• Save
Mufon ufo journal   1981 10. october
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Mufon ufo journal 1981 10. october






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



1 Embed 75

http://www.scoop.it 75


Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

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

Mufon ufo journal   1981 10. october Mufon ufo journal 1981 10. october Document Transcript

  • 1The MUFONUFO JOURNAL(USPS002-970)103 Oldtowne Rd.Seguin, Texas 78155RICHARD HALLEditorANN DRUFFELAssociate EditorLEN STRINGFIELDAssociate EditorMILDREDBIESELEContributing EditorWALTER H. ANDRUSDirector of MUFONTED BLOECHERDAVE WEBBCo-Chairmen,Humanoid Study GroupPAUL CERNYPromotion/PublicityREV. BARRY DOWNINGReligion and UFOsLUCIUS PARISHBooks/Periodicals/HistoryMARK HERBSTRITTAstronomyRQSETTAHOLMESPromotion/PublicityTEDPHILLIPSLanding Trace CasesJOHN F. SCHUESSLERUFO PropulsionDENNIS W. STACYStaff WriterNORMA E. SHORTDWIGHT CONNELLYDENNIS HAUCKEditor/Publishers EmeritusThe MUFON UFO JOURNAL ispublished by the Mutual UFONetwork, Inc., Seguin, Texas.Membership/Subscription rates:$15.00 per year in the U.S.A.;$16.00 foreign. Copyright 1981bythe Mutual UFO Network. Secondclass postage paid at Seguin,Texas. POSTMASTER: Send form3579 to advise change of addressto The MUFON UFO JOURNAL,103 Oldtowne Rd., Seguin, Texas78155.FROM THE EDITORThe CUFOS Conference September 25-27 provided the seasonsfinale, so to speak, of UFO symposia in the U.S. It was a fitting conclu-sion to an extraordinary year of UFO conferences. We are indebted toTom Deuley for the information provided to the Journal.In the interest of continuing to upgrade the quality of the Journal,we invite members or subscribers to do two things: (l) If you attendUFO meetings or conferences (or have other information, includingsightings), please submit your impressions or a descriptive article(typed and double-spaced) along with any photographs; (2) Pleasesend a postal card to MUFON evaluating the contents of this yearsJournals in terms of types of information or articles that you wouldlike to see more of or less of. Your critical comments will be helpful.In this issueKAL KORFF AND THE "MEIER HOAX":A RESPONSE - Ft. 1 3By Wendelle C. StevensCAR PACING, PILOT SIGHTING,BUZZING UFO 6By Richard HallCENTER FOR UFO STUDIES CONFERENCE 8By Richard HallPENTAGONAL UFOs 10By John F. SchuesslerCALIFORNIA REPORT 12By Ann DruffelRELIGION AND M.I.T. 81 14By Barry H. DowningUFO SECRECY UPDATE("Of Hoaxes and Chutzpah") 16By Larry W. BryantLETTERS 17IN OTHERS WORDS 19By Lucius ParishDIRECTORS MESSAGE 20By Walt AndrusThe contents of The MUFONUFO JOURNAL are determined by the editor, anddo not necessarily represent the official position of MUFON. Opinions ofcontributors are their own, and do not necessarily reflect those ofthe editor, thestaff, or MUFON. Articles may be forwarded directly to MUFON. Responses topublished articles may be in a Letter to the Editor (up to about 400words) or inashort article (up to about 2,000 words). Thereafter, the "50% rule" isapplied: thearticle author may reply but will be allowed half the wordage used in theresponse; the responder may answer the author but will be allowed half thewordage used in the authors reply; etc. Allsubmissions are subjectto editing forstyle, clarity, and conciseness.Permission is hereby granted to quote from this issue provided not more than200words are quoted from any one article,the author of the article is given credit, andthe statement"Copyright 1981 by the MUFON UFO JOURNAL, 103Oldtowne Rd.,Seguin, Texas" is included.
  • KAL KORFF AND THE "MEIER HOAX":A RESPONSE — Pt.1By Wendelle C. StevensThe following comments are in-tended as rebuttal to accusationsmade in Kal K. Korffs article, "TheMeier Incident: The Most InfamousHoax in Ufology," published in theDecember 1980 issue of MUFONUFO Journal.Critics such as Korff have the ad-vantage, in that it takes much morespace to adequately respond to one-line unsupported accusations than ittakes to make them. One thing whichpuzzles me is the fact that exper-ienced researchers have allowed arelatively immature newcomer to be-come their collective spokesman inthis case. Kal Korff raises so manymisquotes and obviously unsoundconclusions that I will have to takethem in the order in which they ap-pear in his article.Korffs first mistake, or deliberatedistortion, appears in the first fivelines of his article, "recording over3,000 pages of quotes from them" (Pleia-dians). The book he refers to clearlysays, on page 35 of the First Edition,"over 3,000 pages of notes on Mr.Meiers phenomenal encounters."In the same paragraph, he suggeststhat we have said the rock and metalspecimens "defy conventional ex-planation." The correct phrasing inour book is, "that, in reference to ourpresent technology, was not immediatelyexplainable." Nor do we declare,anywhere in the book, that all, oreven any, of Meiers claims are gen-uine. The closest we came to that wason page 43 of the First Edition (page45, Second Edition), where we said,This could very well be the firstauthentic evidence-supported case ofongoing extraterrestrial contact withEarth humanity ..."In the third paragraph, we are alsomisquoted about Meiers "first ex-periences with extraterrestrials."Again, the quote actually reads, "firstevidence of a mans ongoing encounters ..."We chose to start this book about theencounters with the Pleiadian contactteam at the point where those contactsbegan. Space was our limitation.There were nopress releases of anykind ever indicating that Jim Lorenzen,or APRO, "endorsed the book as be-ing a genuine representation of thefacts." The statement, furnished inJimLorenzens own handwriting, still onfile at Genesis IE Productions, reads,"At least the preponderance ofmaterial is too much for an objectivemind to ignore in good conscience"(signed, Jim Lorenzen).This was usedon our own pre-publicarion flyer forthe book. After the flyer was printedand in mailing envelopes, Jim (be-cause of flak at home) wanted to addanother line to say that at this time, heconsidered the photographs in thecategory of excellent art, not science.We agreed to make the change if hewanted to bear the cost of reprintingthe flyers; he declined, so we retainedthe original statement.I am not a one-fourth partner inGenesis III Productions, as Korffalleges, but I do insist that Meier-sought no publicity from anyone con-cerning his experiences. He hadalready survived four assassination at-tempts by gunfire and certainly didntseek any more attention. He refusedto accept any money for the materialhe gave me and signed a rights agree-ment without accepting any money,believing that whatever we did in theUnited States would be a long time incoming back to him. When I askedhim about the statement Korff at-tributes to Wilfried Falk ("that heplanned to write a book about his ex-periences as early as 1977"), Meiersaid that Falk asked him if he plannedto write this up as a book and that hisreply to Falk was, "Perhaps .. . someday."In that same paragraph, Korffquotes Lorenzen as saying that Idescribed Meier as "a sort of personwho gets great satisfactionout of fool-ing authorities." That isalso complete-ly untrue. The correct statement,which Jim Lorenzen never published,is this: "I had mentioned that Meierwas from a very poor family, and hispoor clothes and lack of ability to par-ticipate in events at school, for lack ofmoney, set him apart from the otherboys, and that he was often made thebutt of pranks, and was frequentlypunished for things he did not do.The statement was, "Meier learned tosmile inwardly when he had to sufferfor things he had not done." He con-sidered the inabilityof the teachers tosee through the set-up as a deficiencyon their parts. How Lorenzen, or any-one else, got the other completely dif-ferent inference from that,accidental-ly, is difficult for me to see.The book does not say, anywhere,that any of the photographs of theUFOs areauthentic. It says, "Nothing wasfound" to indicate trick photography,models, or other suspicious tech-niques. Nothing was found to indicatea hoax. Distance and size measure-ments are proper in relation to loca-tion measurements taken by the in-vestigators and the reported size ofthe craft is appropriate to the calcula-tions done with computers. Work onthe photographs is continuing and westill have not found any way tosuccessfully duplicate them withsmall models.We did not say, nor does the bookimply, that De Anza Systems "didsome of the analysis." They arenteven mentioned anywhere in thebook. We have stated ekewhere,however, that we used De AnzaComputer Graphics equipmentbecause it was the best we had found(continued on next page)
  • Meier Photos, Continuedfor this-kind of work. They also hadthe best "edge identification man inthe business" working there at the fac-tory and we consulted him. We didthe testing. We were looking for thebest equipment available for a modellaboratory for this particularwork, tobe financed by a production companywho was then interested in making adocumentary film on this case. Weturned in our report, but the projectwas later superceded by somethingelse and the lab didnt get funded.We have never demonstrated thephotographs to be authentic. Scien-tifically, that cannot be done to anyUFO photograph, short of having theship at hand, with proof of its origin(which would also be unprovable,without going to its supposed point oforigin for verification). We said onlythat we have eliminated the possibil-ity of all known methods of trickphotography and lab techniquesknown to modern photographicscience.I have no unpublished paper men-tioning thorough analysis of "several"of the Meier photos by Dr. Neil Davisof Design Technology in Poway,California. I have Neil Davis writtenreport of the analysis of one photo-graph, which I furnished. The analysiswas thorough and well done, but itdidnt prove the photograph authentic.It did eliminate many lab tricks andhoax techniques. It concluded with astatement that, "Nothing was foundin the examination of the print whichcould cause me to believe that the ob-ject in the photo is anything otherthan a large object photographed adistance from the camera."There are actually ten photographsof the Swiss Army Mirage jet fightermaking passes at the UFO, with theship high and low, nearer and farther.They are all in a correct sequentialorder. We have only released one.There is a total of 23 witnesses tothe various events described byMeier, each participating in someway at different times. We havetaken statements and depositions,both written and oral (and on videotape), and have especially inter-viewed six of the main ones on audiotape for Psychological Stress Evalua-tion testing. They were analyzed bytwo different PSE agencies using dif-ferent equipment and all were foundto believe the answers they gave tothe prepared list of questions. Lack ofspace prevented inclusion of thesedata in Volume 1.The Pleiadians did not say "thatthey originated from the star systemof the Pleiades." They told Meierthey came here from the direction ofthe