• Save
Mufon ufo journal   1981 3. march
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Mufon ufo journal 1981 3. march

on

  • 304 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
304
Views on SlideShare
304
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

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.

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

Mufon ufo journal   1981 3. march Mufon ufo journal 1981 3. march Document Transcript

  • I 1 ,*HiTHEMUFON UFO JOURNALNUMBER 157 MARCH 1981n-JTFounded1967lOFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF AfC/fOIV/ MUTUAL UFONETWORK, INC.1952 Humanoid Case (See Story, page 9)$1.50
  • The MUFONUFO JOURNAL(USPS 002-970)103 Oldtowne Rd.Seguin, Texas 78155RICHARD HALLEditorANN DRUFFELAssociate EditorLEN STRINGFIELDAssociate EditorMILDRED BIESELEContributing EditorWALTER H. ANDRUSDirector of MUFONTED BLOECHERDAVE WEBBCo-Chairmen,Humanoid Study GroupPAUL CERNYPromotion/PublicityREV. BARRY DOWNINGReligion and UFOsLUCIUS PARISHBooks/Periodicals/HistoryMARK HERBSTRITTAstronomyROSETTA HOLMESPromotion/PublicityTED PHILLIPSLanding 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.;$16.00foreign.Copyright 1981-bythe Mutual UFO Network. Secondclass postage paid at Seguin,Texas. POSTMASTER: Send form3579 to advise change of addressto The MUFON UFO JOURNAL,103 Oldtowne Rd., Seguin, Texas78155.FROM THE EDITORCarl Sagan takes his lumps in this issue, as well he might, fortalking about things of which he knows little.. .a "talent" that haspaylayed him into being the premier U.S.pop scientist.Ihave threebasic mental pictures of Sagan: testifying in the 1968 CongressionalUFO Symposium as if UFOs posed a threat to his special pleadingfor funds to support radio telescope searches for extraterrestrial life(I was in the audience); ridiculing the 1973 Pascagoula, Mississippi,case to a group primarily consisting of NASApersonnel at GoddardSpace Flight Center (I was in the audience); and arguing fromtheory to debunk UFOson a national TVprogram, until itcametimefor another guest to talk — Lt. Col. Lawrence Coyne whosehelicopter had nearly collided with a structured UFO over Ohio in1973 — at which point Sagan clammed up. His almost visiblemessage was, "Dont disturb me with facts, my mind is made up."In this issueMUFON FEATURED ON NATIONWIDE BROADCAST 3PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FOR UFOs IN AUSTRALIA 4By Bill ChalkerAIR FORCE "PUZZLED" BY SOCORRO 6By Richard HallA {CLASSICAL ENCOUNTER 7By Quentin FogartyUFO AND OCCUPANTS (Prospect Heights, Illinois) 9By Ted BloecherCALIFORNIA REPORT ("Open Letter to Carl Sagan")....... 13By Ann DruffelLETTERS 16IN OTHERS WORDS 19By Lucius ParishDIRECTORS MESSAGE 20By Walt AndrusThe contents of The MUFON UFO 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 of the 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 400 words) or inashort article (up to about 2,000words). 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. Allsubmissionsare subjectto editing forstyle, clarity, and conciseness.Permission is hereby grantedto quote from this issue provided not more than 200words are quoted from any one article, the author of the article is given credit, andthe statement "Copyright 1981 by the MUFON UFO JOURNAL, 103 OldtowneRd.,Seguin, Texas" is included.
  • MUFON FEATURED ON NATIONWIDE BROADCASTThepopular LarryKing Show onFebruary 7carried a 3-hour programon UFOs with a panel consisting ofRichard Hall, MUFON UFO Journaleditor, Dr. Bruce S. Maccabee, Fundfor UFO Research Chairman (alsoMaryland State Director forMUFON), and Don Berliner, inde-pendent researcher and Fund execu-tive committee alternate. The pro-gram is carried nationally by 228radio stations and has an audienceaveraging 6million people, more onFriday nights since it is aired frommidnight to 5:00 a.m. (E.S.T.) After3:00 a.m., Kingchanges the format to"Open Line America" and acceptscalls on any topic. The UFO programwas arranged by popular request,according to the producer.The first hour consisted of aninterview with the panelists, thenphone calls were taken for two hours.In order to accept as many questionsas possible, King prods the callers toget to the point and the guests togive concise answers. During thetwo hours 58 calls were taken, or anaverage of about one call every twominutes. The calls came from 24states. About 9 callers mentionedpersonal UFO sightings, and mostwere of above average interest. Wit-nesses and others with informationor help to offer were invited to writeto MUFON.Although some skeptical questionswere asked, the caliber of questionsand questioners washigh (includinga sprinkling of professionals such asscientists, professors, and militaryofficers.) Only one caller was out-right hostile: a retired Navy Com-mander from Reston, Virginia, whosaid he was a former assistant to theDirector of the Central IntelligenceAgency. He claimed that high alti-tude flights of the U-2 "spy plane"caused the 1947 UFO wave. Afterresponses that the U-2 wasnt builtuntil much later (in fact, not until1955) and that 1947 witnesses had1. to r., Bruce Maccabee, Larry King, Don Berliner, Richard Hall (Photo: Fred Whiting)seen formations of round objects,many (including Kenneth Arnold)at below mountaintop level, he re-torted, "You fellows are full of mal-arkey."The show format, though it keepsthe program moving at a brisk pace,unfortunately doesnt allow timeformore complete discussion or rebut-tal on a particular point. Neverthe-less, activities of both MUFON andthe Fund were publicized and theaddresses were given repeatedly.Serious UFOgroups orientedtowardscientific investigation seldom areable to reach national audiences. Weare grateful to Larry King for thisopportunity.MUFON1030LDTOWNE RD.SEGUIN.TX 78155NOTICE TO MUFONINVESTIGATORSFinancial support is now avail-able from the Fund for UFO re-search for clinical or laboratory testsrelated to CE-II or CE-II1 physicalormedical/physiological evidence cases.The Executive Committee of theFund, located in the Greater Wash-ington, D.C., area, has authority toexpend up to $1,000 for "promptpreliminary investigation" of anynew case that promises to have scien-tific yield.If you obtain physical trace evi-dence, witnesses with UFO-relatedinjuries, or similar data that lendsitself to scientific testing or docu-mentation,call Publicity Director FredWhiting (703) 683-2786 and in hisabsence leave a message on his an-swering machine. Someone fromthe Fund will contact you by tele-phone. The Executive Committeecan confer by telephone, and if itagrees that the case warrants it,money can be forwarded within ashort period oftime to assure promptanalysis or documentation.3
  • PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FOR UFOs IN AUSTRALIABy Bill Chalker(Bill Chalker is scientific consultant forthe Australian Co-ordination Section ofthe Center for UFO Studies, Director ofUFOR-NSW, and MUFON Representativefor NSVi-Australia. Following is an ex-cerpt from a paper he presented atUFOCON 4, Artarmon, Sydney, NSW,.Australia,.October 13, 1979. Edited by .Mildred Biesele.)Without question, the study ofthe UFOsubject has been made verydifficult because of the strong tidalforces of controversy that have punc-tuated its contemporary history. It isthe nature and extent ofthe phenom-enon that has bred this situation.Accordingly, we have an intriguingdilemma. On the one hand we havea strong measure of public accep-tance for the possibility of UFOs,and on the other a sharp polariza-tion of lack of interest on the part ofthe scientific community.One reasonfor this problem is the paucity ofhard data which falls within thedomain ofthe current scientific para-digm.The UFO evidence is character-ized by vast extremes in qualityofevidence. Within this paper is em-bodied a call for reappraisal, con-solidation, and documentation.Through this study ofthe Australianaccounts of physical traces and evi-dence for UFOs, ithas become abun-dantly clear that a fresh approach issorely needed. We have an accumu-lation of evidence ostensibly relatedto accounts which describe UFOsinteracting with the environmentand producing tangible evidence oftheir presence. One would expect tobe able to take this extant evidenceand gain a clear, unambiguous pictureof the nature of the phenomenon.Unfortunately, this has not been thecase.Accounts describing an extra-ordinary range of detail and quiteoften hard evidence have often goneuninvestigated. Many accounts re-main anecdotal, while others remain4the stuff of uncritical media report-ing. I am calling for a concertedattempt to change this situation.Weshould be directing our all-too-limitedresources to reports that offer a highprobability of gaining access tovalu-able information that is of use toscience. Concentrating on this sortof data will enable us to gain a muchclearer picture of what is involved.Ifupon detailed enquiry the "physicalattributes" of the phenomenon arenot amenable to standard scientificmethodology, then the process ofreappraisal, consolidation, and docu-mentation is required to determinethe appropriateness of new lines ofenquiry. Butuntil we have tried thepath of quality documentation andinvestigation of physical evidence,the controversy that surrounds thesubject of UFOs will continue.Let us now consider the Austra-lian contribution to the question ofphysical traces of UFO activity. Formany years this writer has beenaccumulating data related to the sub-ject, and a fascinating body of ac-counts has been drawn together.This paper is a first attempt at ration-alizing the accounts into some sortof order.Physical TracesFrom diverse sources, some 237accounts of physical traces were un-covered. Six basic types of eventswere defined, along with necessarycategories of"Not enough Evidence"(NEI) and "Other."Type I: Physical trace with pro-bative UFO correlation (13.9%).Type II: Physical trace with pos-sible UFO correlation (19.4%).Type III: Physical trace of ap-parent/possible natural origin, pos-sible UFO correlation (1.7%).Type IV:Physical tracewith pos-sible unusual phenomenologicalcorrelation (11.4%).Type V:Physical trace ofprobableor apparent natural origin (16.5%).Type VI: Physical trace of prob-able spurious, hoax,or doubtful origin.NEI: Physical trace with paucityof related information.Other: Physical trace which byits apparent nature prevents anyconfident categorization.Each type will be broken downinto the features that characterize itand case details will be summarized.(The number of examples in eachcategory will be given parenthet-ically, but in the interests of spaceonly one or two examples from eachwill be given here.)Type I Eventsconcentric rings (3):1965, Eton Range, Qld - 464"circumference, 32" ringwidth1972, Tooligie Hill, SA-45" cir-cle,ringed by 2wide trench3 or 4" deep. 24" wideband of flattened wheatsurrounding trace.elliptical "nests" (3):1969, Glenorchy, Tas - 18 x 12burnt grass1976, Penrich,NSW-100x45,long grass swept in out-ward directionirregular shaped trace (2):1969, Windsor, SA - diamondshaped with smaller sim-ilar shaped trace at oneend. Associated imprints.depression (1):1966, BourkesFlat,Viet - 3 wideimpression 5" deep withsandy soil cleanly scoopedoutcircular nests (6):1966, Tully, Qld - 30 clockwisetrace of reeds, later 2 x 10oblong and 12 and 8 cir-cular nests found in closeproximity.agitated debris (2):1978, Echiica, Viet -traces in drive-way, dirt and gravel blownabout
  • human physical effects (3):ca. 1932/33, Nambour, Qld - blis-ters and "tightness"in head1978, Euchuca, Viet - headacheanimal effects (5):1963, nr. Moe, Viet - animals re-acted violently, cows avoid-ed site over which UFOhovered1978, Euchuca,Viet -dogs, sheepreactedimprints (7):1972, Murray Bridge, SA - 3small pits1976, Penrith, NSW-4plate-sized"pod-marks" in straightlineprecipitate (1):1976, Nemingha, NSW - whiteprecipitate over carother vegetation/terrain effects (6):1974, nr. Goulburn, NSW - area200 yards wide all burnt1978, Cowra, NSW -ground bum-ing at base of light beamother (13):1954, Dandenong, Viet - mag-netized fence, "drained"torch, etc.1966, Bourkes Flat, Viet - "lightbent," related fatality?Type II Eventsconcentric rings (1):1977, Leitchville, Viet -8m.wide38cm circular band(church property)elliptical nests (1):1969, Bungawalban, NSW - 60x15 flattened saccalineirregular shaped traces (2):1969, Renown Park, SA-15widearea with 4x5 rectangulararea, scooped out area1974, Strathalbyn, SA 2 diameterdepression 8-9" deep incenter of 12" patch.circular "nests" (12):1969, Tully, Qld - 296" clockwiserotation, 12 clockwise1971, Christmas Ck, Kempsey,NSW - 2 x 12 and 1 x 19burnt nestshuman physical effects (3):1959, nr. Cooktown, Qld - death,severe physical effects1974, nr. Grafton, NSW - fatal carsmash, "healing"animal effects (2):1969, Bungawalban, NSW- cowsavoided areaimprints (4):1969, Renown Park, SA - 3 im-prints 2" in depth, 5 fromapproximate center oftrace area1973, Old Junee, NSW- ca.6 podmarks 4" diameter spacedat regular distancesprecipitates (3):1970, Collins Cap, Tas - "angelhair"other vegetation/terrain effects (6):1958, Lake Gardner, SA - fire,ground soft and hot1969, Flinders Park, SA - dug upgrapevinesother (21):1972, Bents Basin, NSW - carcaught fire1975, Lake Sorrell, Tas - lumi-nous mistType III Events1950, Dorrigo-Bostobrick,NSW"fairy ring" 20 to 25 indiameter1974, Maitland, NSW - 2 circlesca. 