aspectsof civilian air movements and safety. Itspolicy is clear. Enquirers are usuallyreferred to the RAAF7: The RAAFspolicy is that there is no such thing asa genuine UFO8; thus getting officialconfirmation of a UFO/aircraft incidentremains difficult.Two main airlines operate withinAustralia and their attitude seems to bethat individual pilots are free to tajkabout such observations they make,unlike the RAAF.Private pilots are under noapparent restrictions, but itwouldseemthat they, make no official reportbecause of the attitude of theDeparment of Transport and RAAF.In summary, some interesting airencounters have occurred over thepast two years but a completeinvestigation is extremely difficult dueto official policies.9-10NOTES1. See The missing Cessna and the UFO," W.Chalker, FSR, Vol. 24, no. 5, pp 3-5, and "Pilotdisappears after reporting UFO," MUFONUFOJournal no. 129, Aug. 78, pp 3-5.2. See "New Zealand radar-visual andfilmcases,"K. Basterfield, MUFON UFO Journal no. 132,Nov/Dec 78,pp 3-5, and B.Maccabees excellentanalysis in the May and June 79 issues of theMUFON UFO Journal.3. Report detailscourtesy UFO Research (FNQ),P.O. Box 1585, Cairns, Qld 4870.4. As for 3.5. Investigations by G. Bolton, S. Bolton, J.Burford, and this author.6. Initial report via UFOR(FNQ), investigation byUFOR(SA).7. Letter from Dept. of Transport to UFOR(SA).8. Letter from RAAF to ACOS, 1975.9. Previously reported encounters with noconventional explanation are: = 1953 NearSydney (V), 1954 Melbourne (V), Jan. 4, 1954Melbourne (V), May 28, 1965 Off BouganvilleReef (V,P), Jul/Aug 1968 Nera Caims (V,P).V =visual,P =photographic, FSR=Flying SaucerReview (London), ACOS = Australian Co-ordination Section, Center for UFO Studies(U.S.).
  5. 5. EVALUATION OF MEDICAL INJURIESRESULTING FROM UFO CLOSE ENCOUNTERSRichard C. Niemtzow, M.D.and - • . •John F. Schuessler(Project VISIT, Fricndswood, Texas)Many of the witnesses of closeencounters associated with the UFOphenomenon report substantialmedical injuries. These injuries may beclassified intothree categories.Thefirstcategory is of a temporary nature,dealing with paralysis,1dizziness,nausea, vomiting,headache, blindness,perception of odors, and highfrequency audio sounds. The secondcategory deals with the more chroniceffects usually associated with skinlesions, which may represent directpathology through unknownmechanisms. These skin lesions, whichpreviously were described as burns2produced by ionizing radiation, do notcompare clinically, as we know it, toultraviolet radiation or megavoltagephoton or electron skin reactions asdescribed inclassical radiotherapy. Thethird category may involveparapsychological manifestationswhich may interrupt normal emotionalbehavior.3The untoward effects of UFO, close encounters clearly demonstratesthe possible existence of thephenomenon. Because the reports ofthe selectiveness of the pathologicaland psychological impact to humansremains poorly studied and poorlyunderstood an in-depth evaluation issuggested.The purpose of this paper is torecommend to physicians theacquisition of certain data that may behelpful in the clinical setting to evaluateand possibly assess the credibility of anactual close encounter.The following medical tests aresuggested (pathophysiology issuppliedwhere appropriate):1. COMPLETE BLOOD COUNTWITH DIFFERENTIAL.Net increasesin the number of white blood cells havebeen reported resultingfrom exposureto weightlessness during variousmanned space missions." A reductionin the lymphocytepopulationwill resultif exposure to ionizing radiation isencountered. Suppression is also seenunder stress situationsdue to releaseofglucocorticoids5or weightlessness.One can expect an increase inneutrophils and a decrease inmonocytes, eosinophils, and basophilsin weightlessness.2. SERUM CORTISOL. Diurnalfluctations are knownto exist for serumcortisol, as well as in sodium •andpotassium excretion. Cortisol tends topeak near the early morning hours.Rapid displacement from geographicallocation and time zones may disturbthis rhythm.3. WEIGHT LOSS. All but oneU.S. astronaut has lost weight inspace.4.SERUM AND URINARYPOTASSIUM, SODIUM. ANDCHLORIDE. Serum arid urinarypotassium, sodium, and chloride .retention have occurred in postflightobservations .of astronauts, withweightlessness producing an importantpotassium loss and consequential.abnormal cardiac rhythms.5. URINE CALCIUM ANDPHOSPHORUS. Urinecalcium andphosphorus may be increased.6. URINARY KETONES.Starvation should cause the formationof urinary ketone bodies.67. SERUM GLUCOSE. This,is abaseline test.8. CHEST X-RAY. A standardchest x-ray should be taken.9. BIOPSIES OF SKIN LESIONS.The aforementioned tests aresuggested as a baseline for anin-depthstudy of medical injuries resulting fromUFO close, encounters. These simpletests, if administered by qualifiedphysicians, can be inthe best interestofthe witness (i.e., patient), as well asproviding valuable data on the reportedProject VISIT symposium hosts:I to r Richard Niemtzow, AlanHolt, John Schuessler, GranvilPennington, Donald Tucker,Dave Kissinger. incident. Because of the lack of data todate, a numberof assumptionsmust beconsidered — test to determine if thewitness was subjected to prolongedweightlessness, • moved from onegeographical location to another,prevented from receiving nourishment,etc. The results of this study should bequite valuable in assessing thecredibility of future close encounterreports. (Project VISIT, P.O. Box 877,Friendswood, TX 77546.).REFERENCES1. Richard C. Niemtzow and John F. Schuessler,"Seeking the Mechanism for Paralysis in CloseEncounter Cases," The MUFON UFO Journal,No. 127, June 1978, p. 6-7.2. Richard C. Niemtzow, "Paralysis and UFOClose Encounters," The APRO Bulletin, Vol.23,No. 5, March 1975, p. 1 & 6.3. B.E. Schwarz, "Saucers, psi, and psychiatry,"In Proceedings of 1974 MUFON Symposium(Akron, Ohio: Mutual UFO Network, June 22,1974), PP; 81-95.4. James F. Parker, Jr. and Vita R. West,Bioasfronaurics Data Book (Washington, D.C.:NASA, 1973), pp. 349-415.5. William F. Ganong, Review of Medical•Physiology (Calif: Lange Medical Publications,1967), p. 306.6. Ibid., p. 572.