constellation we call the Pleiades.They have an entirely different namefor it. The Pleiades are not "onlysome tens of millions of years old."Mr. O. Richard Norton, formerlydirector of the Flandreau Planetariumat the University of Arizona in Tuc-son, says that the latest calculationsshow the basic Pleiads are consideredto be between 500 million and onebillion years old, still relatively youngstars, and not old enough to have pro-duced mature life-bearing planets bythe same evolution as ours. However,if they were helped from outside,there are other possibilities. The ques-tion is still open. The gaseous neb-ulosity seen around the Pleiades, asshown in the book, has been especial-ly revealed by filters and special ex-posures. That effect is not clearly visi-ble to the naked eye.As for the quotes from the aliencosmonauts, we selected them, notMeier, and we selected the ones thatseemed short enough and appropriateto most of the questions being asked,the most popular of which is, "Dothey believe inJesus Christ?" They donot advocate any particular belief.They were simply comparing theirbeliefs to ours.The quotes attributed to JamesHurtak have either been copiedwrong by Korff or Hurtak doesntread German as well as he claims, asthe aliens contacting Meier said, firstof all, that they do not count time theway we do, and secondly, that if wecould compare evolutions, it might besaid that theirs is about 3000 yearsahead of ours, according to the waywe count time. The aliens also sug-gested in another contact that,because of the curve of the growth ofknowledge, we might be able toachieve many of their capabilitieswithin 300 years of our time, if wewould sufficiently concentrate theenergies of our planet. They didntsee any possibility of us doing that atthis time. They observed that wecant even get along with each other,or nation with nation, very long, andthat must be overcome before we canmarshall the resources of the world.Korffs next statement is alsowrong. The book does not claim thatMeiers camera was jammed for sev-eral years. This isan assumptionmadeby Korff from my own statementsthat Meiers camera was jammed justshort of the infinity setting, maybel/32nd of an inch on the rotating in-dex, for most of the photos whichwere taken. What he also failed toconsider is the fact that all of thosephotos were made over the first fif-teen months of contacts with thealiens. For the first eight months, theydid not let the secret out of a verysmall group who had only the brokencamera that could be held and operated byMeier with his onehand. He had becomefamiliar with it. Also, he never ex-pected to get a second or third set ofpictures. He thought each opportuni-ty would probably be his last one. Itwould have taken weeks to have hiscamera repaired and he had nomoney for such expenses. The re-mainder of Korffs statement oncamera optics fails to conform to thefacts, as anyone with a basic know-ledge of photography will know.The metal samples were actuallyanalyzed at three different labora-tories by three different methods, oneof which was the analysis done byMarcel Vogel. What Korff failed tonote, or deliberately omitted, is thatVogel only analyzed onesingle specimenof metal. My very brief summary inthe book on Vogels work with themetal specimen was abstracted fromtwo hours of videotaped analysis andthree hours of recorded discussionsinvolving dozens of photographs. Allof this is in Mr. Vogels own wordsand the tapes are in my possession.We did not release anything other(continued on next page)
  • Meier Photos, Continuedthan the preliminary steps, becausewe agreed that Vogel should be theone to release any particulardetails athis own pleasure in his own choice offorum. He evidently did not considerKorff an appropriate spokesman.We should not overlook the factthat Marcel Vogel is one of our mostbrilliant scientists who, as a chemist,has no peers. He is a senior researchchemist at IBMs main research labo-ratory. He pioneered luminescencetechnology, including the develop-ment of fluorescent and phosphores-cent products, did major research onliquid crystals, optical microscopy,magnetic films, etc., and invented the"floppy disc" so essential to modernelectronic technology. He has pio-neered new experiments inman-plantcommunication and also in energytransference using prepared crystals.He chose not to share his researchfindings with Kal Korff.OMNI magazine arranged for afourth analysis of a specimen ofmetal, to be conducted at MIT. Theletter carrying the piece of metal foranalysis took 29 days (First ClassMail) to get from Tucson to OMNlsoffices in New York City. HarryLebelson, an assistant editor of themagazine, advised me that he person-ally delivered it to MIT. Thescientistswho received the metal from Lebel-son later told him that they lost itbefore (ratting a good look at it! Weshould not forget that MIT is a con-tract university used by many agen-cies of the government, includingvarious intelligence agencies. Frankly,I felt from the beginning that if theydid find anything interesting, wewould be the last to know about it.We did not connect the great struc-tures of history to the Pleiades. Weonly reported a few of the connec-tions which had already been madeby others. There are, in fact, scores ofsuch connections in our files. The ref-erences were identified with quotesfrom these other sources. Korff seemsto take special issue with thereference to the Devils Tower inWyoming. Perhaps he is unaware of.the extensive relationship of UFOsightings with this landmark. There iseven an old report of a UFO landingon topof the Tower. It is reported thatSteven Spielbergs movie companyhad an actual UFO experience therewhile filming scenes for "Close En-counters of the Third Kind," but thathe played this down to avoid beingaccused of staging it.Korffs facetious references toMeier having met Jesus Christ stemfrom a misstatement by Colman vonKeviczky, whose distorted viewswere acquired during his very limited(one day) "investigation" of the Meiercase. He did not go to the Meier prop-erty, did not interview any of the cur-rent witnesses or civil and militaryauthorities. He did not check or viewany of the evidence available at theMeier property, only visited one ofthe "contact sites," and did not visitany of the photo processing agenciesthat developed Meiers film.We have heard and are. more in-clined to accept for study, some of theclaims to having flown in the space-craft and to have traveled in time, butthese are still only stories unfoundedin demonstrable fact and we are un-able to test their validity. We havereached no conclusions on suchstories at this time.Korff gives me far too much creditwhen he alleges that I have master-minded this development for somepersonal reason.To summarize our feelings on theKorff article, it is our opinion that theanalysis released by GSW is no morethan subjective interpretation ofPolaroid photos of non-specific tests,made by Spatial Data Systems from astandard catch-all program on file atSDS for the testing of all UFO photossent to them by GSW. The resultsofsuch tests are neither scientific norsubstantive and it seems obvious thatKorff does not know the difference.(A discussion of the GSW analysiswill be in Part II, next issue.)There is one puzzling thing aboutthis article. I have called a number ofthe individuals listed in the acknow-ledgements and they tell me that theydid not give Korff the information heattributes to them in this article.Some, in fact, were quite angry toUtterOMNI VerltasMUFON readers of the November1981 OMNI magazine will conclude Ihave lost my marbles. A "UFO Up-date" I wrote on the Betty Hill starmap has been editorially rewrittenand now contains inaccurate and un-warranted statements that I neitherauthored nor approved. I did notwriteanything about the Hill case being"reveal(ed)" as the "most elaborateUFO hoax ever perpetrated." Thiseditorial insertion grossly misrepre-sents my outlook on the matter. Thebreakdown of the Fish interpretationof Mrs. Hills alien star map returnsthe abduction claim to unsupportedanecdotal testimony . . . but not adeliberate hoax.Other inaccuracies were intro-duced into my original text. I did notdescribe the Hills UFO as "starlike";they claim they saw it with largeangular size. Also, Mrs. Hill never ex-pressed a "belief" in which stars werethe aliens home. Finally, the sen-timents of Terry Dickinson, preciselystated to me for OMNI, were notpresented here. I regret that theseproblems seem attributed to me as theauthor.Allan HendryStone Mountain, Ga.STAMP CONTRIBUTIONSWe acknowledge receipt of can-celled foreign stamps from the follow-ing:Bill Banks, Oakland, Calif.; LarryW. Bryant, Arlington, Va.; DonBerliner, Alexandria, Va.; JeromeClark, Lake Bluff, 111.; Dr. Robert C.Davis, Dallas, Tex.; R. BruceJordan,Palo Alto, Calif.; and Mr. & Mrs. RexStanford, Jamaica, N.Y.A collector compensates MUFONfor the stamps, and proceeds are ap-plied to international exchange ofUFO information.Send contributionsin any number to Richard Hall, 441839th St., Brentwood, MD 20722.find that their names had been used.Is Kal name-dropping again? Or dosome of these people really believeKal is correct in his statements?D
  • CAR PACING, PILOT SIGHTING, BUZZING UFOBy Richard HallSeveral 1981 sightings of unusualinterest were received recently byMUFON. A car pacing case in NewZealand during July was investigatedby Fred and Phyllis Dickeson,Timaru, New Zealand. (An accountof the sighting also appeared in theTimaru Herald, July 31.) During April,a pilot in Nevada saw a small disc (arelatively rare but not unknown typeof report), and another small disc wasseen by an engineer in Minnesota thatmonth. And during March, in SouthAfrica, a businessman was attracted toa cigar-shaped UFO by a buzzingsound from overhead. Details of hissighting contain possible clues toUFO propulsion.Mr. & Mrs. Ken Thew, with theirthree young daughters, were return-ing home to Temuka, N.Z., fromPleasant Point at 12:50a.m., Sunday,July 12,1981 along a back road. Theysuddenly became aware of a brilliant-ly lit green-gold-red object ap-proaching them from the oppositedirection (east). The object stoppedabruptly, about 200-300 yards away,then changed direction and beganpacing the car. As they approached anintersection, they noticed that theUFO was descending even lower, andMrs. Thew, driving, became fright-ened and sped up from 45 m.p.h. to65 m.p.h. in an effort to reach the il-luminated area of Temuka townshipaway from the open country. TheUFO accelerated to keep pace withthecar.Mrs. Thew said the extreme bril-liance of the light emanating from theUFO made the car headlights appearvery dim. After a while the UFOcame nearer and the family was ableto see considerable detail (see sketch).Ken Thew, a mechanic, said the ob-ject was completely silent and "... itwas quite apparent that it was a con-trollable flying object." The top partchanged from a dark green to a light-New Zealand UFOer shade as the UFO approached; thebottom was red, with a gold tinge inbetween. On the upper surface werewhat appeared to be slots or box-likepartitions, and