9 ms. in diameter1975, Cygnet, Tas - black fungalresidueType IV Eventsconcentric rings (1):1977, Port Neill, SA - 4.3m.doughnut ringelliptical nests (3):1971, Lynchford, Tas - 30 x 15grass/blackberries withspiral pattern in centerirregular shaped traces (2):1975, Narrogin, WA-rectangularoats impression 49 x 25with 28 radius arcs on 2cornersdepressions (2):1970, nr. Boggabri, NSW- 6 de-pression 6" deep with 7smaller holes and whitepowdercircular nests (8):1973, Bordertown, SA - 7circularanticlockwise impressionsin oats, largest nest 14wide1974, Nth Parramatta, NSW -cir-cular impression withblack silver substance,limb on tree snapped offimprints (1):1971, Lynchford, Tas - 6 irregu-larly spaced indentationsin ellipticaltraceprecipitate (1):1973, Gawler, SA - "nylon"angelhair reportother (10):1970, Kedumba, NSW - circularburnt patch of timber,strange smell, missingcattleno date, North Qld - fragmentunconventional allowType V EventsMigratory spider web, "fairy rings,"slime mold, sooty molds, etc.Type VI Events1968, Golburn area, NSW - armwound, hoaxed pictures,contactee tale1973, Edmonton, Qld - "cat-woman" saga, "Girlie"and her alleged "home"For the purposes of this paper,listings are not provided of the cate-gories NEI and "Other." The readeris referred to the source documentupon which this is based for detailsof all accounts referred to here, "ASourcebook of Australian UFO Re-lated Physical Trace Events andSimilar Phenomena." Full docu-mented details are supplied of allevents of Types I through VI as wellas NEI and Other.This preliminarystudy has high-lighted the cross-section of data thathas become available to the UFOresearcher in the area of possiblephysical evidence for UFOs. We havea body of accounts, albeit small, thatclearly refers to physical traces withstrong probative UFO correlation.These documented events are com-plemented by similar accounts where-in the UFO correlations are not asstrong. These combined accounts(Types I and II) give a picture ofapparent interactions with the en-vironment, ostensibly produced byUFOs, that is largely consistent withthe world picture that is only nowbeing tentatively drawn.(Continued on next page)5
  • (Australia, Continued)Type IV reports, although some-times similar to those of Type I andII,cannot be entirely reconciled withthese categories. Indeed, in someaccounts we seem to have phenom-ena which may fall outside the tradi-tional framework of UFO experience.It is apparent that much furtherwork is required to reconcile thesephenomena.Type Vreports stand as a tributeto the infinite variety of unusualnatural phenomena which lie in waitfor the careless, the uncritical,or thegullible researchers.Type VI reports (hoaxes, etc.)caution us to approach remarkableevents with due caution. Carefulinvestigation and documentationtechniques will aid in preventingthese sorts of cases from findingcurrency with the communityat large.Type IIIcases may seem a contra-diction. Natural phenomena pro-duced by UFOs? There is a smallbody of data both here and overseasthat suggests that whatever is thestimulus for UFO reports may inter-act with the environment and pro-duce characteristics that plague usinType V accounts. Could the UFOproduce such things as "fairy rings,"etc? To my surprise, a few cases didsurface which seem to lend supportto this hypothesis. I invite construc-tive comment on this point.I close this preliminary study inthe manner in which it began:with aplea for a reappraisal, consolidation,and documentation. Recently theAustralian Physical Evidence StudyGroup (APESG) was formed to be afocal point for groups and indivi-duals interested in promoting theaims of high quality scientific docu-mentation and research of physicalevidence for UFO reports. I urgeyou to give it your most earnestsupport.CIA DocumentAIR FORCE "PUZZLED" BY SOCORROBy Richard HallA newly released CIA documentpublished in 1966 indicatesthat theU.S. Air Force considered the 1964Socorro, N.M., sighting "the best-documented case on record" andwere "puzzled" by it. The otherwiseunremarkable 16-page documentcame to light in January 1981 in-directly as a result of the GSW vs.CIAlawsuit now in Appeals Court, ask-ing for release of additional CIAdocuments on UFOs. A copy wasreleased to lawyer Peter Gerstenwho supplied it to the Fund for UFOResearch, which recently granted$2,500 toward the costsofthe appeallitigation.In October 1980 privateresearch-er W.H. Banksof Oakland, California— apparently aware of the articlesexistence —made a specific Freedomof Information Act (FOIA) requestfor it and indicated that it had ap-peared in an in-house CIApublica-tion. Accordingto the U.S. Attorneysrepresenting the CIA, the requestwas specificaPy worded enough thata new search located it, inappro-priately listed under "Intelligence-Espionage." Although the CIA pub-lication itself, Studies in Intelligence, isclassified SECRET, the U.S. Attor-neys said, articles in it may carryvarious classifications or be unclas-sified. (How anyone would knowthey existed is another question.)After clearing it with the Air Force,the CIA released the document toBanks, GSW, and Gersten, now rep-resenting Citizens Against UFO Se-crecy in the appeal.Apparently concerned that thebelated release might affect the out-come of the appeal, the U.S. Attor-neys filed a Supplemental Brief inthe Court of Appeals and notifiedGersten, explaining the circumstancesof its finding in detail. "The docu-ment recently discovered by CIA inno way impunes (sic)the integrityofthat (prior court-ordered) search.Nevertheless/we file tHis recentlyuncovered document with the Courtin the interest of complete and fulldisclosure," the brief said. The briefexplains that the document was notindexed "on either of the two auto-mated index systems which existedin the CIAs Office of Central Refer-ence at the time of the FOIA searchin this case."The article in question was au-thored by Major Hector Quintanilla,Jr., then Chief of the Air Force Pro-ject Blue Book UFO investigation.For the most part, it is a highlycondensed history of UFOs from theAir Force perspective sounding likea rehash ofthe notorious "fact sheets"of the 1960s. About the last % is areasonably straightforward accountof the April 24, 1964, landing case(except that it omits mention of thetwo humanoid figures near the"craft")."Diagnosis: Unsolved"Under the sub-heading "Diag-nosis: Unsolved," Quintanilla says:There is no doubt that Lonnie Zamorasaw an object which left quite an im-pression on him. There is also no ques-tion about Zamoras reliability. He is aserious police officer, a pillar of hischurch, a man well versed in recog-nizing airborne vehicles in his area.(He) is puzzled by what he saw, andfrankly, so are we. This is the best-documented case on record, and still wehave been unable, in spite of thoroughinvestigation,to find the vehicle or otherstimulus that scaredZamora to the pointof panic.Quintanilla goes on to describethe extensive check that was madeintrying to explain the object as aconventional or experimental craft(confirmed by the present author6