  6. 6. FIGURE 1WhangareiTASMANSEASQUID BOATSofdbourneCape Cpfno bellClarenceKaikoursyRiversdalenhgtonSOUTHISLAND-, r-aikoura EastAIRCRAFT FLIGHT PATHtoChristchurchPENINSULAAshburtcn •»• Mcrnoo Bk.Timaru SQUID FLEET100 200100 1CO 20O 30O 400 5OO300 nautical mileskilomatrcs(New Zealand map from DSIR Report by William Ireland)
  7. 7. NEW ZEALAND RADAR-VISUAL-FILM CASES:A SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSIONBy Bruce S. Maccabee, PhD(MUFON State Director for Maryland)Part II(Note: Part I appeared in the April issue. Excerpts are presented from DSIR Report No. 659which attempts to explain allof theNew Zealand sightings from December.21,1978 through January 1979.The author is William Ireland, a DSIR physicist in NewZealand. Dr. Maccabees remarks are labelled "Comment"and appear in a distinctive typeface. Reference numbers are fromIrelands original text and bibliography.-Editor)(b) Possible Terrestrial Light Sources Seen From an Aircraft on 31 December 19782. LighthousesThe second significant series of sightings began soon after the aircraft turned towards Christchurchat 0027.At about 0030the Wellingtonradar operator advised the aircrew of a target intheir3oclock position at about4miles range.Soon after this theco-pilot spotted a flashing light that was apparently travelling along just above the wingtip at the right of the aircraft. At about0032 a passenger recorded, "Its been following us for quite a while. Its about 4 miles awayand it looks like a very faint star butthen it emits a verybrightwhiteand green light." The co-pilotdescribed itas looking like a white light on a small plane, but ithad a"greenish fleck or tinge", the pilot turned off the navigation light,but the other light remained. Just after 0032 the crew advisedWellington, "Got a target at 3oclock just behindus", and thenjust after 0035, "We think we saw thatone. Itcame up at 4 oclock,I think, about 4 miles away.During this rime, from about 0027to 0036, the Wellingtonradar operator had been advising the aircrew of several differenttargets at various bearings, and at ranges between 1and 15miles. The pilot turned the aircraft ina 360° left orbit at about 0036,but no lightswere seen corresponding to the radar, echoes. During this orbit the crew pointed out the lights of a "squid fleet" tothe passengers. It was about 220km south-east ofthe aircraft, and from our previous calculation for Christchurch lights itwould,in a normal atmosphere inthe absenceofclouds, have been clearly visible. Thus, only one light was seen; thislight "followed" theaircraft, "just off the right wing" for about 7 minutes, at a bearing described as 3 or 4 oclock. It was very faint, except whenitflashed very brightly with a greenish white light.We note that at 0030Kaikourawas22milesaway at "3oclock"and at 0036itwas 30milesaway at "twenty-past 4",yet thereis no record of the lights of the town being seen at the same time as the flashing light. The sighting line from the aircraft toKaikoura at 0033wouldbe at a depression ofabout 6°.The windowsinthe aircraft are forward of,and higher than, the wings, andthe view of the wingtip from the cabin may be depressed more than 6° duringflight. (The nose of the aircraft is tilted upwardswhen climbing, and even during level flight, but neyer more than some 15°above horizontal.) So a light which was "just off thewingtip" may have come from a source inor near to Kaikoura. Most of the lightsof the town, however, would have been hiddenbehind the hills of the Kaikoura Peninsula, and any which were seen would more than likely have been faint.The Point Keen lighthouseat the easternmost tip of the KaikouraPeninsula,when seen from the position of the aircraft at0030-0036, is a very bright flashing whitelight, with a brightness of 11,000 candelas and a nominal rangeat sea level of 14miles.Itis on for 2 seconds, off for 1 second, on for 2 seconds, and then off for 10 seconds before repeating the cycle. The lights ofKaikoura were last noted bya passenger duringthe turn at KaikouraEast at 0027, only3minutes earlier. Ifthis seriesof sightingsis to be ascribed to a UFO then the absence of the light from Point Keen and Kaikoura for over 6 minutesmust be agreed to bythe witnesses.Comment R: Ireland has referred to the seriesof radar and visual sightings following the turn at KaikouraEast. Hehas left out the radar target which was detected behind the plane about 30 seconds to one minute after the turn. Thistarget apparently remained stationaryfor aminute or moreasthe plane flew along. At about0030Wellington referred toa "further" target at 3:00 (the righthand side of the plane) at 4 (nautical) miles. Ireland referredto the eventat0030, butthen ignored the following radar event at about 0030:30 when Wellington called the plane and said "theres a strongtarget right in formation with you now, could beleft or right.Yourtarget hasdoubled in size." After hearing thismessagethe copilot began to look out the right window. At an undetermined time he observed a little, steady white light, "likepassing a light aircraft at night." This light had a greenish fleck or tinge (Thereportergave the description citedabovebyIreland.) About 30 seconds later Wellington reported that the plane target had"reduced to normal size," implying thatthe other target was no longer flying in formation with the plane.About 0032:30 the plane reported the visual sighting of a target "at 3:00, just behind us." Wellington responded(Continued on next page) 7
  8. 8. (New Zealand, Continued)/ "Yes, andgoing around at4:00."Thevisual target appearedto drop back or just goout of view,which isconsistent withthe Wellington radar reports of a target which was at the right side of the plane and dropping back as the plane flewalong. The target apparently remained stationary for several more minutes, because at about 0035:30 Wellingtonreported "that target is still stationary.Its now 6:00 to you at about 15 (nautical)miles and its been joined bytwo othertargets." Within a minute after this statementthe three targetsbehind the plane "merged" to makea single blip on theradar scope which was bigger than the blip madebythe Argosyaircraft. The captainthought that atarget that big mightbe large enough to see and initiated a 360° orbit, referredto by Ireland, but nothing was seen. In retrospect, one notesthat the extra large blip could have been made by relatively small targets that were spacedclosely enough so that theradar could not resolvethe distance betweenthem — a spacing of about 1 -2 nautical miles at the distance in question.The light off the right wing was seen for an estimated2-4 minutes. It was seen above and slightly foward of thenavigation light (green) on the end of the wing until it droppedback or "disappeared" (wasnolonger seen).According to%xthe copilot the wing hid the Kaikoura town lights. Ireland claims that most of the town lightswould havebeen hidden bythe mountains on the Kaikoura Peninsula anyway.Hethereforeproposesthat the Point Kean lighthouse, on the endofthe peninsula, was the sourceofthe light. Onenotesfrom hisdescriptionthat this light flasheswhite only twice every 15seconds. In supportof his argument he states that the sighting line over the wingwouldprobablybedepressedbyabout6° since "the windows of the aircraft are forward of and above the wings." However, Ireland has apparently notconsulted dimensioned drawings of the aircraftwhich show that the centerlineof the wing is only acouple of feet belowthe centerline of the windows. Moreover, there is an upward bend of the wing from the inner engine outward whichcould makethe wingtip as high as the cockpitwindows. An experimentdone bythe captainwiththe plane onthe groundsuggests a depressionangle of no more than 2°. However, in the air, under heavyloading, thewingwould bend upward,leading one to conclude that asighting line overthe wing might behorizontal or even higher than horizontal, but not 6°downward.Ireland statesthat, "If this seriesof sightings isto beascribedto aUFO then the absence ofthe light from PointKeanand Kaikourafor over 6 minutes must be agreedto be the witnesses." The copilot hadalready statedthat he could notsee the Kaikoura town lights during the sighting. Totest the hypothesisthat the Point Keanlightwas seen, the pilot andcopilot carefully observedPoint Kean during a similar flight after the Ireland report came out. They attest that despitecareful observationfor many minutes, only abouttwo flasheswere seen that could beattributed tothe Point Keanlight.These observationswere made during the trips north and south along the same flight path as the December 30/31flight. The copilot has explicitly stated that the Point Kean light was not what he saw on the 31st of Dec., 1978.An interesting sequence of sightings began at about 0251 on the northbound trip when two very bright flashing lightsappeared directly infront ofthe aircraft, apparently quitea longway ahead. As with the earliersightings, those inthe aircraft triedto identify these lights with radar echoes being reported by the Wellington Controller,but withoutsuccess.A passengerlikenedthe display to that seen over the Kaikoura coast on the southboundflight,but then the lightshad not flashed so much as theywere now doing.COMMENT S: Referring to sightings starting about 0251, Ireland states that the passengers tried to identify thelights with Wellington radar targets, but "without success." However, the transcript reads as follows:(Plane) "Wellington, do you have (a target) in my 12:00 position probably somewhere near Grassmere or perhaps a little east of Grassmere?"(Wellington) Affirmative. I have astrong target at 12:00 to youat 20 (nautical) miles and, uh, thats 2 miles off the coast, 10 miles south of CapeCampbell."(Plane) Roger. We have that one also, and quite a good visual display at the moment."The photographer obtained a film record whichshowed a light or lightswhich fluctuated rapidly from brightwhite to dim redand orange, at a surprisingly constant rate. A complete cycle took 8.85 + 0.15 frames at a nominal shutter speed of 10frames/second. It is believed that this film sequence shows the same light or lights as seen by the others in the aircraft at thattime. A passenger described an extremely bright flashing light with another one just to the left, also flashing (apparentlyindependently). He had the impression of a light which was rolling and turningin a narrow ellipsewith the major axis vertical.Atone point it appeared to drop at an incredible speed.The direction of this sighting was quite clearlydefined by the pilot as "in the 12oclock position probably somewhere nearGrassmere, or perhaps a little east of Grassmere". Cape Campbell is just east ofGrassmere. The Cape Campbell lighthouse,towards which the aircraft was heading, is a 1.5 million candela white light which flashes once every 30 seconds. At 0251 theaircraft was about 60 km south of Cape Campbell. Just 4° to the right of Cape Campbell, at a range of about 135km, was TheBrothers lighthousewhich flashes once every 10 seconds with a 1 million candela whitelight. Then, about 25°to the rightofCapeCampbell, there were the BaringHead and Pencarrow Head lighthouses, each showingbrightwhitelights inthe directionof theaircraft. BaringHead is on for 9 seconds and eclipsed for 6 seconds, with an intensity of 64000 candelas. Pencarrow Head,intensity 6100 candelas, is on for 1second, off for 1.5seconds, on for 1second, off for 1.5seconds,on for 2seconds,and thenofffor 5 seconds before repeating the cycle.8