square apertures likewindows became visible beneath.Mrs. Thew said, "One could lookthrough them, across a white areawithin." Near one end, on the outsideof the object, they saw a sort offigure-eight shaped thing which theydescribed as a "fat person" in con-figuration.Further along the road the UFOsuddenly shot away to the east. "Onemoment it was at point A," Ken said,"the next, at point B. You didnt see itmove between the two points, it wasjust there." Reaching the outskirts ofTemuka, the Thews elected not to gohome right away but instead to try toobserve the UFO further. However, itremained off in the distance to theeast, so they continued home, arriv-ing at 1:20a.m. There they were sur-prised to see the UFO hovering about1,000 feet overhead, but it soonheaded away to the east and re-mained visible in the distance, finallydisappearing at 2:00 a.m. When theUFO moved, it displayed a fan-liketail of yellow red, as if exhaust; thetail was not visible while the UFOhovered.PilotOn April 20, 1981, a pilot ap-proaching Cannon International Air-port, Reno, Nevada, about 10:15a.m.sighted a small UFO,estimated to be3-5 feet in diameter. Interviewed byBob Neville, MUFON State Director,Walter Austin, 42, said he and hiswife, Judy, were on a landing ap-proach at about 6,000 feet in theirCessna 210 when they saw an appar-ently stationary shiny object at their 2oclock position and about 100 feetbelow them. The object then flut-tered or tilted, accelerated rapidly,and disappeared on a heading ofabout 190 degrees. -"When first sighted," Austin said,"we were above the object and saw itbelow the horizon. As we descended,we viewed it from the same altitude,and then from below it, giving a com-prehensive view of an unmistakablesolid object which appeared to beshiny metal." His sketch shows theUFO edge-on, flat on the bottom andslightly rounded on top, in thegeneral proportions of a frisbee.Austin broke off the landing andcircled back to try to see the UFOagain, but without success. It haddisappeared toward cloud-shroudedmountains to the south-southwest.Visibility was excellent during thesighting. Upon landing, Austin checkedwith the ATC approach controllerand was told that nothing had ap-peared on radar. The temperaturewas about 50 degrees F. with little orno wind. Austin has been a licensedpilot for 5 years, with about 300 fly-ing hours per year. He is an electricalcontractor and real estate salesman.Buzzing UFOIn Uitenhage, South Africa, March11, 1981, at 7:40 p.m.,businessmanH. E. Thatcher observed a dark, cigar-(continued on next page)
  • BOOK REVIEWMemory, by ElizabethLoftus (Read-ing, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1980)207 pp., $5.95 paper, $10.95 hard-cover.This book is a thorough summa-tion of research on how memoryoperates, compiled by a professor ofpsychology at the University ofWashington. Whileitdoes not speci-fically mention UFOs, it providesuseful insights for weighing the testi-mony of witnesses who describeUFO encounters, and particularlywhere information is sought frommany years back,or where hypnosisis used.Many people believe that mem-ories last forever; although somedetails might not come to mind im-mediately, many think thatwith hyp-nosis or some other technique wecan recover that material from a"permanent storehouse" in the deep-est part of the brain.Not so, the author says: "Newstudies suggest that our memoriesare continuallybeing altered, trans-formed, and distorted." In recallingan experience, we remember someaspects of it, and "using these factswe construct other facts that prob-ably happened." These fragmentsare then integrated into a logicalsequence and a new "memory" iscreated. "Our biases, expectations,and past knowledge are all used inthe filling-in process, leading to dis-tortions in what we remember."She states flatly that hypnosis"doesnt work." Inone study agroupof people were shown avideotapeofan accident, then some ofthem werehypnotized and others were not,and all were asked to describe theaccident. The study showed that". . . hypnosis does not reduce re-trieval difficulties. Quite the con-trary, people appear to be moresuggestible and more easily influ-enced."Another study relates to situa-tions where the hypnosis seeks torecall material from many years be-fore. College students were regress-ed under hypnosis back to theirsixth birthday, and to relive theevents of that day. "The studentsgave lengthy descriptions, pepper-ed with numerous tiny details. Un-beknownst to these students, thepsychologist had gotten descriptionsfrom the students parents and othersources to compare with the studentsmemories. The result: Although thememories were rich in detail, theywere hopelessly inaccurate."Her conclusion on hypnosis andmemory:"No solid studies existthat showrecall during a state of hypnosis isany more accurate or complete thanrecall under ordinarywaking condi-tions. What is worse, people underhypnosis have been known to recallevents from their past confidentlyand to fabricate future scenarios withthe same confidence."She specificallyrejects hypnosisas a means of recovering memory of"lost time" in a blackout. Althoughshe was referring to alcoholic black-outs ,the findings presumably wouldalso apply to time-lapse blackoutsfrom the shock of a close UFO en-counter. —Robert WandererSightings, Continuedshaped UFO after hearing a soundlike the humming of bees. He was in-terviewed on behalf of MUFON bySgt. Christopher M. Powell of theUitenhage police. Thatcher had justfinished pumping water from anunderground tank into his watertower and had switched off the elec-tric pump when he became awareofthe odd noise emanating from above.Looking up, he saw the dark UFOagainst the background of light cloud,moving slowly toward the southwestat an altitude of about 600 meters. Itappeared to be about 120 m by 30 mwide."While I stood looking at the ob-ject," Thatcher said, "I noticed a veryintense white light at the extremefront end of the object (in the direc-tion it was moving) flash on and thenoff. Only once. It appeared to in-crease speed at a phenomenal rate andit disappeared in the southwest in amatter of 5 seconds." When the lightflashed on, the sound stopped abrupt-ly. When it flashed off, the soundresumed."I have a number of geese on thefarm," Thatcher noted, "and through-out the duration of the sighting theywere silent. Before and after thesighting the geese were making theirusual noise."Sgt. Powell checked with author-ities and determined that no aircraftor helicopters were in the area. Healso checked on Mr. Thatchers repu-tation, determining that he was con-sidered to be of "outstanding char-•acter." The sighting lasted 10-15 sec-onds. No other witnesses could belocated.Small DiscAnother small disc, estimated to be2 feet in diameter and 6 inches thick,was observed on April 12, 1981, inGoodhue, Minnesota, about 1:30p.m. on a bright, sunny day. R. E.Schenk, 56, a civil engineer fromWaterloo, Iowa, was driving southonHighway 58 with his wife, whentheysaw the object hovering a few feet offthe ground about 40 feet away.Schenk stopped to investigate but hadno place to park safely, so he droveSmall disc: Minnesotaon to a place where he could turnaround and headed back north. Mrs.Schenk continued to keep the UFO insight. .They stopped the car and Schenkgot out for a better view.At this timethe UFO was at an estimated 2,000 to4,000 feet and climbing rapidly, head-ing northwest toward Minneapolis. Itwas finally lost to sight in the dis-tance.The UFO appeared to be likealu-minum, slightly wrinkled at therounded surfaces at each end, with aseam at the equator. (See sketch.) Mr.Schenk was a Navy pilot for 5 yearsand now operates his own companyin Iowa. The case was investigated forMUFON by Forrest R. Lundberg,State Director for Iowa.
  • CENTER FOR UFO STUDIES CONFERENCEBy Richard Hall(Information and photographs supplied by Thomas P. Deuley.)The Center for UFO Studies(CUFOS) convened a wide-rangingconference September 25-27,1981, ata downtown Chicago hotel. Althoughnot large in numbers of attendees, theconference was widely praised for theserious level of discussion and thehigh quality of papers presented, in-cluding a number of technical anal-yses. Among the speakers were BertilKuhlemann of Sweden, and RobertoPinotti of Italy, with other countriesalso represented in the submittedpapers. The proceedings will be pub-lished. (For information, write toCUFOS, P.O. Box 1402, Evanston, IL60204).In a continued spirit of cooperation,MUFON officers — including Inter-national Director Walt Andrus, Re-search Director James McCampbell,Associate Director John Schuessler,and Western Regional Director PaulCemy — attended and participated inthe discussions. Schuessler presentedan update report on the December29, 1980, Betty Cash radiation injurycase near Huffman, Texas, in whichmore than 20 "mystery helicopters"were involved. One helicopter pilotwas located who acknowledged par-ticipating in an operation fitting thegeneral time and location, but hesubsequently refused to talk about it.Betty Cash continues to have medicalproblems as a result of the incident, .and the effects will be monitored bythe investigators, including radiologistPeter Rank. Mrs. Cash, her friendVicky Landrum, and Vickys grand-son Colby all suffered apparent radia-tion sickness after being confrontedby a brilliantly glowing UFO thathovered above the road in front oftheir car.The technical papers included:. • Analysis of a recorded UFOsound by acousticalexpert Howard R.Schechter and J. Allen Hynek;. thesound was established to be unlikeany known aircraft or vehicle and ap-parently artificial in nature.• Review of the 1950 McMinnvillephotographs by optical physicistBruce S. Maccabee.• Re-examination of the November1966 Oregon UFO photograph takenby a PhD biochemist, previouslydismissed as a hoax for the less-than-scientific reason that it didnt "fit" ourknowledge. An explanation of thephotographic effects was presented interms of current physicalprinciples.• "Size, Distance, and DurationParameters of the Ignition Inter-ference Effect," a statistical studybased on UFOCAT computer cata-logue data by Donald A. Johnson.• Another statistical analysis ofvehicle interference reports by MarkRodeghier.Donald JohnsonThe most controversial paper,presented by English professor AlvinH. Lawson, argued that some abduc-tion reports might be a psychologicalphenomenon based on revivificationof birth trauma (BT). Lawson assertedthat abduction narratives include im-ages and events from several recog-nized psychological processes, in-cluding BT, hallucinations, and near-death experiences. He cited extensiveabduction/BT parallels from the liter-ature. His view was later disputed byBudd Hopkins, author of MissingBudd HopkinsTime, who presented a paper on "Theinvestigation of Abduction Reports."Bertil Kuhlemann described ProjectURD (Box 454, S-101 26, Stockholm,Sweden), a UFO reporting and datasystem utilizing formatted reportforms and computer analysis to helpestablish UFOs as a serious scientificproblem. Kuhlemann also made a pre-sentation on behalf of the ProvisionalInternational Committee on UFO Re-search (PICUR), a newly formed inter-national group in which MUFON par-ticipates, which hopes to establish in-ternational standards of investigationand reporting. At the conference, Dr.J. Allen Hynek was appointed Presi-dent Emeritus of PICUR in recogni-tion of his leadership in the UFOresearch field. The concept of a"United Nations" of Ufology hasgreat appeal to serious UFO research-ers, but many practical problems re-main (including finances). However,PICUR and Project URD have cap-tured the imagination of U.S. re-searchers and could provide a vehiclefor improved international coopera-tion.In the sphere of sociologicalstudies, J. Gordon Melton presentedan analysis of contactee claims fromthe 1950s through the somewhat dif-(continued on next page)