  • (Socorro, Continued) A KLASSICAL ENCOUNTERwho has seen the complete AirForcefile on the case). He refers to analysisof soil samples by the Air ForceMaterials Laboratory,afragmentaryreport of which is in the Air Forcefiles. However, he also states: "Labo-ratory analysis of the burned brushshowed no chemicalsthat could havebeen propellant residue." No suchanalysis report is in the case file.Earlier, in describing facilitiesused by the Air Force for analysisof"physical specimens," Quintanillamentions Battelle Memorial Institute,Libby Owens, Corning Glass, amongothers. Where are the reports ofsuch physical analyses? Certainlythey are not common public know-ledge. Which organization analyzedthe Socorro brush samples and whereis the scientific report? A partialanswer may be suggested by a letterto me from Dr. James E.McDonalddated September 5,1968,from whichI quote in part:...a woman who is now a radiologicalchemist with the Public Health Servicein Las Vegas was involved in somespecial analysesof materials collectedatthe Socorro site, and when she wasthere, the morning after, she claims thatthere was a patch of melted and resolid-ified sand right under the landing area. 1have talked with her both by telephoneand in person here in Tucson recently,and am asking (her) to do some furtherchecking...She did analyses on the plant-fluids exuded from stems of grease-wood and mesquite that had beenscorched. She said there were a feworganic materials they couldnt identify,but most of the stuff that hadcome outthrough the cracks and blisters in thestems were just saps from the phloemand xylem. Shortlyafter she finished thework, Air Force personnel came andtook all her notes and materials and toldher she wasnt to talk about it any more.Dr. McDonald was a highly re-garded atmospheric physicist at theInstitute of Atmospheric Physics,University of Arizona.Quintanillas article, written as itwas for a SECRET CIA publication,is surprisingly uninformative andundoubtedly is an accurate reflec-tion of his own negatively biased,low-key investigation. In that sameyear — 1966 — Quintanilla cameBy Quentin Fogarty(© by Quentin Fogarty)IntroductionEarly on the morning of December31, 1978, an Argosy freight aircraft,carrying a television film crew, en-countered a number ofunidentifiedflying objects off the east coast ofNew Zealands South Island. Thefilm crew — cameraman DavidCrockett; his sound-recordist wifeNgaire, and this reporter — cap-tured several ofthe bright objects onfilm. This film became the basis foran investigation by an Americanoptical physicist,Dr.BruceMaccabee,on behalf of the National Investiga-tions Committee on Aerial Phenom-ena (NICAP). The organization, whichhas been conservative about suchmatters in the past, was prepared toendorse thisfilmasshowing a genuineunidentified flying object.By March 1979, twenty distin-guished scientists and experts in thefields of radar, optics, and physicswho had seen the film were unableto explainthe sighting in conventionalterms. Amongthe distinguished groupwas Professor J.Allen Hynek, founderof the Center for UFO Studies(CUFOS). He declared: "The NewZealand evidence clearly suggestssome phenomenon that cannot beconfirmed in ordinary terms."In July last year, I visited theUnited States and spent some timeat the home of Dr. Maccabee inSilver Spring, Maryland. While hewas there he agreed to meet twosuper skeptics of UFOs, Philip J.Klass, and Robert Sheaffer. The follow-ing is my perception of that meeting.The EncounterThere they sat, the master andthe apprentice; the super skeptics,the debunkers ofthe "new nonsense."On my right, Philip J. Klass —author, writer, confessed skeptic,and elder statesman of all thingsrational.On my left, Robert Sheaffer —science writer, lecturer, skeptical UFOinvestigator —angling for the masterscrown, attentive, watching, and listen-ing.On the other side of the room,myself — hopeful of a fruitful dis-cussion — and Dr. Bruce Maccabee,expecting fireworks. He wasnt to bedisappointed!I had agreed to the meeting,keen for an intelligent and reasonedapproach from the other side.What Ididnt know was that to a superskeptic there is no such thing as an(continued on next page)under heavy fire from the newsmedia and Members of Congress forinsisting that police UFO witnesseswere fooled by a satellite and theplanet Venus. They had first seen astructured, large-diameter object il-luminating the road at close rangethat then flew off into the distanceand was seen hovering as a pointsource of light — in addition to theplanet Venus which also was visible.The state of communications be-tween the Air Force and the CIA onUFO information in the 1960s isunknown. If Quintanilla was theprimary source of Air Forceinforma-tion, then it is quite possible that theCIA was misled as far as USAF-originated UFO information. Quint-anillas confession in a CIA publica-tion that Socorro isunexplained and"puzzling" must be understood asemanating from a rather completeskeptic whose approach was to pinan explanatory label on each andevery UFO sighting that would ac-count for it in conventional terms.The newly released CIA documentmainly suggests that his "faith" wassomewhat shaken by the Socorroreport.
  • i (Klassical, Continued)intelligent and reasoned approach.There is only scorn, innuendo, sar-casm, and character assassination.The tape-recorders rolled, andthe meeting began.It became obvious fairly quicklythat Mass, in particular, wasntreallyinterested in my side ofthe story.Allhe wanted was confirmation of hisown interpretation of the events. So,when I told him something thatdidnt fit in with his preconceivednotion, it was time for "really Mr.Fogarty,"and "come on Mr.Fogarty,"etc.The following gives some indica-tion of Klass attitude throughoutour meeting. I believe the transcriptis accurate, but there were timeswhen the raised voices on both sidesof the room tended to drown outwhat was being said. (Key: PhilipMass, PK; Quentin Fogarty, QF).PK: My current theory, as I explained toBruce (Maccabee) is that what you saw wasSanta Claus and his reindeer...QF: ...but that is so stupid, such a stupidthing to say...PK: ...Ive asked you for your hypotheses,you have refused or declined as if extraterres-trial craft is a dirty, vulgar word...QF: Not at all. What Im saying isthat youseem to be locked into the extraterrestrialtheory thing. It does not have to be...PK: ...well, can you give me three otherhypotheses to consider and I will entertainthem I assure you. Give me three!QF: As I said, I do not know what it was...PK: ...no, give me three hypotheses...QF: ...alright, maybe it was Santa Clausand his reindeer, maybe it was, umm...PK: ...a ghost?QF: Yeah,that isone more you have givenme. You are better at coming up with idioticstatements, soyou make another suggestion...PK: ...then you give me your three mostlikely hypotheses.QF: The most likely hypothesis is that itwas a bright light, secondly that it is anunexplained bright light, and on the basis ofwhat Dr. Maccabee has found, it remainsunexplained and cannot be explained in con-ventional terms. That does not mean it isSanta Claus and his sleigh,it does not meanitis a ghost, it does not mean it is aleprechaun(an earlier Klass suggestion), it does notmean it is an extraterrestrial spacecraft...And on, and on, it went.There was one question I had toask Klass in view of his comment tome in a letter that he was not im-8pressed by the New Zealand case. Iknew that he had been correspond-ing with Maccabee for several monthsand the sheer volume of this corres-pondence suggested that he had agreat interest in this "non-impres-sive" case. Why?"Because it has assumed suchgreat importance in Bruce Maccabeesmind, in Hyneks (mind), and theUFO movement here," he replied."As I said, if I was asked to select animpressive UFOcase this would notbe one that I would select. ButBruceand the others have selected it and,like Mt. Everest, it is there...so, per-force, Imust spend time on it.Let meassure you that Iwould ratherbe outon my sailboat."A littlelater in the evening, Klassagain mentioned this desire to beelsewhere, rather than "wasting histime" on the