  9. 9. (New Zealand, Continued)The leadinglightsat the main entrance to Wellington harbour wouldhavebeen about 21°east ofCape Campbell.The frontlight is of interest because it is a "quick flashing"whitelight with an intensity of more than 2400 candelas in the direction of theaircraft. It flashes once per second with approximatelyl/2 second on, l/2 second off. Ifthe moviecamera shutter speed was not asreported 10 frames/second, but due to improper adjustment 11.2 frames/second, this light could have been the onephotographed. At the time of writing the shutter speed has not been checked.All of the navigation lights mentioned, plus several others,could conceivably have been seen from the aircraft at about 0251in the absence of clouds. In fact they could have become visiblemuch sooner, along withthe lightsof Wellington city, when theaircraft reached the reporting point MOTOat 0229. Weknowthat there were scattered clouds belowthe aircraft at least someofthe time,so wecannot be sure that the lights ofWellington were seen.However, itseemsextraordinarythat on such a beautifullyclear starry night, at least the passengers would not have been impressed by the lights ofWellington and remarked upontheirsighting. But no mention can be found anywhereof anyone having seen the lights and lighthouses of Wellington. Last, but notleast, the planet Jupiter was only 8° east of the aircraft heading, and 27°above the horizon at 0251, yet it too does not appear tohave been noteworthy, and it would have been well above any cloud layer, and the brightest celestial body at the time.VellingcoSector ofilluminationby 7000 cdquick flashingwhite source.COMMENT T: Ireland points out that the people on the plane were lookinginto an area that is populated with flashing lights. The implication is thatpossibly the crew, but certainly the passengers were confusedandthought theflashing lights were "UFOs." However, the air crew hadflown this routemanytimes and were not susceptible to such confusion. Ireland has furthercommented that "it seemsextraordinary" that on a clear night the passengersand /or crewwould nothavecommentedonthe stars,Jupiter,Wellington lights(which, accordingto the captain are not particularly impressiveat thatdistance)and lighthouses. Of coursethe passengersand crew did talk about such things.In particular, the crew was continually telling the passengerswhat not topayattention to or photograph. In this regard, the crew was acting as aninstantaneous filter center against non-"UFOs."Ireland tentatively identifies the photographed flashing light asafront lightin the entrance to Wellington harbor. The light, accordingto Ireland, is ratedat2400 cd.Actually the light to which he refers hasa section radiating white lightto the north with an intensity of 2400 cd., and a section radiating light to thesouth.with an intensity of 7000 cd. It is the radiation to the south which is ofinterest. One notes from Figure2 that, assuming the light radiates according tothe published specifications, the illuminated area never intercepts the path ofthe plane. However, perhaps the light actually radiates farther west than it issupposed to do.Then, to determine whether or notthe light suggestedby Irelandor any light around Wellington could have madethe photographic images, it isnecessary to make another brightness comparison. When the photographedlight is white, it saturates the film. A useful lower bound estimate on the filmexposure is five times the exposure necessary to provide "good" exposure. The distance from the plane to the harborlight was about 122 km. A calculation shows that the light would have had to radiate an intensity of about 1.2 x 109candelas, or about 175,000 times the actual radiated intensity to produce the white images. Even if photographedfromthe closest approach of the plane to Wellington, after the plane passed Cape Campbell but before turning for the finalapproach into Blenheim, the light would have hadto radiate about nine million candelas. Onenotes that eventhe CapeCampbell beacon, which is the most powerful beacon in the area, radiates only about 1.5 million candelas. Of course,marine lights such asthe CapeCampbell beacon radiate outwards in a horizontal manner, andsofrom aircraft altitudesthe lights may appear weaker than they actually are. (As a matter of interest, one might note that at 0251 the CapeCampbell beacon was about 60 km from the plane, soeven it should not haveproduced highly saturated images had itbeen photographed.)3. Squid Fishing BoatsThe period of the sightings (on and after 20 December 1978) coincided with the arrival in New Zealand waters of a largesquidfishingfleet.The positions ofthe squid boats at specified times are reported to the Ministry ofAgriculture and Fisheriesbythe owners.Those boatsfishingon any particular night alsoreport their position, although the precise times during which theirlights are "on" isnot recorded.45The lights on these boats are strung around the gunwales some2metresabove deck level,withor without shades. Each boat has about 50bulbs, each 3or 4 kilowatts, and the light produced has an intensity ofabout 300,000-400,000 candelas.The main fleet of some30boats was fishing on the Memoo Bank, 44°S, 176°E, on the morningof31December.Another 20boats at least were in transit between fishing grounds that night, and several others werefishingoffKaramea, Farewell Spit, andin Tasman Bay. The light from some ofthese boats was recorded on a photograph taken bya Defense Meteorology satellite at(Continued on next page) 9Figure 2
  10. 10. (New Zealand, Continued)0030 NZDT on 31 December.23Obviously the photograph wouldnot have revealed the positions of those ships which were notfishing with their lightson at the time,but which may have "litup" later in the morning.The main^fleet was seen by those on theaircraft at a distance of 220 km.COMMENT U: According to Ireland squid boats report their locations at specified times and "those boats fishing onany particular night also report their position" (sic). According to a Ministry ofAgriculture and Fisheries representative(private communication to the aircraft captain), properly licensed boats could fish in the Pegasus Bay, the body of waternortheast of Christchurch, legally as along as they stayed outside the twelve mile limit.The "UFO hunt"of 31 December took a dramatic turn at 0219 on the northbound flight, when a very bright light becamevisible throughthe tops of a cloud layer. It did not appear to be appreciablyabove the height ofthe aircraft, which was at aheightof 0.8 km. The light appeared between 10° and 30° to the right of the aircraft. It was seen by four of the witnesses to beaccompanied bya weakerlight below;two interpretedthe lower light as a reflection inthe ocean.About 3minutes later,when theaircraft had climbedto about 1.6 km, one of the film crew recorded that the brighter light was still above the other, and that ithadmoved a little further ahead ofthe other. Itthenappeared to gobehind a cloud and to light up the clouds around it;it disappeared,and then returned, apparently as only one light. By the timethe cameraman commenced filming, only one light remained (onlyone light shows on the film).The aircraft radar was now operating and showed an echo at about 35 km range which was 3 to 5 times stronger than thecrew would have expected from a large fishing boat. The half power points of the vertical radar beam are about 3°and 15° belowthe centreline of the aircraft. At the time of this sighting the aircraft was climbing at 3°and was about 1.6km above the sea. Thissuggests that the radar target was below the horizontal,and so below the level of the aircraft. The disappearance of the lightbehind the clouds at this time suggests that the light was below the cloud tops (about 0.8km).We alsonote that an object on thesurface of the sea would be only about 1°below horizontalwhen first seen at an estimated distance of.50km, and when firstobserved on the radar at 35 km about 2° below horizontal.The sightingline to the light agreed with the radar target azimuthforthe next 3 minutes, as the radar range decreased to 16-20 km and the aircraft climbed to 3km.The inference isthat the light andradar echo came from the same object —a UFO. The radar echo disappeared off the right ofthe screen because the UFOwastoo close to be within the radar beam. At this time the bright light was about 50°to the right and 15° below the aircraft. After afurther 3 minutes a right turn was made, and the light was filmed at the rightofthe aircraft, at a distance ofthe order of 10km. Theaircraft was at a height of 4 km and the light was estimated to be about 30°below. The aircraft then turned left and continued onits flight, the light being last seen below and behind. Duringthe turn the pilot thought it appeared to the left above the aircraft.These observations suggest that the UFO was in fact on the surface of the sea, and we look to the surveillance radarobservations to support this view.COMMENT V: Irelands history of the sighting of a bright light as the plane came out of Christchurch is based on theinformation supplied in ref. 23. This information, although satisfactory for purposes of initial analysis,is not complete.Some details were left out and one detail in particular was wrong. Moreover, Ireland has "distorted" another detailwhich was correctlyreported in ref. 23. Thereforesome corrections and additions to Irelands recitation of the eventsisnecessary (refer to Figure 3). ,.. . . ^ ^. .. a The plane left the ground atChristchurch at about 0217 andflew upinto the cloud cover, reaching the lowerlevel of clouds in about a minute. Thedirection of flight was within 45°degrees of the bright light source thatwas observed as the plane brokethrough the clouds, but no such lightwas seen, even though such a light, ifon the surface,shouldhavebeenvisibleas soon as the aircraft reached about500 ft in altitude.This assumesthe lightwas about 25 nautical miles (46 km)from the aircraft, a location determinedby the first radar contact. Thus, if thelight was a squid boat, it must haveturned its lights on during the time theplane was in the cloud, i.e., around0218-0219.The lightwas first seen asthe planebroke through the clouds at a levelapparently below the aircraft. Thecaptain thought it was not far aboveChristchurchAirportoKaikouraEast^ coranent YFigure 3This diagram illustratesthe flightpath of the plane, the radar detections, andthereported sighting directions. Ireland incorrectly indicated a120°turntothe right.107r*