  • CUFOS, Continuedferent 1970s abduction reports, andDr. Ron Westrum presented "A Soci-ology Workshop on UFOs," includ-ing analysis of opinion polls, presscoverage of UFOs, and the sociologyof reporting. Roberto Pinotti pre-sented a survey of UFO sightings andrelated events in Italy.The conference illustrated an im-portant point counter to the skepticalscientific view that There is nothingin UFO reports to investigate." To thecontrary, well-qualified analystsdemonstrated the existence of taperecorded UFO sounds, photographs,physical effects data, and sociologicalphenomena, all of which lend them-selves to systematic study by recog-nized scientific methods. The fields ofacoustics, optics, radiology, sociol-ogy, statisticalanalysis, and computerprocessing all have been brought tobear on aspects of the UFO phenom-enon and have yielded significant in-formation. It only remains for morescientists with appropriate qualifica-tions to become aware of the "embar-rassment of riches" of UFO data, andto lend their skills in a concerted ef-fort to study the problem. TheCUFOS conference was a positivestep in this direction.Among the submitted papers notpresented in person, but to be in-cluded in the Proceedings, was oneby NASA scientist Richard F. Hainestitled "Results of Sound SpectrumAnalysis of a Tape Recorded RadioTransmission Between CessnaVH:DSJ and Melbourne Flight Ser-vice." (The paper is scheduled forpublication in Vol. ID of the journal ofUFO Studies.) It promises to be of ex-traordinary interest, since it refers tothe October 21, 1978, disappearanceof pilot Frederick Valentich over theBass Strait of Australia after beingconfronted by a- UFO. The finalsound on the tape of Valentichs com-munications with air traffic con-trollers was 17 seconds of "...anunusual reverberating metallic typeof sound." Dr. Haines somehow hasobtained a copy of the tape and sum-marizes the results of a spectralanalysis of this final period on thetape in comparison to "control"sounds recorded in a similar aircraftDr. J. Allen Hynek observes proceedingsJohn Schuessler, Walt Andrus, left, confer with other attendees oninternational cooperationunder comparable flight conditions.Other submitted papers to be pub-lished in the Proceedings include"The UFO Phenomenon in Argen-tina," a survey by GuillermoAldunati; Keith Basterfields hypoth-esis on UFO imagery (reported else-where in MUFON UFO Journal);"UFO Maneuvers and Radiation : ATheoretical Perspective," by AlanHolt; paranormal aspects of UFOreports, by Joan Jeffers; a method ofmathematical analysis of* UFO re-ports, by Vicente-Juan BallesterOlmos and Miguel Guasp of Spain;and a paper on investigation method-ology, by Barbara Schutte.Altogether, the conference dealtwith almost every aspect of the UFOproblem except the controversialclaims that the U.S. government hasin its possession the bodies of deadaliens retrieved from UFO crashes.Privately, it also dealt with this ques-tion since Leonard Stringfieldwas oneof the attendees, and he held privateconferences with others to discussways of obtaining proof or disproof.We commend CUFOS for the highquality and comprehensiveness of thisextraordinary conference.
  • PENTAGONAL UFOsBy John F. SchuesslerDARK SURFACEOne of the more puzzling aspectsof the UFO problem is the variety ofshapes reported by the witnesses.Predominant are the saucer, cigar, andball. However, since 1973, there havebeen an ever increasing number oftriangular and diamond shaped ob-jects and a few witnesses havereported objects with five or moresides.Statistically, the number ofreported UFOs having five sides is in-significant; but that fact has noteliminated such sightings. The offset-ting factors are the high strangenessof the incident and the high reliabilityof the witness.Two separate reports from near thecity of Houston, Texas, bring the pen-tagonal UFO problem into focus. In-terestingly, both of the incidents tookplace to the southwest of Houston,and were separated in time by only 9months.The first incident was reported toMUFON State Section Director DaveKissinger by an Alief, Texas, highschool senior. It was December 1975and the time was 10:30 ,p.m. whenthe young woman observed a brightflashing light approaching her home.Immediately, she ran to the windowto get a better view and then wentoutside. The UFO was moving in anortherly direction at an estimatedspeed of 100-150 mph. It passeddirectly overhead at no more than1,000 feet altitude. The view wasspectacular as the witness watchedthe unusual pentagon-shaped objectmove along flying point forward. Inher words, "... it appeared solidwith a sharp outline." She describedlights on the points and a flashinglight in the middle of the bottom sur-face. As the UFO flew away shecould see it was not just a flat plate,but had a definite thickness. The onlysound detected was a steady hum.Investigation of the Alief case in-cluded visits to the local airports, theGoodyear Blimp operations, andLIGHTSLASHING LIGHTOLD YELLOWBOTTOM VIEWREAR VIEWPentagonal UFO, Alief, Texas, December 1975advertising airplane businesses. Noexplanation for the sighting wasfound.A similar incident occurred duringSeptember 1976 when a MissouriCity, Texas, oil company executiveand his son saw a pentagon-shapedUFO. It was first observed as a steadybright light hovering about one mileto the southwest of the observershome. After a couple of minutes theobject seemed to rise upward andcome toward them, flying directlyover their heads. Because their homeis located on a golf course, they had awide open area for viewing thestrange sight. Their initial reactionwas to accept the possibility the ob-ject was a star. Once it started tomove they revised the identificationto helicopter, and finally to aircraft.However, as the UFO went overheadthey could see only a crisplyoutlinedpentagon shape — no wings, tail, orengines.Each point of the pentagon con-tained a steady white light. A blink-ing light marked the center of the bot-tom and 30 to 50 red lights ringed theedge and bottom of the vehicle. Oncethe UFO began to move it was over-head and out of sight in about 30seconds. The witnesses estimated thespeed to be 200 mph at an altitudeof1,500 feet. The only sound was a"whoosh" like a jet engine that hadbeen throttled back.At first only the bright light on thepoint could be seen. As the objectap-proached, other lights came into viewand as it went overhead the totallighting pattern was visible.Then as it(continued on next page)10
  • Pentagonal Continuedflew away only the two aft pointlights could be seen. Although thewitnesses were still skeptical, theynotified the Mutual UFO Network.Pentagon-shaped UFOs have beennoted in other parts of the world aswell. On July -il, 1979, one wassighted over Vigo and Puertos deMorrazo, Spain. A greenish-yellowlight emanated from the middleof thebottom surface. Hundreds of peoplein both cities observed the strangesight. In addition, the crew of aDC-10 airplane flying over the areaspotted the same UFO below theiraircraft and about 12 miles away. Theofficial explanation given was theAmerican Skylab satellite.Three pentagonal UFOs were seenover West Germany on September17, 1979. Workers at the Ingolstadt,Bavaria,Audi-NSU car manufacturingplant were the first to report theUFOs. Eyewitnesses said, "... theywere very big and beamed brightly.They flew very fast and withoutengine noise. In doing so, theyflickered yellow and red." Ten off-duty police officers watched the threeobjects as they flew over Ingolstadt ina north-westerly direction towardEichstaett.Several minutes later Eichstaettpolice said two of the UFOs flew onto Weissenburg, where police veri-fied their overflight. One of theUFOs hovered at an altitude of 1,500feet before it flew off at high speed.An Ingolstadt police spokesman said,"... the observations made by ourofficers are beyond any doubt."Although a nearby air base and theMunich air traffic controller werealerted to the incident, they had noexplanation for the phenomenon.A slight departure from the pen-tagonal shape is the octagonal UFO.According to the Watford City,North Dakota, newspaper, localcitizen Barb /ohnsrud and her sonKent saw an eight-sided UFOgo overtheir house on November 2, 1978.Each witness claimed the UFO wasfirst seen asa bright light that quicklycame down from the sky like a badstorm. It passed overhead just 60 feetBLUE LIGHTSRED LIGHTHexagonal UFO, Watford City, N. Dak., November 19781981 SYMPOSIUM PRO-CEEDINGSTheme: UFOs — The HiddenEvidence; Cambridge, Mass."Ufblogy asa Profession," by Dr.}.A. Hynek."What the Government WouldKnow About UFOs If They ReadTheir Own Documents," by Peter A.Gersten."Faith, Theory, and UFOs," by Dr.Barry H. Downing."UFO Abductions — The InvisibleEpidemic," by Budd Hopkins.The Human Factor in UFOSightings," by Dr. Ron Westrum."Missing Time: A Psychologist Ex-amines the UFO Experience," by Dr.Aphrodite Clamar."African Encounters- Case In-vestigations," by Cynthia Hind."Close Encounters of the SecondKind: Physical Traces," by Ted R.Phillips.The Roswell Incident: Beginningof the Cosmic Watergate," by StantonT. Friedman and William L. Moore.$11.50 including postage & handlingfrom MUFON, 103 Oldtowne Rd.,Seguin, TX 78155.W. Sussex, Eng. UFO, Jan. 1981above ground and was moving quiteslowly — only 25 mph. The UFOwas 40 feet across, with a large redlight in the middle of the bottom sur-face. Blue lights ringed the wholevehicle. It had no tail, nose or pro-pellers. After the UFOdisappeared tothe northeast each of the witnessesmade independent sketches.The pentagonal UFOs remain amystery. No satisfactory explanationhas been found. To aid in this in-vestigation, additional reports anddata should be sent to John F.Schuessler, Mutual UFO Network,P.O. Box 58485, Houston, Texas77058.-11