New Zealand case. Wewere discussing Maccabeesinvolve-ment and Klass mentioned thatChannel O should have hired a"real" investigator (a skeptic likehimself), rather than a UFO-propo-nent (like Maccabee).I pointed outthat on the basis of his reasoning(i.e., that a pro-UFO investigatormust come up with a pro-UFO re-port), then an anti-UFO investigatormust come up with an anti-UFOreport. He thought about that for amoment and replied that he hadreally meant that the channelshouldhave hired both a skeptic and aproponent. He then stated that soonafter the sightings he had been ap-proached by the American Broad-casting Company to go to NewZealand to investigate the sightingsfor them. NaturallyMaccabee and Iwere keen to know why he had nottaken up ABCs kind offer. He toldus he had made plans to go skiingand he didnt think the case wasimportant enough to interupt hisvacation.How Klass must rue the day hedecided to go skiing instead of de-bunking. Im sure that ifhe had goneto New Zealand he would havefound a plausible and conventional(to him) explanation for the sightings.But he didnt go and now, unable torefute the facts, he has been forcedon to his present course of ridiculeand character assassination.Its the character assassination thatI find particularly offensive. In a letterto me, Klass accused Bill Startup (thepilot) of having suicidal tendenciesand Geoff Causer (theradar operator)of being derelict in his responsibilities.He also suggested they were "playinggames" for the benefit of the othersonboard the aircraft. In other words,he was saying that Startup and theco-pilot, BobGuard, were setting usup —creating a UFOincidentfor thebenefit of television news crew.Whata load of drivel! Obviously Klassworks to the theory that ifyou throwenough dirt around, some will stick.In letters to Maccabee, Klass hasdescribed Guard as "sleepy"and meas "stupid." So we have "SuicidalStartup," "Irresponsible Causer,""Sleepy Guard," and "StupidFogarty." Klass was to repeat someof these unfounded, clutching-at-straws accusations at Maccabeeshome that evening. In fact, he some-times got so lost alonghis rocky roadof conspiracy and fantasy that Sheafferhad to lead him back to reality.As the evening progressed I be-came heartily sick of Klass holier-than-thou attitude, and just aftermidnight I reached boiling point.Sheaffer, who had kept a relativelylow profile throughoutthe meeting,was trying to edge Klass towards thedoor. I couldnt let the opportunitypass. Ihad suffered a lot at the handsof the so-called experts with theirinstant pronouncements, and I hadno intention of letting Klass slipthrough my fingers unscathed.I be-rated him for his public statementsin the first few days after the sight-ings, when he was quoted as sayingthe film may have shown Venus orcould have been a hoax, and for hissubsequent crude attempts to be-little the credibility of the witnesses.I pointed out, in language that cantbe repeated here, that he and othershad caused the witnesses and theirfamilies great distress with their un-founded comments.Needless to say, when Sheafferdid manage to steer a slightly red-
  • From the Humanold Study Group Archives-llUFO AND OCCUPANTS ATPROSPECT HEIGHTS, ILLINOISBy Ted Bloecher(© by Ted Bloecher)Probable Dateof Sighting: May 1952Time: 10:52 p.m. (2252Central Day-light Time).Locale: 308 WestWillowRoad, Pros-pect Heights, Illinois.Witness: Mrs. Ann L Sohn, house-wife and former nurse.Duration of Sighting: Three to fiveminutes.Closest Proximity: Approximately100 feet.(Klassical, Continued)faced and angry Klass to the doorthere were no handshakes. Thehang-ing judge of urology stepped outinto the warm, muggy early morn-ing air probablywondering out loudat this little whippersnapper fromDown Under who had dared tostand up to him.I had hoped for a reasoned andintelligent discussion. Instead, I wastreated like a child who had beencaught trying to steal the cookiesfrom Klass cookie jar.On reflectionI can now see that Klass and his ilkhave no choice but to retain theiranti-UFO stand. It is their raisondetre. Although they argue thatthe phenomenon is not worthy ofstudy,they spend inordinate amountsof time trying to explain it away inprosaic terms. Their crusade has alsogiven them a degree of notoriety, ithas made them public figures. Ifthey were to accept the reality of thephenomenon they would quicklyslip into obscurity. Public exposureis a drug. Klassand his fellow crusa-ders, like all publicity junkies, needtheir regular dose. The fact that theymust publicly vilify innocent people(i.e., UFO witnesses) in order tokeep themselves in the spotlightdoes not concern them one iota.Investigators:Ted Bloecher (prelim-inary); Captain Robert Runser, forthe Center for UFO Studies.HumCat Classification:Serial #0184,Type A (entities seen inside UFO).IntroductionOn May11,1974,Mrs. Ann L Sohn,a suburban Chicago housewife andformer nurse, wrote to Dr. J. AllenHynek, Director of the newly organ-ized Center for UFO Studies, inEvanston, Illinois. In her letter, shedescribed a close observation of aUFO as it hovered over a lot adjacentto her home in Prospect Heights,Illinois, some 20years earlier.Throughseveral windows around the circum-ference of the object she could seethree human-like figures operatingwhat appeared to have been "con-trols." She watched for about 5 min-utes, until the object abruptly andsilently departed toward the north.When her husband,who workednights at the Chicago Tribune, camehome the following morning, Mrs.Sohn told him about her sighting."He immediately called my atten-tion to a front-page article," shewrote Dr. Hynek, "where two dif-ferent families in Round Lake, Illi-nois, had sighted the same about 11p.m." Round Lake is 19 miles northnorthwest of Prospect Heights —the direction in which the object hadvanished.No followup of Mrs.Sohns UFOsighting was undertaken at the timebut one year later, in early May,1975, the Center sent me a copy ofher letter. I wrote to her on May12th, to inquire further about herobservation, and received her replyby return mail, in which she ex-pressed her willingness to cooperatein any way she could. An exchangeof letters followed over the courseofthe next two months and a first-handinvestigation was arranged throughthe Center with the witness, whileshe was in the Chicago area for thesummer. We are indebted to Cap-tain Robert Runser, of the Center forUFO Studies, who conducted hisinquiries over a period of weeksduring the summer of 1975, theresults of which form the basis forthis report.Mrs. Sohn wrote to Dr. Hynekthat her sighting had occurred in thelate spring of 1955, but after check-ing with her former neighbors inProspect Heights, she determinedthat the ground inthe vacant lot overwhich the object had hovered wasbroken for the building of a newhouse in October of 1953; she there-fore concluded that the most prob-able date for her sighting was May1952.A search of microfilm copies ofthe Chicago Tribune was made in aneffort to locate the newspaper articlethat reported the Round Lake sight-ing, but that search was confined to1955; no search was made for 1952,for in a letter to me dated June 23,1975, Mrs. Sohn wrote the follow-ing:You mentioned your having some one checkthe Chicago Tribune of that time in yourlibrary. I hardly believe youll find it there, asmy husband worked in the Press Room at theTribune and he always brought home theFinal 5-Star (Edition), of which only a min-imum were printed, to be released in ChicagoLoop. None of these Finalswent anywhere, tomy knowledge, except the Loop. The paperwas the same except for last minutenews, andwent to press about 5 a.m.(Continued on next page)9