  11. 11. (New Zealand, Continued)the sea. The reporter noted the reflection of the light in the sea in his first taped messages, but then ignored it insubsequent messages as his attention was drawn to the much more intense light source. The film initially shows aroughly elliptical source with its major axis tilted 45° with the left end higher than the right end. The shape does notappear to be a result of aircraft window distortion, since image shapes of known "point" soucres (e.g., aiport landinglights), when not smearedby cameramotion, are round. The tilt of the axis is not aresult of cameramotion. Noother lightappears to be in the film, suggesting that the reflection was very weak.When the light was first seen the captain turned the radar from standby to on in the mapping mode. He used themapping mode (rather than weather mode) because he was not looking at aweather phenomenon and also becausetheobject appeared to be slightly below the aircraft. Hedetected the object on an inner ring of the 50 (nautical) milescale,and so switched to the 20 mile scale for better resolution. He had avery large return just inside the 20 mile range ring(about 19 n.m. or 35 km).This detection — sightingdirection A on Figure 3—whichoccurredwithin 30 secondsor so offirst seeing the light, happened about three minutes earlier than reported in ref. 23. Thereforeon Irelands mapthe firstradar detection should be moved back to the location of the first visual sighting. The radar azimuth, accordingto thecaptains memory of the screen, stayedat about a constant value in the neighborhood of 30° to the right while the targetmoved inward to closer distances for several minutes. The target reached adistanceof 8-12 n.m. (15-22 km)andmovedaround to the right on the scope, going off the scope at the limit of the sweep, 60° (given incorrectly as50° in ref. 23)—direction B on Figure 3. After the radartarget disappearedoff the scopethe light appeared to travelalong with the plane.Unfortunately the exact duration of the radar target is unknown, but estimated to have been 3-5 minutes. LocationBcorresponds to about a 5 minute duration on the scope.At 0227 — Con Figure 3 — the plane reported its position to Wellington Air Traffic Control asbeing 32 n.m. (59km)out of Christchurch and 11,500 ft in altitude. The plane also reported a "great big target"at 3:00 (90° to the right andatan estimated distance of 12 n.m. About 3 minutes later the plane reached 13,000ft and the captain, who could notseethe object from his seat at the left of the aircraft, decided to turn to the right. The plane turned 92° to the right, asdetermined from gyrocompassheadings (33° magnetic to 125° magnetic; there is a 22° declination to the east). Irelandhas incorrectly shown this as a 120° turn. After the turn to the right the object was apparently at a considerabledepression angle below horizontal since it was not picked upon radar. Witnesseswatching out the right sideof the planereported that during the turn the line of sight to the object moved toward the front of the aircraft — D on Figure 3.However, the captain does not remember actually seeing it appearaheadof him, suggestingthat from his seat at the leftof the cockpit the line of sight was stillsomewhat tothe right andthatthe depression angle exceededabout 10°, which isthe experimentally determined approximate cutoff angle causedbythe noseof the aircraft.Theother witnesses, lookingout the right side (and two were standing up andable to see"over" the hoseof the aircraft)observedthe object start tomove to the right. The copilot had the impression that the plane moved closer to the object as it turned onto the 125magnetic heading, but that almost immediately the object started to increase its distance from the plane. As the planeflew along the new heading the sighting line moved continually to the right as indicated by E and F onFigure 3.The cameraman may have photographed during the turn. It is estimated that shortly after the turn he got andinstalled a larger lens on his camera,an operation that would havetaken about two minutes or more. Hethenproceededto take the film segment showing large (defocused) images which were emphasized in news media releases.The planeflew along 125° magnetic for about 2 minutes andthenturned left.Thelightenthe right side was apparently seen duringthe turn because its apparent motions were described by the reporter. It may also have remained at the right after theturn, since apparently the cameraman was still able to film it at locations F, G, and H.The turn back toward the initial heading to Kaikoura Eastfrom the southeast heading was done in two stages.Thecaptain initiatedthe turn while watching the glow from the light out the right side.As heturned henoticed that the glowwas not decreasing, as he had expected it would if they were leaving the light behind. It appeared that the glow, ifanything, was actually getting brighter. He noticed this increased glow after he hadturned about 30° to the left. Then,looking ahead of the plane hewas surprised to seewhat he thought was the samelight appear in front of him at a higheraltitude — sighting direction I. He was apparently startled by this and stoppedthe turn allowing the plane to level on amagnetic heading of about 65°. This second light was still above horizontal, but it quickly moved to the left anddownwards in a manner which causedthe captain to think that he had actually passedover it onthe left side— sightingdirection J. No other passengers recall a light passing to the left of the airplane, apparently because they were allwatching the first light which stayedonthe right side (exceptthe copilot, who wasbusy filling outflight forms).After thesecond light, described asappearing slightly smaller butjust asintense asthe light at the right, hadpassed to the left andbelow the plane the captain continued the left turn onto a heading which would take the plane to Kaikoura East., There is no mention of this object being observed by either the Christchurch or Wellington radars. This isnot surprising,foreither of two reasons. The first is that it was apparently stationary. These radars are normallyoperated in the moving targetmode, in which targets moving at less than some 15knots are not seen. Ifthe object was airborne, we would expect it to bemoving — the witnesses on the aircraft thought it was moving — yet it was not seen on either the Christchurchor Wellington(Continued on next page) H
  12. 12. (New Zeland, Continued)surveillance radars, both ofwhichwere definitely receivingechoes from the aircraft at this time.Alternatively, consider that theobject was below the radar horizon. The Christchurch radar has a minimum elevation for aircraft detection under normalconditions, of approximately 1°, so an object below 1.5km at the point of "encounter" wouldnot normallybe detected, even ifitwere moving. The minimum height for a normal radar sighting from Wellingtonwould be about 1.15 km. There was otherevidence that the radar horizon wasextended bysuper-refraction that morning, so amovingtarget wouldhave to beeven lowerdown than 1.15 km to escape detection. The lack ofa radar sighting confirmsthe previous deduction that the object wasbelow1.6km, and raises serious doubt about the UFO being airborne, and its apparent movement. Rather it supports the contentionthat the UFO could have been a stationaryship.The sizeand intensity ofthe light has been estimated from an analysis ofthe moviefilm23.The photographs whichweretakenat an estimated range of 18km showed the light to be consistent with a non-circular, non-uniform source 12m highand 18 mwide, with an intensity of 260,000 candelas. A source of such intensitywould be visibleat a distance in excess of 55 km in anatmosphere with30 km visibility. Itisalso remarkably near to the estimated luminous intensity ofa squid boat (300,000-400,000candelas).COMMENT W: In the above photograph Ireland refers to the object seen at the right of the aircraft. Hecorrectlypoints out two alternative explanations for the failure of the Christchurch andWellington radarsto detect the object:object was stationary and/or object was below the radar beams. His claim that the Wellington radar horizon wasextended by super-refraction is disputed by the information providedbythe Wellington radar technician (no morethanthe usual amount of coastlineseen),sohis lower boundof 1.15 km height maybein error.But is isclear that at leasttobebelow the Christchurchradar beam the object would have to bebelow about 1.5 km.An alternative explanation for thefailure of ground radar detection could bethat the object had asmall radar crosssection for 50 cm radar while it hadalarge cross section for 3 cm weather radar on the plane.Ireland acceptsthe estimate of the intensity of the light asgiven in reference 23, andcorrectly points out that thevalue is comparable to the luminous intensity of a fishing boat,providing that all the 5000-watt bulbs which are strungaround the deckwere individually unresolved and instead viewed asone "big" bulb. Thesizeofthe object, as estimatedfrom the film — 18 mor about60ft.wide —is, however,small for asquidboat.According to information published bytheNew Zealand government, squid boats range up to 60 m and have loading capacities up to 300 tons.During the left turn the pilot was surprised to see a light (which he thought was the light from the UFO) appear at the frontleft above the aircraft. This light must be satisfactorily explained. To consider that it came from the UFO wouldbe inconsistentwith allthe other information available,whichclearly suggests some largish craft significantly below the aircraft and, at the time,to the right rear. It is not inconsistent, however, withan observation made during this