  • By Ann DruffelThe Corner of Barbaras GardenOn June 10, 1981, Barbara Matheydeparted from this earth. She lived inLos Angeles and was friend and cor-respondent to many UFO researchersand investigators throughout theworld. She worked closely with agroup of us in Los Angeles whoregularly exchange UFO news, ideas,and labor together on chosen proj-ects.A veteran in the field, having read,studied, and contributed for over twodecades, she subscribed to almostevery UFO publication and read allthe latest books. She gave generouslyto the Fund for UFO Research andother worthwhile projects. She con-tributed liberally of her time, money,and intellect.For the past year she assumed theduties of International Coordinatorfor Africa in the Mutual UFO Net-work. Her time spent on UFOs hadbeen snatched piecemeal betweenresponsibilities to home and family inearlier years. For the past year,however, she was able to spend a fewuninterrupted hours each day onresearch and correspondence. Shereveled in this freedom —translatingreports from other countries, cor-responding with African UFO re-searchers and others worldwide,writing book reviews, reading thevoluminous literature, and attendingconferences on UFOs and variousmetaphysical branches of study.Her eyes and voice always held asmile. Her personality was a magicblend of formal and friendly. Youwould never hear her speak a harshword about anyone. When contro-versies arose, she always maintained-an objective attitude, helping workout problems with her own quietstyle. Significantly, this objective,quiet attitude was the same which sheBarbara Mathey, on couch, talks with APRO members at Los Angelesresearch group meetingmaintained toward UFOs and otherworld mysteries. Her mind was opento all points of view, and she soughtproven Truth.Although basically a private per-son, she extended herself into pursuitsof knowledge she felt were important— the natureand motives of UFOs inparticular. We in Los Angeles feel herloss deeply. We cannot afford to losepeople like Barbara ^Mathey.We attended her service on Satur-day, June 13th at St. AlbansEpiscopalChurch. It comprised a series ofselected readings from .St. Paul,Exodus, and other portions of theBible, all with the "theme of humanlife beyond death in the care of a lov-ing God. We learned later that shehad chosen the readings herself.Although she died unexpectedlyfrom a brain hemorrhage with noprior illness, she had taken the time,shortly after her mothers death in1975, to anticipate her own passing.Barbara was organization itself, evenwhen it came to that.The members of our UFO grouptried to comfort each other, but couldnot accept the sudden loss. Sheseemed still near and would not ap-prove of senseless grief. Although shedied much too soon — consideringthe contributions she still had to maketo her family and to research — shewas one of those rare people who haddetermined the purpose of humanlife. Her attitude was that life on thismaterial world is merely a prepara-tion for a transformed, immortal lifebeyond Dearths plane.Still I could not accept or under-(continued on next page)12
  • California Report, Continuedstand her loss. I wanted to writeabouther, to share her with others who hadnot had the privilege of knowing herwell, for this would help. But com-mon words seemed insufficient; thethoughts would not flow.On that sorrowful Saturday I wentinto my garden — a quiet woodedspot where the best of natures beautyrambles untamed. Everything iswelcome there but weeds. Tangledwildwood and flowering vines aremixed with transplants of anythingwhich takes my fancy — an infant figtree, a beavertail cactus from Tu-junga, wild carnations.Some of us tend to think in sym-•bols, especially when something im-portant is at stake. When phrases donot flow easily, symbols can relate towhat has happened so that the ex-perience can be adequately ex-pressed. Symbols flow from the sub-conscious when the mind is at rest,and the mind rests well in the midstofbeauty. There inthe garden I found asymbol which helped me understandBarbaras death.It was on a sunny slope, filled withdebris and ancient weeds. This slopeadjoins our garden but is on ourneighbors property. He cannot seethe corner, therefore does not attendto it. Because it needs care, andprevents my own garden from look-ing its best, I have slowly cleared,replanted, and cared for it. That Satur-day, amidst high, dried weeds, aclump of sturdy African daisies werestruggling upward, toward thecleared level ground above. Here,some straggling oleanders and otherAfrican daisies were attempting acomeback, for they once grew pro-fusely there.Barbara, in her generous contribu-tion to all phases of UFO research,had extended herself into a wilder-ness of controversy — weeding outanimosities, planting seeds ofknowledge among her friends, en-couraging new growth among younginvestigators. In a way, she wascultivating a neglected corner of aneighbors garden. And was it merecoincidence, or some thrust of mean-ingful syhchronicity, that Africandaisies were symbolically concerned?Barbara, although she neverdiscussed it openly, believed that thismaterial world did not occur by itselfbut had been created to delight ourfive senses by an organized, lovingGod. In a symbolic sense, our world isa garden. Her deep searches intoUFOs, psychic phenomena, and meta-physical studies gave clues to this, butonly those who had the opportunityto talk at length with her realized thefirmness of her beliefs. She knew thatthe material world — the physicalworld which most scientists insist isthe only knowable reality — wasonly a mere portion of a vast Realitybeyond. Her own life experiences,which were a blend of objective andsubjective truths, had convinced herof this.A few weeks before she died, wemet at a research foundation todiscuss a current project. Afterwardswe talked in the car for a very longtime. The car wasperched high over along slope filled with ancient weeds,slanting down to the busy streetbelow — a scene now strangelyreminiscent of the slope .where thehidden African daisies lay waiting tobe uncovered.We spoke of life and death, of ex-istence beyond the present, of timeand space blending into an infiniteNow. She was happy and healthy andlooked forward eagerly to full par-ticipation in exciting research.We can learn something from Bar-bara Mathey. From her private lifeshe built a bridge, extending herselfthrough laborious study into worldsbeyond this one. She knew some-thing that many scientists seem fear-ful of knowing — that as human in-strumentation and detection devicesevolve, science will discover moreand more of the invisible realms ofbeing beyond our material world,gathering cluesto non-materialrealmsand to their Creator. Though some ofthese realms will then be scientificallyanalyzable, other detection processeswill necessarily come from the subjec-tive recesses of our human minds.With her intelligent, objective ap.-proach, Barbara wondered what^holdsback scientists from admitting-a FinalGEPAN NOTESIn our exchange program with Cen-tre National DEtudes Spatiales orGEPAN (Groupe DEtudes DesPhenomenes Aerospatiaux Non Iden-tifies) that was arranged during a per-sonal meeting in Houston, Tex., withDr. Alain Esterle, MUFON recentlyreceived the following six bookletspublished in French with the titles:Note Dlnformation No. 2 Lesetudes de phenomenes aerospatiauxnon identifies aux Etats-Unis "lerePartie: Lenigme des OVNI." (This isthe Marcia S. Smith bibliographypublished March 9, 1976 for U.S.Congressmen.)Note Technique No. 3 Methodolo-gie Dun Probleme: Principals andApplications. (Methodologie-Isocelie-Information.)Note Technique No. 4 Recherchestatistique dune typologie desdescriptions de phenomenes aero-spatiaux non identifies.Note Technique No. 5 Compterendu de 1enquete GEPAN No.79/03.Note Technique No. 6 EnqueteGEPAN No. 79/07 "A propos dunedisparition."Note Technique No. 7 CompteRendu De LEnquette 79/05 "A pro-pos dune rencontre."MUFON is indebted to DominiqueKeller of GEPAN for mailingus thesecopies. John Timmerman advisedyour Director that CUFOS plans totranslate each of these from French toEnglish. Anyone interested in secur-ing copies should write to: Domi-nique Keller, GEPAN-CNES, 18Avenue Edouard Belin, 31055Toulouse-Cedex, France.Cause, a Creator. They seem to fearrecognizing orderly purpose behindall those things which exist.In that realm of being where Bar-bara now exists, does she reach backto help nurture the "African daisies,"quiet controversy, and spread hergenerosity over all of us? If only one"scientific" researcher would speakforth his conviction concerning invisi-ble Creation and its Creator, thiswould be a fitting memorial to her.13
  • RELIGION AND M.I.T.By Barry H. Downing, PhDTed Phillips and I had alreadygiven our presentations to the 1981MUFON UFO Symposium at M.I.T.,in Cambridge, Mass., as we sat downtogether to hear the next speaker.Ted said to me, "How have thingschanged since you were in Akron in1974?" Ted and Ihad met for the onlyother time at that conference.Teds question has led me to a morespecific question, which I think needsto be answered for all our MUFONmembers: What are the religiousdimensions to our current UFOquest? And how were these dimen-sions exhibited at the M.I.T. con-ference?The Current Scientific StateBefore reflecting on the religiousdimensions of the conference, let memake some observations concerningthe scientific state of our quest for thetruth about UFOs. At a press con-ference, our Director Walt Andrussaid, "I dont believe in UFOs. It is nota question of belief. It is a fact. Wehave the facts and data that UFOs doexist."I think this statement not onlyreflects Walts views, but reflectedthe general scientific consensus of theconference participants.Beyond this,I think it was the consensus that UFOsrepresent some kind of advancedtechnology, not of earthly origin.Beyond that, however, I think theconsensus would begin to breakdown.The basis for this consensus hasmany roots. It comes in part from theaccumulation of hard evidence oflanding traces, as documented by TedPhillips. It comes from the work ofStanton Friedman, who can give agood set of scientific reasons, as op-posed to Dr. Carl Sagan and others, ofwhy you can get here from there,wherever "there" is. It comes fromthe obviously careful style of Dr. J.Allen Hynek, who keeps his profes-sional skepticism right up front.One of the new pieces of evidence,since Akron, comes from the ex-cellent work of Peter Gersten, whothrough his legal work has obtainedaccess to government documentswhich prove, at least in courtroomlanguage, that the United StatesGovernment not only knows aboutUFOs, and has been hiding theevidence, with the "big lie" and theCosmic Watergate as the technique,and that the general view of thegovernment agrees with ourMUFON view — that UFOs repre-sent some kind of advanced other-worldly technology.The result of this consensus is adeveloping "inner confidence" inMUFON members that we have notbeen chasinga "myth," however wideranging the psychological implica-tions of the UFO reality may be.In the past, the scientific consensushas been, "we are not sure whatUFOs are, but we think they may beimportant." Now we do not know ex-actly what they are, but they are verymuch like an advanced technologyfrom another world, and the U.S.government knows this. At this con-ference, as Walt Andrus said, therewas no scientific "apology" for"believing" in UFOs. Now we"know."They Are Real — Real What?In the past our UFO evangelists, likeStan Friedman,have devoted muchoftheir public work trying to convincethe public that UFOs are real, as thetitle of Stans film suggests. But as