  • (Occupants, Continued)It was Mrs. Sohns belief that thecopies of the Tribune that were onmicrofilm in the library were notlikely to be the Final 5-Star editionthat had carried the news of theRound Lake sighting on its frontpage. Nonetheless, the Round Lakenewspaper story apparently madeits way into one of the early paper-back books on "flying saucers," forin her letter to me of May 23rd, shewrote the following:My brother showed me a book he had pur-chased, sometime within the-year (of thesighting), where it mentioned the UFO sight-ing in Round Lake, and the date. I will presshim further(to see) if by chance he still hasthe UFO books he was buying at the time.Although Ibelieve Ive asked him before, andhe said no. But it may have been more of acase of "brush off" at the time. IfIdo get any ofhis books, I will read and see if I can find thearticle and will forward the information toyou.A search of all available earlybooks on "flyingsaucers,"from Scullythrough Keyhoe to Gerald Heard,has failed to uncover Mrs. Sohnselusive reference to the sighting atRound Lake, Illinois.Ifany reader ofthis report can throw some light onthe matter, that would be most use-ful, as a record of the Round Lakesighting would properly date andcorroborate Mrs. Sohns own UFOreport. Her 1952 sighting, publishedhere for the first time, has beenprepared from Captain Runsers pre-liminary report of his extensive in-vestigation of 1975.The SightingOn an undetermined date inMay1952, Mrs.Ann Sohn put on a pot ofcoffee and looked at the clock.It was10:50 p.m. She walked into the rearbedroom of her one-story ranch-style home to look in on her chil-dren, David and Lois, to see if theywere covered and to check the win-dows. It was a pleasant evening andthe air felt so refreshing that she saton the foot of her sons bed to gazeout of the window at the stars. Thesky was very clear.After about a minute, Mrs.Sohnsattention wasdrawn bya bright lighttoward the right,and shewasamazedto see a brightly-glowing, round ob-10ject hovering over the vacant lotnext door. The bedroom windowfaced the north and the lotwas to theeast of her home.There wasa screenon the window and Mrs.Sohn pressedher face against it to more closelyobserve the object, most of whichshe was able to see except for theextreme right portion, which wasobscured bythe corner ofher house.The object, about 30 to 40 feet indiameter, was self-luminous andhovered absolutely motionless about100 feet (or "two telephone poles")above the lotfor aperiod offrom 3to5 minutes. It made no sound. Frombeneath the object,toward the left or"front end," emerged a cloud ofsteam or vapor that drifted slowlyalong the bottom toward the right,giving the UFO an appearance ofsitting atop a cloud. Mrs. Sohn wasunable to tell where the vapor camefrom, seeing neither pipes nor anyother type of opening. Because theobject was above the level of thewindow, she could determine that itwas round and not cigar-shaped.Along the sideofthe objectwasarow of about 15 square windowsand just below the windows was aline which Mrs. Sohn described as aseam, where the top and bottomportions were connected. Atthe topof the object was a dome whichappeared to be made of plastic orplexiglass. The entire object glowedwith a bright white light except forthe windows, most of which weredark, and the dome, which had apale bluish cast similar to "the colorof the blue haze of a distant land-scape." Mrs. Sohns impression wasthat the dome was illuminated bythe reflected light of the rest of theUFO. Two faint vertical objects, likepoles, were visible inside the dome.(See cover for artists rendition byTed Jacobs.)Not all of the visible windowswere dark: at the far right, or "rearend," were three windows lit fromwithin by an intense white light.Theremainder ofthe windows were dark,except for some dim blue reflectionfrom the glow of the UFO. Inside ofeach of the three illuminated win-dows Mrs. Sohn saw a "crewman."In the window at the left, as well asthe central window, the occupantsseemed to be looking out of thewindows, in the direction of thewitness; the third figure, in the win-dow to the right, was seen in profileand stood motionless, appearing tostudy a panel of dials or instrumentson the wall beforehim; he remainedmotionless for the duration of thesighting.Mrs. Sohn tried to awaken herson by nudging him but he remainedfast asleep. Her father was asleep inanother part of the house but shewas unwillingto yellout to him andreluctant to leave the window forfear that when they returned, theobject would have departed. Herhusband was, of course, at work.As Mrs. Sohn wondered what todo, the figure in the window at theleft made a sharp motion with hisright hand, as if he were pushingforward some type oflever; as he didthis, the vapor underneath the UFOincreased. Almost at the same mo-ment, he pulled backward on an-other lever with his left hand, andthe color ofthe vapor changed fromwhite to green, with flecks oforange,then to orange with a few remainingstreaks ofgreen. Immediately follow-ing this, the figure in the centralwindow pushed a leverforward withhis right hand and the entire ship,except for the darkened windowsand the dome, turned a brilliantreddish-orange color, and departedin a shallow climb to the north at an"intense speed," with no apparentacceleration. It shot away at such aphenomenal velocity,Mrs. Sohn said,that it was out of sight within asecond or two.Itmadeno sound, leftbehind no vapor, and emitted novapor trail in its wake.The three occupants were dressedsimilarly, wearing what Mrs. Sohndescribed as a kind of jumpsuit orcoverall with hoods or headpieces,showing only the face, and appear-ing to be part ofthe suit.She thereforesaw no hair nor ears on the men. Thewhite light from the interior was sointensely bright that it was difficultfor her to make out features on themens faces; nor could she see the(Continued on page 12)
  • CHICAGOAND VICINITY0 I I I 4 1 » I IOno Inch euuflli approximately C.9 mllil©HAND MtHALLV t» CO.Round Lake, toward whichthe UFO departedProspect Heights, Home ofMrs. Ann SohnMETTB Center for UFO Studies-p0><0nwO0)O•6co,• House 1 House _ ,, , T ,1f Immediate Locale1, of Sighting,1^ | Prospect Heights,1ly | Illinois, Direction &Telephone of |Pole Departure ^<1 *1 ^Position of ! 1*Mrs. Sohn at /" "N. K^window. | / ^ ^Sohn g «, — Ay,.Home ^ *. LS House House- « * Vacant *Ci 1 „ *, Lot 4 "" #308 g * 7West Willow* , 1Willow Road11