encounter bythe co-pilot. The co-pilot isreported46as seeing Venusout far to the left and the UFO to starboard. Heisalso reported as sayingtheywere different colours,sizes and shapes, and that the two were definitely there at the same time. This was a remarkable statement, considering thatVenus had still not risen; even at 13,000 ft Venus would not have risen until about 0304.So what celestial body did the co-pilot see and mistake for Venus? The obvious choice would be Jupiter, which at 0229would have been at 26.2° elevation 16.5* east. The aircraft heading prior to the right rum was 55°east, and after the right turn147°east, so Jupiter wouldbe seen out to the left. When the pilotturned left to regain the routeto Kaikoura East he approachedthe track at an interceptofabout 30°. During thismanouvre the aircraft headingwould be about 25° east, surprisinglynear to thesighting line to Jupiter at 16.5° east; Jupiter would appear at the front left above the aircraft and could explain this sighting.COMMENT X: Ireland identifiesthe light seen ahead and then to the left asthe planet Jupiter. He has apparentlydiscounted the claim by the captain, as reported in reference 23 and in Comment V, that the light was seen to dropdownwards and possibly pass beneath the plane. In the opinion of this investigator Jupiter could not explain thissighting.Ireland claimsthat the copilot said he saw Venus at the same time asthe bright object.Thecopilots "report" isanewspaper report correctly paraphrased by Ireland/In a separatedetailed interview the copilot stated that hefirst sawVenus about 25-30 minutes later when the planewas near Cape Campbell, around 0255-0300 at about the expectedtime for Venus to rise.At that time also hewaswatching two unidentifiedlights "behindBlenheim."Sincethe planedidan orbit near Cape Campbell therewould have beenaperiodof timewhen the planewas heading southwards. For thatshort time the unidentified lights would have beento the right andVenusto the left of the aircraft.Thecopilot doesnotremember seeing Jupiter.The squid boat records did not reveal that a boat wasfishingnear the position of this UFO sighting on the morning of31December. However,this does not mean that no such boat could have been there, considering that ifithad beenfishingit couldwell have been doingso illegally. Insuch circumstances, it does not appear surprising that there isno record ofanyknown boatfishing there at that time. The evidence pointsstrongly to a brightly-lit squidfishingboat as the UFO involved inthis encounter.This conclusion is reached without invoking any unusual atmospheric conditions.(continued on next page;12
  13. 13. (New Zealand, Continued)COMMENT Y: Irelands discovery that no fishing boat was reported near the position of the UFO sighting issignificant. He suggests that there actually was a boat there (the unknown/illegal fishing boat) that did not reportbecause it was fishing illegally. As pointed out in Comment U the location would not have been illegal, so the fishingwould have been legal unless the boat did not report.• With no independent evidence that a squid boat was in fact in the area of the UFOsighting the investigator mustshow that the details of the sighting are consistent with the squid boat hypothesis. Ireland hastried to dothis byarguingthat the availableevidence shows that the light was (a)below about 1.5 km(andthereforecould beon the surface) and(b)stationary. These two conditions, coupled with the brightness calculation of ref. 23, suggestthat the light sourcecouldhave been a stationary squid boat on the ocean suface. However, in order to show that the objectwas stationaryIrelandhadto distort the path of the plane andignore certain other details of the sighting.The more completeanalysis presentedin Comment V suggests that the object moved over considerable distances during the sighting, a capability notcharacteristic of a squid boat. The minimum distance moved can beestimated from the position of the last sighting andfrom the initial radar detection.The reporter thought that he was the last person to see the light on the right. He pressed his head against thewindow and lookeddownward. Themaximum depression anglefrom aside window isabout 45° (limited bythe structureof the aircraft below the cockpit). At a height of 13,000 ft adepression angle of 45° intersects the surface at apoint about3 n.m. (5.6 km) from a point just below the plane. Thus, if on the surface, the object moved at the very least from thelocation of its first radar detection, about 45 km from Christchurch, to a point in the close vicinity of the plane when theplane turned left, about 80 km from Christchurch. If the radar detections are "thrown out" asanomalous andonly thevisual sighting directions are accepted, the "boat" could beat X in the map(Figure3).This satisfiesthe sighting directionrequirements from points A, B.....G, but even at the point of closest approach during the left turn of the plane it wouldbeabout 25 km away at adepression angle of about 10°, hardly low enough to require the reporter to press his headagainstthe window and look down. Incidentally, a reflective target such as a squid boat at location X would be detected by theaircraft radar continually as the plane flew along the southeast heading.)There was one further sighting on the northbound trip which seems to have been well enough reported for knownsourcesto be suggested.Again, squid boats are thought to be responsible, but at a considerable distance from the aircraft.At about 0255the pilot reported a bright light behind Woodbourne —to a passengeritwas above Blenheim —definitely notin the sameplaceas the earlier sightingat 0251,and itwas extremely bright.Another passengerappearsto have beenwatchingasmall light over Blenheim for about four or five minutes when itwas joined at the sameheight bya similar light. The photographerwas preparingto film two bright lights but lost sight of them when the pilot orbitedthe aircraft to lose height at about 0255.Although Woodbourne aerodromewas obscured by the mountains about 0251 it would have becomevisible some timebefore 0255 looking down the Taylor River valley. A possible source for this light, ifit was not the Woodbourne beacon, waseither of two squid boats known to have been fishing in TasmanBay that night. The lights from these boats,about 155km fromthe aircraft at 0255 could have been seen through a normalatmosphere.COMMENT Z: The sighting of two bright orange lights in the direction of Woodbourne, and apparently movingnorthward toward Picton, is not aswell documented asthe previously considered sightings. However, whether or notthe people onthe plane could haveseen the squid boats referred to byIrelandthrough the 1 /8 cloud cover over Blenheimis debatable. In any case, one notes that the inverse square law and atmospheric extinction effects assuming a 60 kmvisibility would reduce the apparent intensity of the squid boat lights (155 km away) bya factor of about 500,000 belowthe apparent intensity of the light seen near Christchurch at a distance of 18 km.At about0256 the pilot saw upwards of twenty fairly dim lights to starboard.He though they were on the surface and thatthey camefrom a largenumber ofsmall boats.We are reminded that upwardsoftwentysquid boats wereon the move that night,many of them en route from the fishing grounds north ofNelson to the Mernoo Bank east ofChristchurch. About this time theco-pilot pointed out Venus rising to the passengers. (Venus would rise at about 0300.) This is remarkable, since he hadpreviously (at 0229)seen "Venus"to the north! There is no record of any further interesting or unusual lights being seenduringthe remainder of the flight, which ended at 0315 when the aircraft landed at Woodbourne.COMMENT AA: The reader is referred to Comment X.CONCLUSIONOf the twenty-seven or so sufficiently well documented sightings of nocturnal lights studied in this report, none has beenfound for which a simple explanation is not possible. The sources proposed were known to be present at the times of theobservations, and must be discounted by the witnessesifthe sightings are to remain unidentified.In the most widely publicised "encounter" nothing unnatural, apart from the impressionsofthe witnesses, seems to have(continued on next page)13
  14. 14. (New Zealand, Continued)occurred. This UFO was almost certainly a brightly-lit squid fishing boat caught in the act. It is therefore considered that theacronym UFO should refer to UnFamiliar Observations, rather than to UnidentifiedFlying Objects.COMMENT AB: One wonders how certain is "almost certainly." Is Ireland 100% sure that the object was a squidboat? 99% sure? 90%? Does it mean anything to say "almost certainly" in light of the evidence presented? In the.Christchurch Star on January 2, 1979, the superintendent of the Mt. John Observatory was quoted as saying that hewas 99% sure that the film showedVenus."Its the only thing we can think of," is aquote from the paper.After seeingthe (mostly defocussed?) images shown onTVMabin decidedthat the film showed Jupiter under poor filmingconditions(The Press, Christchurch, Jan. 3, 1979). Apparently there was quite a bit of room for "unsureness" in the 1%left overbetween 99% and 100%. What the reader should understand is that in a case like this which may involve some newphenomenon about which we know little or nothing, we cannot besure of what the reported phenomenon is.Thebestwe can do is be sure of what it isnt. If, after carefullyreviewing all phenomenathat are relevanttothe sighting,weonlyhave a lot of "it isnts," then we may decide that a truly new phenomenon was involved.In view of the commentspresentedhere on Irelandswork it appears that not all ofthe well-reported sightings havebeen explained. This still leaves room for UFOs to mean Unidentified Flying Objects. A list of unexplained sightings ispresented in an appendix. .REFERENCES (Ireland)1. EveningPost, 1978, December 22. 24. Break In, 1979, 52, 5, p.218.2. Dominion, 1979, January 3. 25. NZ Meteorological Service, 1979, personal communication.3. Evening Post, 1978, December 22. 26. Fogarty, Q., 1979, Australian Playboy, August 1979, p.52.4. Dominion, 1979, January 2. 27. Catley, D. & C., 1979, personal communication.5. WairarapaTimes Age, 1979, January 3. 28. Condon, E.U. et al., 1969, Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects.6. Wairarapa Times Age, 1979, January 3. Dutton, New York, pp.173-174.7. Knox, F.B., 1979, personal communication. 29. Allcock, G.M., 1979, personal communication.8. Dominion, 1979, January 4. 