thepublic has come more and more tobelieve with us that UFOs are real, itis now time to ask the next question,UFOs are Real What?It was in this atmosphere that I at-tended M.I.T. 81, and it was herethat I found a big contrast with Akron74. At Akron, we were still so unsureof our scientific base that the religiousquestions which I asked seemed tocast doubt on the scientificvalidity ofUFOs. There was much fear at Akronthat I might be part of the "cult nutfringe." (I may be, of course.) But atM.I.T. 81,1 found among all the par-ticipants a serious interest in explor-ing the religious dimensions of theUFO issue, and a generalunderstand-ing that good science demands thatwe look at the religious issues,because they are clearly right there,often at the center of our best andmost difficult modem UFO cases, asin Raymond Fowlers work in the Bet-ty Andreasson case.There is as yet no consensus aboutthe abduction cases, and there prob-ably will not be one for some time.But the message of Budd Hopkins inhis excellent talk, "UFO Abductions:The Invisible Epidemic," gave us aclear picture of the size of the"iceberg" we may be dealing with.UFOs appear to have the ability to ab-duct humans, use semi-hypnotic tech-niques to block out memory, and hav-ing "programmed" these humans,then release them back into societywithout conscious memory of the ex-perience. Under hypnosis, we candiscover the evidence — probably.Or maybe. In any case, there may bethousands of Betty Hills and BettyAndreassons all over the world.That leads us quickly to considervery seriously the developing theoryof Jacques Vallee, as in his bookMessengers of Deception, that UFOs are a"control" mechanism. They controland direct the unconscious beliefs ofthe human race. Or as Quazgaa saidto Betty Andreasson, "All things havebeen planned." (Fowler, The An-dreasson Affair, p. 111). Whoever theyare, they think they are in charge.In the past, we have called the onein charge God. Now what do we do?At M.I.T. 81, the new scientific con-sensus has led to an openness to thisquestion, to a realization that we can-not keep "scientific" UFO questions(continued on next page)14
  • Religion, Continuedand "religious" UFO questionsseparate. With a view toward open-ing up more dialogue between thescientific and religious disciplines,especially from my own Christianpoint of view, I gave as my talk,"Faith, Theory and UFOs."The Sectarian ProblemAfter one of our evening meals, Isat down with Dr. Hynek for a fewminutes and asked him, "What hasthe CUFOS group done with the issueof UFOs and religion? And he said,"Not much." He also said, in effect,that he was concerned about the over-all impact of UFOs on all religions,not just the Christian religion.This is a serious concern, and ithides a rather more negative questionwhich might be, "How do we keepUFO groups like MUFON or CUFOSfrom being taken over by Christianevangelists?"I think that Dr. Hynek, and manyother "scientists," are rightly con-cerned that people like myself, with avery specific religious point of view,may turn our UFO groups likeMUFON into sectarian religiousgroups, or maybe even nothing morethan sophisticated scientific cults. Inother words, how can we, from ascientific point of view, ask religiousquestions without "selling out ourscience?"The tension is there, I felt it duringthe conference, and it cuts both ways.I spent quite a bit of time talking withJohn Oswald, who has written a hugemanuscript, which uses a system oflogic to prove that the Christian viewof reality, and our current UFO viewof reality, are logically identical, andMUFON ought to be able to see this,and announce it to the world. While Iagree with John that the Christianreality and the UFO reality arebasically "one," that is my "faith-," atthe same time, I can see many other"options" or "theories" and so I amnot as frustrated as John with the cur-rent state of MUFON "unbelief." ButJohn has expressed his frustrationopenly, and the "scientific" side ofMUFON has to worry about thisevangelical Christian view.The tension was also there duringthe question period following thepresentation by Ray Fowler and BettyAndreasson on Sunday morning. Bet-ty had said that she believed she waschosen by God for her abduction bythe angels of God to help prepare thehuman race for the Second Coming ofChrist. A woman in the audience,who was an obvious child of oursecular age, did not want to hear Bet-ty placing such an obvious Christianmessage right at the center of her ex-perience. And in Ray Fowlers bookon the abduction, he keeps offeringthe option of saying, This is nolonger scientific fact. This is Betty im-posing her Christian beliefs on the ex-perience." When we arrive at Bettyseagle, it seems like a good place todraw the line "scientifically." Yet,there are really no good scientificreasons to draw the line there, onlyreasons imposed by the skepticism ofour secular age.What are we to do about the "sec-tarian" problem? That is, how are weto listen to Betty Andreassonsmessage about the Second Coming ofChrist, and yet remain "objectivelyscientific"? Maybe we cannot.But one thing the MUFON com-munity can do is to learn to "objec-tify" the religious UFO stories, suchas Bettys. Christian scholars do thisall the time. What do I mean? TheChristian doctrine of the SecondComing of Christ is basically a doc-trine of coming Last Judgement.It is adoctrine that says that there will comea time in human history when Christ,acting for God, will judge everyhuman.All the major world religions havea teaching concerning a Day ofJudge-ment. It is central to the Jewishreligion, and to Islam, which is an off-shoot of both Judaism and Christian-ity. Although the Jewishreligion doesnot see Christ as judge, it does believeall humans will be held accountable toGod, and likewise to Islam.In regard to Hinduism, and itschild, Buddhism, the law of Karma issimilar to the biblical religion ofjudgement. In other words, we liveunder spiritual laws, and if we "dowell," we pass on to a higher form oflife, and if we do badly, we are rein-carnated into a "lower" form of life.So far as I know, there is a concept of"judgement" at the center of everymajor world religion, and we mayvery well expect that UFOs, as aworld-wide reality, have left thismark in every religion.Indeed, it is central to my ownview of what life is about." In myM.I.T. talk I spoke of "Gods game"being a faith game, and at the end ofthe game, God adds up our score. Weare now living in Gods laboratory,going through a series of tests, andour future beyond death depends onhow we meet these tests.Can Science and Religion Live inPeace?I believe we in MUFON know thatthe religious questions must be faced.It will not be easy. First of all, theJewish-Christian community, whichrepresents the religious culturalmatrix in which MUFON operates, isnot a unified matrix, and will not pre-sent a unified response as the UFOreligious questions are asked.After Betty Andreassons presenta-tion, a woman in the audience cameup to me — an evangelical Christian— and she was in great fear. She wasliterally shaking as she talked to me,and she had some tears. She had beentold that UFOs were of the devil byher church. If her church was right,Betty Andreasson was an agent of thedevil — a surprise to Betty, whobelieves (as I do) that she is an agentof God.But a very large segment of theProtestant — and perhaps RomanCatholic — community, as CynthiaHind explained of her African En-counters, will see UFOs as of theDevil. And Jacques Vallee seems tomake a good "secular demonic" caseto support this view (see my article,"Demonic Theory of UFOs," in TheEncyclopedia of UFOs). The devil-angeltheory will not have a quick painlesssolution in the years ahead.I can well understand why theMUFON scientific community (likeDr. Hynek) would not want to be-(continued on nexl page)15
  • UFO SECRECY UPDATE H and ChutZpah By Larry W. BryantOnly when the last book-lengthtreatment of the subject of uniden-tified flying objects reaches print willthe world see an end to what isknown as the UFO hoax. Put anotherway: as long as theres a UFO con-troversy, therell always be someoneready, willing, and able to try his/herhand at contriving a tale, or otherwiseputting one over on the not-so-unsuspecting public.Fact is, right now, theres enoughhoax-related substance in UFO lore toproduce an Encyclopedia of UFO Hoaxes.Lavishly illustrated with examples ofhoaxed UFO photography, alphabet-ically keyed to biographical studies ofthe worlds foremost (admitted) UFOhoaxers, and laced with just the rightamount of wit and wisdom from thecompiler, such a reference workwould be warmly received by so-called Ufologists, social scientists,and, yes,those legions of future hoax-ers waiting for inspiration.If its inspiration they need, theyought to find plenty in a recent casestudy that would represent theessence of the encyclopedia. Wecould call it the Alien Intrusion Hoax orthe Ellsworth Humanoids. Whatever wecall it, you can be sure it will serve asa model for hoaxed extraterrestrialismfor many years to come.The Ellsworth Hoax came to lightpresumably as a "leaked" document,directed to the editors of a nationallycirculated tabloid thats known for itssensationalized treatment of UFO en-counters. We can speculate endlesslyabout the motive of the alleged hoax-Religion, Continuedcome any part of this religious(andsectarian) warfare. But in the name ofscientific objectivity, the battle willhave to be fought. The UFO facts, asthey now stand, will not let goodscientists ignore the obvious, thatthere are huge religious dimensions tothe UFO problem. And now that weknow that UFOs are real, we have toface what may turn out to be a muchtougher question: Real What?er: he (andit is a he, Im told) mighthave a grudge against the U.S. AirForce (who employs him at EllsworthAir Force Base, S. Dak.); or he mightbe a megalomaniac seeking a perma-nent place in history; or a self-appointed media-reformer bent onteaching the tabloids a lesson inresponsible journalism;• or any com-bination of the above. Perhaps someday hell tell all,and by so doing jointhe ranks of such legendary hoaxersas Clifford Irving (the pseudo-Howard Hughes biographer) and thatoccasional medical doctor whosecelebrated written findings provebogus upon independent testing.In the meantime, all we can do issavor the meat, juice, and spice of hisgem of a put-on. The three-pagedoc-ument in question — typed single-spaced on a blank form titled In-cident/Complaint Report — is at firstglance a typical account of an atypicalevent. All the names, dates, andplaces are there. All the identity fac-tors of the principals (including socialsecurity numbers) are there; all theparticulars of who-did-what-to-whomare spelled out in the chronologicalnarrative of the "Remarks" section ofthe form. In short, it makes a neatpackage. Too neat. For on the secondglance Id given it upon receipt of mycopy, I couldnt help concluding thatthis cleverly crafted account wasreveling in the chance to insult my in-telligence.In the first place, logic tells us thatno document containing the details ofan official "close encounter of thethird kind" would bear a securityclassification lower than TOPSECRET. As it is, its stamped"FOROFFICIAL USE ONLY," which tech-nically isnt a classification.In the second place, the narrativeitself seems too good to be true: theintruders on that night of November16, 1977, sporting exotic dress andweaponry; the challenging securityguards mounting a feeble attack/-counterattack; the "evidence" of theUFO landing and nuclear-missile tam-pering being turned over to the F.B.I,and the AF Office of Special In-vestigations; and the intimation thatthe incident will undergo follow-upinvestigation and high-level classifica-tion of the results. Finally: to anyonewith a working knowledge of thegarden variety of official UFO docu-mentation thats been made availableto the public, this alleged incidentreport simply fails to fit the mold.Perhaps lacking that degree ofknowledgeability, and at the sametime giving the "leaker" the benefit ofthe doubt, the recipient tabloid choseto launch a thorough check into thedocuments authenticity. Im told by asource close to the investigation thatthe officials at Ellsworth have bentover backwards to assist in the gather-ing of testimony and other data lead-ing to a resolution of the issue.Everything thus far produced — in-cluding voice-stress analysis — pointsto a deliberate, well-engineered hoax,brought off with as much chutzpah asany hoax in history.If the perpetrator in this case be-moans his having been sopremature-ly exposed, he might take some com-fort in knowing that he has indirectlyperformed a public service. Forexam-ple, his feat of foolery puts the UFO-research community on notice thatthey are ever vulnerable to such atrap as this. It also reminds official-dom of the extent to which their in-difference to the perennial "UFOproblem" can backfire at the hands ofresident clowns.But perhaps the ultimate value ofthe Ellsworth Hoax lies in its inadver-tent contribution to the sociol-ogy/psychology of the hoax phenom-enon in general. In this connection itmight be useful for one or two hoax-ologists to acquire (via the U.S.Freedom of Information Act, ofcourse) all government records per-taining to the investigation of thehoax. That material ought to providefascinating insight into the anti-hoaxmentality of the "authorities."!!]16
  • LettersAbduction EffectsEditor,In response to Arkansas StateDirector Bill Leets letter in the May1981 issue (No. 159) pointing out theenlightenment that might be gainedby follow-up investigations into theeffects resulting in the lives of thosereporting abduction by or other con-tact with the alien operators of UFOs,and noting no such reports of suchstudies have come to his attention, Iwould like to call attention to onesuch attempt, of recent publication,namely:Direct Encounters: the personalhistories of UFO abductees byJudith M. and Alan L Gansburg,published by Walker & Co. (720Fifth Avenue, New York City10019) in 1980.This appears to be a first endeavorto determinethe effect on the livesofa number of individuals in well-known cases.of abduction and to becarefully and objectively done.It may very well be that more ofvalue will be learned about the UFOphenomenon and its significance byinvestigating the influence UFO con-tacts have on the individuals involvedthan all the inquiry into behavior,motive power, physicalcharacteristicsand the like of the reported craft. Itwould seem, after over 30 years of in-vestigation, that these visitors are notlikely to give us clues to their superiortechnology, knowing to what aggres-sive use we would surely put it, andinstead are trying to awake us tovalues we must first acquire for thesake of our own evolution. In anyevent, we can get some inkling oftheir intent through follow-up in-vestigations of those most directlyaffected (and perhaps chosen) — theabductees themselves.Robert S. CamburnGlenside, Pa.Had Your Phil?Editor,Three cheers for Quentin Fogarty,our "Down Under" friend involved inthe New Zealand photo case, for hisexcellent and revealing article, "AKlassical Encounter," in the Marchissue (No. 157). His interpretation ofthe resulting heated session is sotypical of the rude, crude, and twisteddistortions routinely belched out byour great hero of the debunkingworld. We should all be remindedthat this mere handful of "Klassics" isonly outnumbered by about 10,000to 1. At least the positive side canboast no government funding. Andwhat a pity; think of all we could dofor scientific UFO research if we hadsome.Mr. Fogartys article in my estima-tion, should have had a subtitle —"Or, How to Insult a Guest in ourCountry." Mr. Fogarty should behighly commended for having thecourage to stand up to the "scorn, in-nuendo, sarcasm, and attempted char-acter assassination" for which Mr.Klass is so famous.Whenever I read anything aboutKlass & Co. ridiculing crediblewitnessess such as Fogarty and LarryCoyne plus many others, it en-courages me to redouble my effortsinto more intensive acceleratedresearch. I would heartily recommendthe reader to do likewise. The onething that bothers these absurd gentrymore than anything is to have theirfanatical efforts and clumsy attemptsat debunking completely ignored,especially by the news media and anyexposure to the general public.Now we have Mr. Fogartys junioragitator, Bobby Schaeffer. He is re-ferred to here in our area as the"Sorcerers Apprentice," a sort of "yesman" for P. K. Mr. Schaeffer hasrecently turned up here in San Jose,California from the Washington, D.C.area and has already begun his seem-ingly obvious plan within this mostactive pro-UFO area group by infil-trating Tom Gates college lecture,visiting MUFONs Research Director,Jim McCampbell, and appearing as aguest on a KGO radio talk show,M.C.d by a complete and admitteddisinterested communicaster.Remember folks, the key word isIGNORE! As Dr. James McDonaldused to say, "Klass dismissed!"Paul CernyWestern States DirectorResponse to GreenwellEditor,This is a response to Greenwellsretrieval rebuttal (No. 161, July1981). Greenwells anecdotal mate-rials fail to provide convincing rejoin-der to the testimony of individualsmost of whom were not acquainted.The crux of this argument lies infailure to admit that the testimony ofso-called "junior specialists" may be assignificant, and at least as ethical, asthe silence of so-called "senior special-ists." Greenwell must know that fail-ure to testify is not recognized asevidence.Greenwell believes that junior spe-cialists may be less likely to maintainthe secrecy of controlled data thanone might expect of those higher onthe totem. Indeed, the list of String-fields witnesses indicates thatGreenwell might be correct. But suchadmission does nothing constructivefor Greenwells thesis. Does Green-well really believe that junior special-ists are more likely to lie than thosewho have ascended higher into theacademic apex? What would be thebasis of such assertion?The extended reference to seniorspecialists as "outside contractors" is asubterfuge since essentially the samecontrols exist for classified materialingovernment as in industry or in uni-versity work. Government fundingofnumerous experimental studies is wellknown. Support of these programsproduces jobs. A senior specialist whois milking the cow, certainly does notwant it to go dry. Neither does the in-stitution being funded. The more de-pendent one becomes on such fund-ing, and subject to departmental andadministrative pressure, the less likelyis one to compromise.Greenwell has indicated that thecontrols sometimes break, and it isthis writers view that Stringfieldswitnesses may be an excellent exam-ple. So, as one might expect, the holein the dike has appeared not amongstthose who have the most to lose butout of the broad circle of those whohave the least.Virgil StaffBerkeley, Calif.17
  • HISTORICAL MT. SHASTA CASEBy Steven AdamsIn an interview on May 27, 1967, PaulCerny, then Chairman of the Bay Area Sub-committee of NICAP, learned that Captainjack Brown of the Mount Shasta, Califor-nia, Police Department, had encountered apeculiar craft-like object in the early morninghours of a July morning in 1966. Thefollowing article is based on Mr. Cernysreport.At 3:00 a.m. while on duty andpatrolling the northwest city limitsofMount Shasta, Capt. Brown firstobserved the object through his carswindshield. The UFO closed withhim rapidly, apparently on a collisioncourse with the patrol car. To avoid acrash, Brown swerved violently,barely missing a ditch, and came to anabrupt halt. Fear and plans to escapeby foot in case the UFO exhibitedany further hostilities prompted thepolice officer to get out of the car andlean on the open door, one footplanted on the door frame.The alleged craft, a smooth disc,ap-proximately 30 to 40 feet indiameterand 10 to 12 feet thick, hoveredsilently 20 to 30 feet above the carand emitted a blue-whiteglow whichseemed particularly bright at thediscs rim. The intensity of the lighthurt Browns eyes as he gazed upwardat the disc. The object had no visiblewindows or openings; however, onits underside were two thick tubularprotrusions, curved and tapered,about eight inches around at the ends,skid-like in appearance, but with noperceived function. Also, Capt.Brown commented that he detectedno exhaust trails coming from thesestructures.Brown stated that after the ap-parent craft lingered for 3 or 4minutes, it drifted off, moving er-ratically across the road and adjacentfields "as if nonchalantly surveyingthe immediate area." Suddenly theobject shot off toward the slopes ofMt. Shasta where it stopped andhovered again before accelerating asecond time. Itclimbed eastward overthe mountainand disappeared.The patrol cars headlights and two-way radio functioned normallythroughout the encounter. In fact,Brown contacted his dispatcher,David Vacari, who after dashing to awindow sighted the glowing object inBrowns reported vicinity. Further-more, Officer Mazzeri, 8 miles northof Mount Shasta in the town ofWeed, spotted the UFO heading forthe mountain but did not observe theobject hovering over the car becausethe terrain blocked his view. (Mr.Cerny saw fit to point out the absenceof electro-magnetic effects onBrowns body and automobile: thecaptain experienced no paralysis ortingling sensations, and as previouslystated, the car performed as usualdur-ing the incident.)According to Mr. Cerny, Capt.Brown, 42 and a family man, seemedwell above average intelligence,physically fit, in good mental health,and, in short, a competent observer.Capt. Brown claimed that he wouldbe reluctant to report any futuresightings because of the way the AirForce had handled his first report.Evidently, the Air Force insisted onhis completing many tedious and ir-relevant forms and report sheetsbefore informing him that what heand his fellow officers had seen wassomething other than what they haddescribed.CORRECTIONA printing error appeared in JennieZeidmans comment (No. 160, June1981) on the Klass-Fogarty exchangeabout the New Zealand UFO moviefilms. The word "disclosure" wassubstituted for "discourse." Thesentence should read:"I would no more attempt dis-course with him (Klass) than with atantrum-throwing, hysterical 6-year-old."MUFON1030LDTOWNERD.SEGUIN.TX 78155Directors Message, Continuedvestigator training courses.(c) The State Section Directoror his/her assistant to cultivatethe police agencies (city, coun-ty, and state), radio and televi-sion stations, airports. FederalAviation Administration, con-trol towers, etc. to report caseslocally. Distribute UFO hotlinenumber of the local group.(d) Public Relations director tocultivate in a favorable mannerthe newspapers, radio andtelevision for potential public-ity.(e) Develop a list of speakersthat are qualified to speak atschools, service clubs, churches,radio, television, and organiza-tions seeking a program onUFOs. (Speakers Bureau)(f) A librarian to systematicallyaccumulate UFO books andpublications. (Suggest that the• local group purchase an annualsubscription to the MUFONUFO Journal as a contributionto the public or schoollibraries.)(g) Utilize CB radio for localcommunications.(h) A Newsletter Editor to keepmembers advised of meetings,UFO sighting reports being in-vestigated, and applicable localUFO news.7. Require MUFON membershipas a condition for participation in aState Section or local UFO StudyGroup.8. Wherever a state section groupis organized and functioning, UFOsighting reports from PhenomenaResearch, the Center for UFO Studies•and MUFON will be directed to theState Section Director for assignment,in conjunction with the Chief In-vestigator.9. Local groups may elect to havemembership dues to support theirown activities, such as postage, sta-tionary, UFO hotline, library, etc.18