30. Causer, G., 1979, personal communication.9. Knox, F.B., 1979, personal communication. 31. Cordy, J., 1979, personal communication.10. The New Zealand Physicist, 1979, 1, 6, p.6. 32. Davidson, R., 1979, personal communication.11. Break In, 1979, 52, 2, p.86. 33. Kerr, D.E:, et al., 1951, Propagation of Short Radio Waves. McGraw Hill,12. Fogarty, Q., 1979, NZ Listener 93, 2082, December 1, p.34. New York, Ch.7.13. Alexander, F.E.S., 1946, Meteorological Factors in Radio-Wave 34. Evening Post, 1978, December 22.Propagation. The Physical Society, London, p.242. 35. Collins, M.A., 1979, personal communication.14. Nelson Evening Mail, 1979, January 5. 36. Evening Post, 1979, February 27.15. Unwin, R.S., 1951, The Canterbury Project, DSIR, NZ. 37. Wairarapa Times Age, 1979, January 8.16. Milnes, B. and Unwin, R.S., 1950, Proc. Phys. Soc. 63, 8, p.595. 38. Wairarapa Times Age, 1979, January 6.17. Unwin, R.S. 1979, 1979, personal communication. 39. Wairarapa Times Age, 1979, January 5.18. Dominion, 1979, January 2. 40. Wairarapa Times Age, 1979, Janaury 9.19. Surridge, A.D., 1979, NZ Jn. Sci. 22, p.77. : 41. Wairarapa Times Age, 1979, January 11.20. Richter. J.H., 1969, Radio Sci. 4, p. 1261. 42. Wairarapa Times Age, 1979, January 4, 6.21. Lane, J.A.. 1965, J. Atmos. Terr. Phys. 27, p.969. 43. Devaux, J., 1928, BSAF, 42, p.384.22. NZ Meteorological Service, 1979, personal communication. 44. The Marine Observer, 1951, 21, 154, p.214.23. Maccabee, B.S., 1979, What Really Happened in New Zealand. Private 45. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, 1979, personal communication.Memoir, personal communication. 46. Dominion, 1979, January 3.APPENDIX — UnexplainedSightings (Maccabee)December 21, 1978 (morning)• ground sightings from Woodbourne around midnight to 1 a.m. (and coincidences between apparent motions of thevisual targets — lights — and the Wellington radar targets)• sightings of lights apparently above ground near the mouth of the Clarence River by the first Argosy flight toChristchurch (Capt. Randle)• sighting of a rapidly moving radar target coincidently with the visual observation of a flashing light which passed infront of the aircraft by the crew of the secondArgosy (Capt. Powell)December 31, 1978 (morning)• sightings of unusually behaving lights apparently over Kaikoura, "pulsating" on andoff andoccasionally appearing tocast beams of light in non-vertical directions downward• bluish white lights (or the same light appearing three times)filmed whilethe plane flewsouth past the KaikouraCoast• coincidences between the appearances of Wellington radar targets and anomalous lights that appeared anddisappeared ahead of the plane at considerable distances from the Kaikoura Coast• the "growth" of the airplanereturn blip ontheWellington radar which promptedtheoperatorto report anobject flying"in formation" with the plane(Continued on next page)14
  15. 15. N.C. TRAININGCONFERENCEThe North Carolina unit ofMUFON will hold its 4th AnnualLeadership Training Conferenceon June 21 and June 22, co-hosted by the Tar Heel UFOStudy Group. The Saturdayafternoon and evening andSunday afternoon sessions will beheld in the Sears, Roebuck & Co.activity room at the Hanes MallShopping Center, WinstonSalem.Ten speakers from NorthCarolina, South Carolina, andMaryland will speak on variousfacets of the UFO problem; theyrepresent scientific, technical,lawe n f o r c e m e n t , and otherspecialized fields. Exhibits,printed materials, a reception,and a picnic are also on the 2-dayagenda.For further information callMrs. Gayle C. McBride,conference chairperson; nights:919-969-6476; days: 919-725-4268.STAR HERAID, Scott3 Bluff, NEMarch 8, 1980Close encounterat SB? Lawmentrack down UFOGERING — Tucked away in theyellow report sheets of the GeringPolice Department is a simple reportthat says "miscellaneous servicereport, assist other agency," but itprobably should read, "UFO, allother."Officers from Gering and deputiesfrom the Scotts Bluff County SheriffsDepartment had their eyes to the skyFriday night looking for an unidentifiedflying object.THE INITIAL sighting was made bya Gering woman living on PacificBoulevard. At 8:20 p.m. she reportedthat a very bright light was seen hover-Ing over the Scotts Bluff National Mon-ument. The light, then broke Into twolarge white lights then joined back intoone light, she said.HOPING FOR their own close en-counter, a Gering officer and deputysheriff headed to the monument andcontacted a park ranger who said hehad observed a low-flying aircraft nearthe monument at about 7:30 p.m.A call was placed to the Flight Ser-vice at the county airport and it wasdiscovered that a small plane had left ashort time earlier on a flight to Torring-ton, Wyo.. but the direction of nightshould not have been toward the mon-ument.ANOTHER POSSIBILITY, that of astudent pilot getting in some nightflying and "having some fun," was alsoconsidered.According to United Press Interna-tional, the "evening stars" this limp ofyear .ire Voniis. Mars anil Jupiter.The comliination of one of those planels and a low flying air craft with itslanding lights on may be the answer,but the Gering woman is probably stillwan4trui|.UFO NEWSCLIPPINGSERVICEThe UFO NEWSCLIPPING SERVICEwill keep you informed of all the latestUnited States and World-Wide UFOactivity, as it happens! Our service wasstarted in 1969, at which time wecontracted with a reputableinternationalnewspaper-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 town orforeign newspapers."Our UFO Newsclipping Serviceissues are 20-page monthly reports,reproduced by photo-offset,containing the latest UnitedStates andCanadian UFO newsclippings, withour foreign section carrying the latestBritish, Australian, New Zealand andother foreign press reports. Alsoincluded is a 3-5 page section of"Fortean" clippings (i.e. Bigfoot andother "monster" reports). Let us keepyou informed of the latest happeningsin the UFO and Fortean fields."For subscription information andsample pages from our service, writetoday to:UFO NEWSCLIPPING SERVICERoute 1 — Box 220Plumerville, Arkansas 72127(N.Z. Appendix, Continued)• the sighting of a small light with a greenish fleck or tinge that was apparently travelling along at the right ofthe planefor a short time and the coincident radar report of a target at the right side of the plane• radar and visualtargets which appeared to pacethe plane as itcame in for a landing at Christchurch(notevenreferredto by Ireland, but described in ref. 23)• a large very bright object which apparently paced the plane for a period of time during and after weather radardetections as the plane flew northeast out of Christchurch• a rapidly moving bright light seen bythe captaintoappear abovethe plane andthen dropdown to his left, perhaps evenpassing under the plane• a flashing light seen "rolling and turning" and "dropping down" at a high rate of speed, which apparently appearedcoincidently with the appearance of a "big" Wellington radar target• a periodically flashing light which oscillatedfrom verybright yellowish-white to dim red andorangestructured images. that were recorded on film; possiblythe same light that is referred to in the preceding description• two bright orange lights which appeared "over the hills" andwhich may have moved northward from the directionofWoodbourne toward Picton D15
  16. 16. By Ann DruffclMagnetic Anomalies and UFO Flight(This is Parf / of a two-part article. Thematerial originally appeared in PROBEMagazine but is presented here in amore easily comprehended formaccompanied by appropriate graphics,which best illustrate the potentiallyvaluable information containedtherein.)Science cannot yet explain theinherent nature of UFOs. Assumingthat they are manned, or produced, byintelligent alien souces, we still have noclues to their purposes or to thetechnology behindtheir power of flight.These two aspects of the UFO problemseem to concern us most; first, wewantto know why they are here and second,we want to know how they perform.We cannot haul the phenomenoninto our laboratories so that it can bestudied at leisure.We must becontent,therefore, to observe it in its naturalstate, so to speak —during its sporadicand short-lived appearances. Facedwith the dilemma, we must lookiorobjective correlations or internalconstants in the appearance andbehavior of UFOs. It is only in this waythat we will be able to obtain anyscientifically valid information.For the past 22 years this writerhas studied reports of UFOs in theSouthern California area. My mainpurpose has been to obtain the neededobjective correlations or internalconstants for an understanding of ourlocal UFOs at least. Luckily, insouthern California and particularly inthe Los Angeles Basin there is aplentiful and constant supply of UFOreports from credible witnesses. In thisarea, as in other places around theworld, distinct UFO shapes can berecognized from repetitive sightings,16, . " ?:•-• •."• • • - x-^^."•- ":^&£^SL . ^ ^-41^^^^^?^ ^t^J^, - -MACXtrrU MAI lit EAHTKHS IJIS AWiU- »»•••"••• ...;—.,.^L.-.and localized "flaps" occur ingeographically limited localities. In fact,many different types of correlations areevident in Los Angeles Basin UFOreports. It is impossible to discuss inlimited space allthe correlativematerialwhich several Southland researchershave found pver the years.This column will, therefore, beconfined to the following hypothesis,derived from study of UFO data fromthis area — fhaf the flight paths andmaneuvers of UFOs seem related tothe magnetic anomalies of the earthsterrain over which they appear.The term "magnetic anomaly" asused here refers to small closedcontours, depicted on aeromagneticmaps, where the intensityof the earthsmagnetic field is noted as differing fromsurrounding terrain. These differences(Continued on next page)