  • Lucius ParishIn Others WordsAn article on "space ghosts" (beingswho seem to dematerialize at will) isfeatured in the August 25 issueof N«-tional Enquirer. Dr. Leo Sprinkle andBrad Steiger are two of the research-ers quoted in this report. TheSeptember 1 issue told of a giant UFOdropping balls of fire, seen overPortland, Oregon, on April 3, 1981.This is perhaps Bob Pratts last UFOarticle for the Enquirer.UFO Report has finally made itsreappearance on the newsstands. It isnow to be published quarterly and itseems that no subscriptions will be ac-cepted. The fall issue contains articlesby Dwight Whalen, James Oberg,Wayne Laporte, Joseph Trainer, andothers.Harry Lebelsons "UFO Update"column in the September issue ofOMNI has some very interestingreports from the vicinity of PineBush, New York. This area seems tobe another of those regions whereUFOs are seen on a more-or-lessregular basis. One photograph ofanomalous lights in the night sky isin-cluded with the column.The August issue of Discover, Time,Inc.s science magazine, has an articletaking Dr. J. Allen Hynek to task forhaving "tainted" the pages ofTechnology Review with an article onUFOs. There are, without doubt, anynumber of legitimate criticisms whichcould be aimed in Hyneks direction,but this is hardly one of them.The No. 23 issue of True Outer Spaceb Paranormal World has relatively littleof interest to offer, UFO-wise. Mostof the magazine is taken up withother topics, the most interesting ofwhich is a report on a Bigfoot re-searcher who seems to have done hishomework (and fieldwork) without alot of publicity.British researcher Hilary Evans con-tributes an article to October issue ofUFO DATA MART(A service for MUFON members, ex-cept commercial enterprises.)WantedMUFON member conductingshady of patterns in electromagnetic(E-M) effect cases requests that FieldInvestigators send copies of MUFONForms 1 and 3 or equivalent reports(deleting confidential information asnecessary). Explainedcases also usefulas control group. Patricia McMahon,2725 Lury Lane, Annapolis, MD21401.TradeMUFON member building UFOliterature collection at Ohio StateUniversity Library for posterity willtrade first 12 issuesof Cosmic Search fora copy of the 1981 MUFON UFOSymposium Proceedings and any mis-cellaneous UFO items or bulletinsthat you would like to donate for his"cause." William E. Jones, 2256 Zoll-inger Rd., Columbus, QH 43221.SaleAutographed copies from theauthor, The Melchizedek Connection(blend of fact, speculation, and fan-tasy) $7.50 plus $1.00 shipping. Total$8.50. Now in soft cover at 15 % dis-count, Casebook of a UFO Investigator,$5.00 plus $1.00 shipping, Total$6.00. Other titles also available.Ray-mond E. Fowler, Box 19, Wenham,MA 01984.Alleged unexplained phenomenaon the Moon in NASA photographs.Two volumes of five 8" x 10" photos,plus summary, $15 per volume. Alsothree Viking mission Mars photos in-cluding the "statue face," plus sum-mary, $12. Lunar Photos, P.O. Box2186, Van Nuys, CA 91404.Fate, in which he says that UFO activ-ity in Wales Terror Triangle" (thescene of an alleged flap in 1977) hasbeen exaggerated, to put it mildly.Though there may have been genuinesightings in the area, Evans researchfailed to confirm the startling claimsmade by others who have writtennumerous articles and books on thesupposed flap. This issue of Fate alsocontains a revealing article on thecommittee for the Scientific Investiga-tion of Claims of the Paranormal,written by a former member of thegroup.UFO NEWSCLIPPINGSERVICE 1The UFO NEWSCLIPPING SERVICEwill keep you informed of all the IdlestUnited Slates and World Wide UFOactivity, asit happens!Our servicewasstarted in 1969, at which lime wecontracted with a reputableinternational newspaper clippingbureau to obtain lor us, those hard tofind UFO reports (i.e., little knownphotographic cases, close rncountfrand 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 p h o t o - o f f s e t ,containing the latest United States andCanadian UFO newsclippings, withour foreign section carrying the latestBritish, Australian, New Zealand andother foreign press reports. Alsoincluded is a 35 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 7212719
  • DIRECTORS MESSAGE byWalt AndrusOn Sunday, September 20, 1981,Mrs. Idabel Epperson and herdaughter Marilyn were hosts in theirhome to an important MUFONSouthern California meeting. William"Bill" Hassel, State Director, presidingofficer, introduced Joseph KirkThomas as his replacement as StateSection Director for Los AngelesCounty. Joe resides at 2220 SouthBeverly Glen No. 114, Los Angeles,CA 90064, telephone: (213)556-2192. Holding a Masters Degreein physics, he has been a researchspecialist in electromagnetics forMUFON. As Chairman for the 1983MUFON UFO Symposium, to behosted by Southern California, BillHassel utilized the occasion to initiateplanning for this prestigious event.A unique feature of their meetingwas an invitation by Marilyn Epper-.son to J. Allen Hynek and Walt An-drus to participate from Evanston,111.,and Seguin, Tex., via a telephoneloudspeaker amplifier. Each passedalong greetings and an appropriatemessage for this auspicious occasion.Your director answered questionsfrom the assembled group in the Ep-person living room. Other MUFONofficers present were Willard D.Nelson, State Section Director forOrange County; Melvin Podell, StateSection Director for San Diego Coun-ty; Mrs. Ann Druffel, AssociateEditor of the MUFON UFO Journal;and Mrs. Idabel Epperson, Advisor tothe Southern California group.The Center for UFO Studies Scien-tific Conference on September 25ththrough 27th at the Midland Hotel indowntown Chicago was a memorableevent for all of us who were fortunateto attend. We were especially proudof the numerous MUFON memberswho spoke at this distinguished^ffair.They were Alan Holt, Dr. BruceMac-cabee, John Schuessler, Dr. IrwinWieder, Dr. Alvin H. Lawson, Dr.Ron Westrum, and Budd Hopkins.Other qualified speakers were BertilKuhlemann (Sweden), Gordon Mel-ton, Dr. J. Allen Hynek, RobertoPinotti (Italy), Barbara Schutte, JohnTimmerman, Donald Johnson, andMark Rodeghier. Mark Rodeghier isto be congratulated for his outstand-ing job in organizing and planningthis conference. A San Francisco BayArea group of six was headed byDirectors Paul Cerny and Jim Me-Campbell.Another media for communica-tions was used on September 13th,-when your director had the privilegeof visiting with Jane Thomas(LU6DSM) in Buenos Aires, Argen-tina, via amateur radio station K5RFin Seguin. Robert Florstedt (K5RF) hasa schedule with Jane Thomas forevery other Sunday at 1:00 PMC.D.S.T. or C.S.T. on 28.916.3megahertz. Jane had responded by let-ter to our inquiry to set up an interna-tional MUFON amateur net.We in-vite others to join us on ten meters.Jane is best known for her work intranslating UFO accounts publishedin Spanish to English for the Journal,Lou Parish, Ted Bloecher, and others.Her schedule is October the llth and25th and November 8th and 22nd.Dennis W. Stacy, Director ofPublications, represented MUFON atthe recent Second London Interna-tional UFO Congress as reported inthe August 1981 issue of the Journal.He also substituted for MichaelSinclair, International Coordinator,who was accepted as MUFONs per-manent delegate to the ProvisionalIn-ternational Committee on UFOResearch (PICUR). Bertil Kuhlemann(Sweden) proposed the internationaladoption of Project UFO ResearchData (URD), a two-fold programdesigned to coordinate in-the-fielddata gathering with computeranalysisof the data. James McCampbell,MUFON Director for Research, willmeet with Mr. Bertil Kuhlemann andStan Lindgren, both representingProject URD,to discuss inputs and ap-plications of the proposal for potentialMUFON utilization. Since we are inthe process of composing the thirdedition of our Field InvestigatorsManual, this would be an appropriatetime to evaluate and consider theSwedish (URD)proposition.In the August 1981 issue of theJournal, your International Directorelaborated on five steps to expand thesubscription distribution of the Jour-nal and MUFON membership. Insub-sequent Directors Message" col-umns, other ideas will be suggestedthat will help to develop MUFON asa worldwide UFO investigative or-ganization. Frequently new membersask the question, "What are the dutiesof a State Section Director?" In thisedition of the Journal,we will concen-trate on procedures and proposalsthat will strengthen our stateorganizations.1. Organize state groups, headedby a State Director.2. State Director to select an Assis-tant State Director to cover a portionof the state or actively assist theDirector in administrative functions.3. The State Director should seekand appoint State Section Directorsfor one county or a group of countiesdepending upon population densityor geographic square mile area. Thequalifications should be based uponleadership, interest, and time todevote to Ufology.4. State Section Directors are ad-vised to conduct monthly meetings.On many cases this is already beingdone in a local MUFON-affiliatedUFO group.)5. State and State Section Directorsshould be constantly searching forcompetent, interested people torecruit as Field Investigators, ResearchSpecialists, and Field InvestigatorTrainees.6. Each State Section Directorshould select and appoint members toserve in the following capacities:(a) A Chief Investigator tocoordinate investigationsassignments in conjunction withwiththe State Section Director.(b) An instructor for Field In-(continued on page 18)