  17. 17. (California Report, Continued)are minor, but definite, and may beeither higher or lower relative to thenormal magnetic field measured incounts of gamma radiation. In thisstudy the term "magnetic anomaly"does not apply to extensive contourswhich, by reason of their largesize, arenot shown as "closed"on aeromagneticmaps.Figure A is an aeromagnetic mapof portions of the Los Angeles Basin. Ifthe reproduction process permits, the"closed" magnetic anomalies at issuehere may be readily seen.How was the above hypothesisdeveloped? It began with a lengthystudy of Southern California flap areas— localized communitites where UFOreports from reliable observers arenumerous and repetitive. Two of thelocalities which this writer has studiedin depth are a fairly new section ofYorba Linda in Orange County, about25 air miles southeast from the LosAngeles Civic Center, and TempleCity, a small town about 12 air mileseast-northeast of the center of the LosAngeles metropolis.At first glance, there is not muchsimilarity between the two towns.Yorba Linda, backed up to the ruggedSanta Ana Mountains, is still a rapidlygrowing section of Orange County,while Temple City lies right in the midstof the heavily settled Los Angelescomplex and is barely distinguishablefrom the other towns surrounding it.In the early 1970s, at a time whenthiswriterandMr.RichardZimmerman,who was then also a MUFONinvestigator, were conducting jointUFO research, Rich suggested thatdocumented UFO sightings be plottedon aeromagnetic maps to see if anycorrelation could be made with themagnetic features of our local terrain.While Rick concentrated on a map ofthe western portion of Los Angeles, Iused amap which was published in 1964by the U.S. Geological Survey inWashington, D.C. Its official numberwas GP465, and it includedeastern LosAngeles and vicinity.2Figure A showspart of this map. The map informationwas compiled in 1959 from an aerialsurvey flown at 500 feet above theground level. The scale was 1:48,000.This writer plotted 24 local, well-documented UFO cases at random onthis aeromagnetic map, and asurprising feature was revealed. Allcases in flap areas occurred welloutside enclosed magnetic anomalies.In addition, sporadic cases occurringoutside flap areas seemed to avoid, or,in flight, to skirt the edges of, smallenclosed magnetic contours. It needsto be emphasized here that all casesplotted on the map could be classifiedas at least CE-I. That is, the UFO wasclose enough to the witness(es)so thata reasonably accurate judgment of thetrue position of the UFO in relationshipto the ground terrain could be made.Yorba Linda and Temple City,twoof Southern Californias flap areas,were within the maps confines. TempleCity lies totallywithin an area where nosmall closed magnetic contours exist.The perimeter of the survey passesthrough the eastern edge of YorbaLinda (Refer to Figure A), but themajority of cases studied in thatcommunity lie within the surveyedterrain. Here the same situationexists;there are no enclosed magneticanomalies in the newly-constructedareas of Yorba Linda where the flapoccurred. The older part of YorbaLinda, northwest of the flap area, wasnot concerned inthe study; forno UFOreports came from that area of town.In summary,then, intwo flap areasof Southern California there are nosmall, closed magnetic anomaliesindicated on aeromagnetic maps. Thisfact seems more than coincidental,especially when we consider the factthat sporadic CE-I UFO cases alsoseem to avoid or skirt small closedmagnetic anomalies elsewhere in theLos Angeles area.In Part II of this article, we willcontinue with an in-depth descriptionofsome of the cases in Yorba Linda andTemple City. Further verification andinterpretation of our hypothesis willalso be attempted.NOTES1. PROBE Magazine, Collectors Edition, Fall1979, Rainbow Publications, Burbank, Calif.,"Magnetic," by Ann Druffel, pp. 27, 32-34, 832. Information regarding aeromagnetic maps isavailable from:Branch of Distribution,Central RegionU.S. Geological SurveyBox 25286 Denver Federal CenterDenver, CO 83225SYMPOSIUMPROGRAMThe llth annual MUFONSymposium to be held Saturday, June7and Sunday, June 8 at Clear Lake HighSchool, Houston, Texas, now has a fullslate of speakers. There will also bedisplays and exhibits, and workshopsand other • programs operatingsimultaneously with the talks. Thesymposium theme is "UFOTechnology: A Detailed Examination."The Saturday speakers and theirtopics are as follows:9:10 a.m. John F: Schuessler andL. David Kissinger, "Project VISIT —An Approach to Determine What AreThey?"10:15 a.m. Henry Monteith,PhD,"The Unified Field Theory and theUFO."11:10 a.m. James E. Oberg,"Quality Control of the UFO DataBase: Some Suggested Techniques."1:30 p.m. Ray .Stanford,"Instrumented Documentation andResolution of Transient Phenomena inUFO Events."2:20 p.m. Richard C. Niemtzow,M.D., "PreliminaryAnalysisofMedicalInjuries as a Result of UFO CloseEncounters."3:25 p.m. R. Leo Sprinkle, PhD,"UFO Contactees: CaptiveCollaborators or Cosmic Citizens?"4:15 p.m. Fred Merritt, "UFOCATand a Friend with Two New Ideas."7:15 p.m. Alain Esterle, PhD,Director ofGEPAN,Toulouse, France.8:00 p.m. Stanton T. Friedman,nuclear physicist, "Flying SaucerTechnology."For advance tickets send check ormoney order to DaveKissinger, ProjectVISIT, P.O. Box 877, Friendswood, TX77546. Morning session $3.50;afternoon session $4.50; eveningsession $4.50; package price for allthree sessions $10.50.17
  18. 18. (Directors Message, Continued)the convenienceof their readers and topromote MUFON in North Carolina.We appreciate this method ofexpressing their enthusiasm.MUFON, through your Director,has established a working relationshipwith the recently organized "Institutefor Extraterrestrial Research" withhead offices nt Via Cavour, 57, Rome00184, Italy. Through personalmeetings with most of their officers, wefound them to be the caliber of peoplehaving similar goals and objectives tothat of MUFON, and therefore an idealorganization to represent MUFON inItaly. Mr. Claudio Gallo, OperationsDirector, was selected by their BoardofDirectors with the endorsement of theMUFON International Director, asMUFONs new Liaison Representativefor Italy. Mr. Galloresides at ViaPapiria68/B, Rome 00175, Italy. During adinner meeting in Rome, in my honor, Ihad the privilege of meeting personallywith Franco Sclano, responsible forOrganization and Lojig RangePlanning; Mr. Daniele Bedini, DataProcessing Manager from Florence,Italy; Miss Daniela Giordano, ForeignRelations; Giulio Perrone, Director ofthe Institute for ExtraterrestrialResearch and his lovely wife Anna,whowere my personal hosts, plus 30additional members and their spouses.On another occasion, David W.Davenport and his gracious wifeentertained your Director at theirapartment in"Old Rome," preceeding afantastic dinner accompanied byClaudio Gallo, and Mr. and Mrs. GiujioPerrone.David W. Davenport and EttoreVincenti are the co-authors of the 1979copyrighted book "2000 A.C.Distruzione Antomica"1(2000 B.C.Atomic - Destruction) published inItalian and soon to be translated intoEnglish -for greater distribution. Mr.Davenport has submitted an articleconcerning the results of hislinguistic/archaeological research intothe probability that an atomic typeexplosion took place in2000 B.C. in thecity of Lanka in what is now northernIndia. The photographic record wasdone by Ettore Vincenti. Davids articlewill be published in a future issue of theJournal and will appeal to those peoplewho have specialized in the ancient18astronaut culture. Mr. Davenport is aSanskrit scholar and has access tothese writings, plusthose he personallypossesses. (Your Director had anopportunity to view these individualstrips of Sanskrit lettering onparchment that are fastened togetherso they may be fanned-out for studyand reading. David has made drawingsof a spacecraft as described in theseancient writings. He expects to learnabout the propulsion system as hecontinues his study into this intriguingmaterial. I advised him that bothMUFON and VISIT are anxious toshare the results of his work and toscientifically evaluate the power plantdescribed for engineering validity.The Institute for ExtraterrestrialResearch is composed of peopleformerly associated with CentreUfologico Nazionale. We look forwardto working closely with Sr. ClaudioGallo, Giulio Perrone, and their veryqualified team. Mr. Perrone is anexecutive with RAI, the Rome radio andtelevision network. Most of the officersof.the Institute speak English, thereforea communications barrier does. notexist. David Davenport, a linguist andarchaeologist, was born in India,educated at Cambridge inEngland, andspeaks 12 languages. David played thekey roje in all three of the meetings thatI had with their group in Rome. Theirgracious hospitalitymade me feel like avisiting dignitary, for which I will beforever grateful.Many of our Journal readers haveinquired about the Group I motionpicture titled "UFOs Are Real" andwhen it will be released after having hadfour "sneak" previews last November.Stanton Friedman, the scientificconsultant for the film, has not beenable to determine why it was notreleased to the motion picture theaters.In March, the Academy ofScience andHorror Motion Pictures awarded thefilm "the Best Scientific Motion Picturefor 1979." It is available on a cassettevideo tape in either Beta or VHS fromyour Fotomat store for a rental fee of$9.95 or may be purchased for $49.95.ManyMUFON people appear inthis110minute color video tape documentarysuch as Stanton Friedman,Ted Phillips,Marjorie Fish, Dr. Bruce Maccabee,etc. plus numerous dignitaries in themilitary and government. This film is abargain for people who own or haveaccess to video tape equipment.Stanton T. Friedman, a featuredspeaker for our 1980 MUFON UFOSymposium, has published the papersthat he delivered at MUFONs 1977 and1979 symposiums; his non-winningentry in the Cutty Sark UFO papercompetition (June 1979) titled "Fiction,Facts, and FlyingSaucers"; and a paperhe gave in 1975 in Los Angeles to theA.I.A.A. titled "A Scientific Approachto Flying Saucer Behavior". Thisbooklet may be purchased for $3.00bywriting to UFORI, P.O.B. 502, UnionCity, CA 94587.The April 1980 issue of "73Magazine for Radio Amateurs" has anarticle titled "Hams on the Trail ofUFOs" by David L. Dobbs K8NQN,ofCincinnati, Ohio. David is an activemember of several of MUFONsamateur radio nets. The articleconcerns the motion picture that wasshown to radar specialists in themilitary during the 1953 era in which acrashed UFO and three small bodieswere displayed. Since one of theseradar specialists is nowa hamoperator,David hopes that other hamswill advisehim if they also saw this film.While we are speaking of "hams,"Alfred LaVorgna WA20QJ ofHicksville, N.Y., has designed a QSLcard specificallyfor the MUFON NET,which he calls an "enigma." It depictstwo humanoids with the words"Welcome MUFON Net" on the frontand the QSO specifics on the back inthe conventional format. This QSLcard may be reproduced in a futureissue of the Journal.On April 18, 1980, Doubledayreleased the hardback book by HughCochrane titled "Gateway to Oblivion:The Great Lakes Bermuda Triangle,"priced at $10.00 (183 pages). Mr.Cochrane is not a member of MUFON,however he does quote one case asreported by a MUFON FieldInvcstgator in his book. This bookwould appeal to the people intriguedbythe Bermuda Triangle mystery. •.
  19. 19. Lucius ParishIn Others WordsWorldwide UFO reports areincreasing dramatically, according toCharles Tucker of IndianasInternational UFO InvestigativeBureau, as reported inthe April 1 issueof NATIONAL ENQUIRER. An articlein the April 8 issue reports on the UFOstudy group set up within BritiansHouse of Lords, largely due to theefforts of Lord Clancarty, otherwiseknown as UFO authorBrinsley Le PoerTrench. A multi-part series on UFOactivity inthe Soviet Unionbeginsin theApril 15 issue, with UFO photossupposedly taken over Moscow andreports of UFO occupants seen in/neartheir vehicles. The April 22 issuesinstallment ofthe series tellsofalandedUFO in a remote area of the Caucasusand the reactions of four Sovietscientists who approached the object.The March sightings of UFOs bypolice officers at Gladstone, Michigan,are the subjectof an aricle inthe April 8issue of THE STAR. Criticism of arecent article in THE STAR has comefrom MUFONUFO Journal columnistAnn Druffel, whose book (written withD. Scott Rogo), THE TUJUNGACANYON CONTACTS, is now set forJune release by Prentice-Hall. TheMarch 18 issue of THE STARcontained an article about the book,which Mrs. Druffel says, "...containseight major factual errors (not tomention the typos)....it doesnt evenmention the major premiseofour book,which is that a ufologist and aparapsychologist have combined theirexpertise to interpret the same setsofdata....they even misidentified Scottsphoto as one of the hypnotists whoconducted one of the regressions in thecases....the publisher sold the rights forthe article to THE STAR;Scott and Ihad nothing to say about it." All ofwhich just goes to point up (again) thenecessity to keep your salt shaker athand whenreadingthe weeklytabloids.In a previous column I reviewedthe 2-record set, "UFO Encounters,"which is available from InvestigativeResearch Associates, Inc.,SuiteW, 430West Diversey Parkway, Chicago, IL60614. Due to a typesetting error, theprice was incorrectly given as $8.95; thecorrect price is $9.95. I am told that acassette version is also available fromthe same address for $11.95.The "UFO Update" column inApril OMNI contains Harry Lebelsonssomewhat-less-than-complimentaryopinion of the "UFO 79" conferenceheld in San Diego,Calif., in November,1979.Allan Hendry of CUFOScontributes an article to the May issueof FATE, summarizing the experienceof Minnesota Deputy Sheriff ValJohnson and giving results of testsconducted on Johnsons police carwhich was damaged by a low-flyingUFO.The May issue of PROBE is thefirst "new" issue to appear onnewstands since PROBE has resumedpublication on a regular basis. It isnowto be broughtout on a bi-monthly basis.Unfortunately, Ufologist RichardZimmerman is no longer with themagazine, but the May issue has a"UFO Update" column,plus anarticleby Robert B. Klinn on the UFO filesamassed by the Condon Committee.Doubledays massive volume,THE ENCYCLOPEDIAOF UFOs, isofficially set for release in May. Theprice for the hardcover edition will be$24.95, with the paperback selling for$12.95.I Mark R. HerbstrittAstronomyNotesTHE SKY FOR MAY 1980Mercury — Early in the monthit isstillvery low in the east at sunrise, but bythe 13th it is in superior conjunction. Itemerges rapidly into the evening sky,arid by the 31st, it can be seen about 15degrees above the western horizon atsunset.Venus — Passing from Taurus intoGemini, it is still well up in the west atsunset, and sets about 3 hours later.Greatest brilliancy (—4.2)ison the 8that 10 p.m. (E.S.T.).Mars —In Leo, it is well up inthe southat sunset, and sets about 6hours later.It passes 0.8 degrees north of Jupiteron the 4th at 1a.m. (E.S.T.). It iswithin0.4 degrees of the Moonon the 22nd at1 a.m. (E.S.T.)Jupiter — In Leo, it is well up in thesouth at sunset, and sets about 6 hourslater.Saturn — It crosses the meridian at7:53 p.m. (E.S.T.) on the 15th. Ineastern Leo, it is well up inthe south atsunset, and sets at about midnight.Moon Phases:Last Quarter — May 7 at 3:51 p.m.(E.S.T.)New Moon — May 14 at 7:00 p.m.(E.S.T.).First Quarter — May 21 at 2:16 p.m.(E.S.T.)Full Moon — May 29 at 4:28 p.m.(E-S.T.)19
  20. 20. DIRECTORSMESSAGE byWaltAndrusBy the time some of our Journalreaders have the opportunityto perusethis issue, the llth Annual MUFONUFO Symposium will be history. Fromall advance indications,the number ofattendees will be second only to SanFrancisco in 1979. John Schuessler andhis talented committee have providedall of the ingredientsfor a high calibersymposium that will appeal to both thespace engineer and the interested UFO"buff". On the international level, IlkkaSerra, MUFON Representative forFinland; Jean-Francois Gille, MUFONConsultant in Physics, Paris, France;and Dr. Alain Esterle, Head of GEPANin Toulouse, France, were on thespeaking program. Dr. Esterle sharedthe Saturday evening session withStanton T. Friedman. The tour of theNASA Johnson Space Center onSunday afternoon was a memorableexperience for many of theparticipants. All of the members ofVISIT, the host organization, are to becommended for their outstandingaccomplishments in conductinganother successful symposium.It is with regret that we accept theresignation ofBill Pittsas State Directorfor Arkansas. Bill will continue to givetalks on UFOs in his travels and toreport sightings in Arkansas toMUFON and CUFOS. As manyreaders will remember, Mr. Pittssponsored the very unique andenjoyable "Ft. SmithUFO Conference"on October 18 and 19, 1975. Eventhough Bill will be assuming asecondary role, both Bill Pittsand yourDirector proudly announce thatWilliam D. Leet, formerly a StateSection Director, has accepted ourinvitation to fill the important post ofState Director for Arkansas. Mr. Leethas a wide background that extendsfrom a U.S.A.F. combat pilot in WorldWar II and Korea, U.S.A.F. commandpilot and Judge Advocate, HospitalAdministrator, author, historian; to hispresent position of Director of CulturalHistory, Texarkana HistoricalMuseum. Bill earned a Juris Doctordegree. He resides at 1304 East 48thStreet, Texarkana, AR 75502.James M. McCampbell, MUFONDirector for Research, has welcomedtwo new members to our AdvisoryBoard of Consultants. Irwin Wieder,Ph.D., a space scientist, will serve as aConsultant in Physics. Dr. Wieder livesat 459 Panchita Way, Los Altos, CA94022. Also from the west coast, ScottOsborne, Ph.D., a university professor,living at 9517 N.E. 180th, #B307,Bothell, WA 98011 has volunteered todevote his talent as a Consultant inMathematics.George D. Fawcett, MUFONState Director for North Carolina andAssistant State Director, Mrs. Gayle C.McBride, have announced that the "4thAnnual MUFON of North CarolinaUFO Confab" wOl be held inWinston-Salem on Saturday and Sunday June 21and 22. See details elsewhere in thisissue. Mr. Fawcett and his NorthCarolina MUFON organization are tobe congratulated for the interest theyhave created in N.C. and the caliber offield investigators that they havedeveloped through their trainingsessions. Georgeiscurrentlyteaching aUFO class at Lincoln County Campusof Gaston College in Dallas, N.C.MUFON North Carolina has over 70members located in over 45 towns andcities.Since Joe Gumey resigned asMUFON Director of Publications, afterediting the 1976 MUFON UFOSymposium Proceedings, this positionon the Board of Directors has beenvacant. Your Director has beencomposing and editing theproceedings, starting with the 1977edition. It is gratifying to have found acompetent and talented writer, innearby San Antonio to share the dutiesand responsibilities of editing andpreparing the layout for our annualsymposium proceedings for 1980.Dennis W. Stacey is self-employed anda freelance journalist. He has a B.A. inEnglish Literature from the Universityof Texas, Austin, and has had severalsignificant articles on UFOs acceptedand published by one of the majorsyndicates. Mr. Stacy has beenappointed to the Board of Directors asDirector of Publications. He has alsoconsented to become a Staff Writerforthe MUFON UFO Journal and isanticipating meeting many of ourJournal readers at the symposium inClear Lake City, Texas, on June 7thand 8th.Marvin Taylor, Assistant StateDirector for Northern Californiaand aspeaker at the 1979 MUFONSymposium in San Francisco, issponsoring a "UFO Mini-Symposium"for Saturday and Sunday, June 14 and15 at the Tuolumne Fairgrounds Bldg.in Sonora, California. Speakerspresently scheduled are ThomasGates, Paul C. Cerny, and MarvinTaylor. The auditorium will seat 1,000people, therefore we encourage ourenthusiastic MUFON members inCalifornia to avail themselves of thisopportunity. Please contact Mr. Taylorat 20811 Briarwood Drive, Sonora, CA95370 or by telephone (209) 532-5216for additional information. MUFON hasmore members in Northern Californiathan in any other section of the UnitedStates, which was evident at the 1979MUFON Symposium inSan Francisco:The Tarheel UFO Study Groupsspecial issue of their publication forApril 1980 included The MUFON UFOJournal subscription form, and anapplication for Membership form for(Continued on page 18)

×