  • (Occupants, Continued)hands of any of the "crewmen," asthey were visible onlyfrom the upperchest and shoulders. She saw noother occupants inside the objectand the only other thing she couldsee inside besides the figures wasthe panel of instruments in front ofthe figure at the right. He appearedto be further back from the windowthan the other two and never movedan inch. Because the object departedtowards the north, Mrs.Sohn assumedJhe.north end was the "front," andshe was puzzled why the three"crewmen" were in the rearmostportion of the UFO.AftereffectsThere were several aftereffectsthat were noticed following Mrs.Sohns experience but she did notimmediately connect them to theappearance of the UFO. Their causemay or may not have been due to theclose proximity of the object.1. During the previoussummer(1951), the owner of the lot plantedgarlic on the property. During thefollowing spring, much garlic hadgrown up among the usualweeds inthe lot. Mrs. Sohn had, in fact, justpicked some garlic prior to her UFOsighting. Very shortly after her ex-perience she sent her son next doorto get another garlic bulb, and hewas unable to locate any. Mrs. Sohnexamined the lot herself and wasamazed to discover that all of thegarlic was gone; in addition, theweeds had dried up and were lyingon the ground in the area overwhichthe UFO had hovered. The circleofdead weeds was about 25 feet indiameter; weeds at the front andrear ends of the lot were normal.2. Shortly after her sighting, allten of Mrs. Sohns rose bushes onthe east side of her house, adjacentto the vacant lot, had died. Theywere all coming along nicely, withthe rest of the spring growth; Mrs.Sohn prided herself on the care ofher roses and she could not accountfor their loss.3. On the day following her UFOsighting, Mrs. Sohn noticed that thepainted trimming on the east sideof12her house was blistered, althoughthe trim on the rest of the houseappeared to be unaffected.The mainsiding on the house was aluminumand was not affected.4. During the previous year, Mrs.Sohns neighbors on the east sideofthe vacant lot had planted a row ofevergreen trees along the propertyline adjacent to the lot; all of thesetrees died following Mrs. Sohnssighting.While she did not associate anyof the effects with her UFO sightingat the time, Mrs. Sohn began towonder aboutthem astimewore on.During her observation, she had notbeen aware of any heat or othersimilar effects, nor did she see any-one descend to the ground — al-though this could have happened inthe area immediately east of herhouse, which was not visible fromher position at the window in therear of her home.The area of the sighting is resi-dential, characterized by one-story,ranch-style homes whichare setbackabout 50 feet from the street. Thelots are about 122 feet wide by 186feet deep, and the land is level.Palwaukee Airport, a small privatefield, is about 4 miles northeast ofMrs. Sohns former home. At thetime of her sighting, a NIKE basewas located a few miles west ofProspect Heights. The Great LakesNaval Air Station is situated 6 milesto the east, and Chicagos OHareField is 8 miles south-southwest.Mrs. Sohn, awidowat the timeofthe 1975 investigation, spent win-ters in Florida with her sons familyand summers in the Chicago areawith her daughter and her family. Inresponding to my initial inquiries,Mrs. Sohn was always helpful andcooperative. During Captain Runserson-site investigations, she was noless willingto provide all the assist-ance she could.The experiencewhichshe has so carefully described mustbe added to the growing list ofunexplained UFO events witnessedat close range..In his preliminary report, Cap-tain Runser describes Mrs. Sohn asfollows: "She is an intelligent, edu-cated woman, and was trained as aregistered nurse. She likes to readbut never read much about UFOs,with the exception of a book byMajor Donald E.Keyhoe and one byGeorge Adamski.Mrs. Sohnsmem-ory and powers of observation areexcellent and she was very coopera-tive in answering all questions."Two SimilarContemporary EventsSeveral month later, in August1952, at least two other events tookplace, each having certain aspectsofremarkable similarity tq^Mrs. Sohnsclose encounter. The summer of1952 was, of course, a major waveperiod.• AtSeat Pleasant, Maryland,a Washington, D.C. suburb, about9:30 p.m., Mrs. Suzanne E. Knight,then about 19,heard abuzzing soundoutdoors. Looking out her kitchenwindow, she saw an objecthoveringabove the street light across thestreet; it was shaped like an airplanefuselage, dull silver in color, with thinwhite smoke coming out the rear end. Ona small mast at the front was a smallredlight. Through a row of large squarewindows, brilliantly lighted, she couldsee something like a row of cabinets withslanted tops and, to her left, in "thefront," a helmeted man looking straightahead. He never moved a muscle all thewhile he was in view. No controls orinstruments were visible, and he wasseen only from the upper chest andshoulders. Beneaththe fuselagewasakind ofgondola with more windows,showing what appeared to be rowsof little seats. Mrs. Knight tried invain to call the newspaper; when shegot back to the window, the "man"was gone and the gondola had dis-appeared. Then the interior lightswent out and the object began to glowred, as if red-hot,and to rock from sideto side. She left the window again,this time to call her relatives, but theobject had departed when she gotback.1• OnAugust 25, at 5:30 a.m.,William Squyres was driving toworkat a radio station in Pittsburg,Kansas,when he saw an object hovering 10feet over a field off the road to hisright. He stopped his carand gotout.The UFOwas hovering with a slight
  • By Ann DruffelAn Open Letter to Dr. Carl SaganSeveral monthsago, asmall groupof Los Angeles researchers werevisited by a production assistant for"Cosmos," a new TVseries featuringDr. Carl Sagan. "Cosmos"wasat thattime in the throes of production.Our members, being from differentscientific fields and professions, weredelighted to learn that Sagan hadbeen given this chance to use histalents in a program which wouldmake science palatable and under-standable to a fascinated, far-rangingpublic.One thing worried us, however.(Occupants, Continued)rocking motion and was silver-greyin color, about 75feet long, similar inappearance to two deep platters placedrim-to-rim. There were several largesquare windows in the mid-section,through which movement could beseen against a blue light; throughanother square window at the front (tohis left), Squyres could see the headand shoulders of a man,staring motion-less straight ahead. The object thendeparted abruptly, disappearing inavertical ascent in a matter of seconds.It made a sound like "a covey ofquail," and left a backwash of windthat depressed the grass in the areaover which the object had hovered.The Air Force lists the Squyres caseas "unexplained."2NOTES1. NICAP case file, investigated in 1968 byRon Andrukitis, of the Washington, D.C.NICAP Subcommittee, and .published inNICAPs UFOs: A New Look (1969), pp. 26-27.2. Project Bluebook case file (in HSG files),investigated by OSI Special Agent G.E.Swine-hart, 5th Office District,USAF. This case hasbeen published in numerous books, mostrecently and completelyin Dr.]:AllenHyneksThe Hynek UFO Report (Dell, 1977), pp. 200-203.We were all aware of Carl Saganspenchant for actingthe role of "UFOexpert" and, in that role, negatingand clouding the UFO issue. Werejoiced with the young gentlemansgood fortune at being associatedwith "Cosmos." However, we alsotook the time to ask him if Sagan(and/or his producers) were think-ing of including a segment on UFOsin their "Cosmos" plans.Rather reluctantly, he said thatCarl had plans on that order but thathe was not aware of the details ofthose plans. Further discussion re-vealed that he did not know ofSagans sardonic attitudetoward theUFO subject. He seemed surprisedthat any grouphavingmembers whoseinterests ranged from acoustical re-search to immunology of cancerwould regard Carl Sagan as defi-cient in any aspect ofscience. It tookus a few minutes to explain why weregarded Carl Sagan as a ratherviolent foe of UFO research, whohad not even accepted the fact thatreputable scientists were enteringthe field in large numbers. Our dis-cussion ended with the followingwarning to Sagans young assistant."Tell Carl Sagan that if he tries hisexpert act regarding UFOs on "Cos-mos" and does as bad a job as he hasdone heretofore on the subject,thathes going to get a lot of static!""Cosmos"began itsseries a whileago, and people were enthralled byits superior production -qualities —exquisite scripts, inspired photo-graphy, thorough research, delight-ful topics, flashes of gentle humor,and its personable host performingin hisbest Saganish manner. "Cosmos"was a gem to be anticipated andappreciated:Until Sunday, December 14,1980.Grab your earmuffs, Dr. Sagan. Thestatic begins.Sagan began the December 14thprogram with his best mellow voiceand perky manner, discussing thepossibility of extraterrestriallife, ofwhich he has always been a propo-nent. Suddenly, he launched intothe subject of UFOs, warning hisviewers that they must regard UFOclaims with rigorous and skepticalscrutiny, keeping in mind that whatis importantisnot what the witnessesclaim, but rather what can be sup-ported by hard evidence. Extraor-dinary claims, he cautioned, requireextraordinary evidence.Sagan might have borrowed thesestatements from those who, for thepast 33 years, have been battingtheir heads against stone walls, sift-ing through the maze of UFOs, con-fused statements, and incompletedocumentation in order to glean thefew cases that do present extraor-dinary evidence that something ex-traordinary is going on —that UFOs,whatever they are, do exist.So far, so good. Sagan had not saidanything unacceptable as yet; but inthe very next sentence he revertedtounreasoned skepticism. Asaspottedleopard, Carl still had the markingsof his breed. Acting the role of "UFOexpert" to the fullest, he stated flatlythat he thought the UFOsubject hadmore to do with religion arid super-stition than with science.His voice droned on, each sen-tence adding proof that Carl Saganevidently has done no original re-search on the UFO subject and,worse still, continues to reject all thework done by his fellow scientists.Perhaps he is not even aware of thegrowing piles of scientific papers onthe subject.1The sheer numbers of(Continued on next page)13
  • (Calif. Report, Continued)errors of fact he made during thenext 5 minutes made me wonderwhether these errors aredue to poorresearch by his assistants, by inac-curate writing, or by his own pre-judices. Whatever —they are errorsand, as such, will be listed here:1. ERROR: Sagan stated that inthe Betty and Barney Hill case, bothwitnesses saw, from their car, aliencreatures within a large UFO whichhad been following them." -FACT: According to an in-depthstudy ofthis case2, no alien creatureswere seen by Betty Hill in the first,conscious part of the Hill sighting.Barney viewed the alien entitiesthrough binoculars only after healighted from his carand approachedacross a field toward the huge,hovering object.2. ERROR: Sagan indicated thatthe Hills consciously rememberedthe craft blocking the road and thecreatures approaching, preventingthem from driving on.FACT: After Barney viewed thecreatures in the craft, he jumpedfrightened into the car and begandriving away.A series ofbeeps wereheard by both witnesses and an odd,tingling drowsiness came over them.rwOOSome time later, the beepingSome time later, the beeping soundwas heard again, and they foundthemselves 35 miles south of theencounter site. They had no consciousmemory of the aliens in the road.33. ERROR: Sagan stated thatwhenthe craft and creatures blocked theroad, the time lapse set in, prevent-ing the Hills from remembering whathappened next (until the memorieswere recovered through hypnoticregression.)FACT: Aspointed out above, theamnesia experienced bythe Hillssetin between the two series of beeps.44. ERROR: "Virtually all scien-tists who have studied the Hill case,"continued Sagan, "are skeptical ofit,but UFO enthusiasts regard it as a.classical example of a close encounterof the third kind."14FACT: Many scientists regardthe Hill case as a good example of aclose-encounter report encompassingthe so-called "abduction scenario"within it. It is,therefore, regarded inthe field as a close encounter of thefourth kind. As for his remark about"UFO enthusiasts," Sagan did notdefine what he meant by this term,and therefore I cannot judge thisparticular statement with proper ob-jectivity. All I can say is to state asdispassionately as possible thatUFOresearchers and investigators who havestudied the Hill case recognize thatthis isprobably the first documentedexample of a so-called CE-IV.However, since the term "UFOenthusiast" has a definite sardonicand patronizing ring, letus digressamoment and attempt to discoverwhy Sagan used it. In a way, it issimilar to the term, "UFO buff,"which is widely used by other skep-tics such as Phil Mass and RobertSheaffer. "Buff," as defined by Web-ster, means "a fan or enthusiast."Researchers are not "fans" of UFOs.They are, rather, investigators, hun-ters, and trackers of the elusive ob-jects. They would like nothing morethan to dispose of unidentified flyingobjects once and for all! There is nosatisfaction in the chase, only in thecompletion.Sagans term "UFO enthusiast"seems equally inaccurate. "Enthu-siast," according to Webster, is "aperson filled with enthusiasm." "En-thusiasm" means "to be inspired,""Belief in special revelations of theHoly Spirit," "religious fanaticism,""inspiring zeal or fervor," and"passion."None of the above synonymsand meanings correctly describe thedispassionate objectivity displayedby the majority of UFO researchers.Many ofus are pressured by curiosityto investigate a neglected but appar-ently all-pervasive phenomenon. Eventhose persons whose profession in-cludes religious pursuits are objec-tive in their study of UFOs. Zeal andfervor, likewise, are sadly lackingamong us; we are much too tiredand frustrated by repeated failuresto be zealous about our work. Anyfervor we might feel is quicklyquenched by the loss ofenergy, timeand personal funds which we throwyear after year into a seeminglybottomless pit. The few meager tri-umphs we enjoy are attained at theexpense of our health, our familieswelfare, and our personal bank ac-counts.However, if Sagan equates UFOresearchers and investigators withthe term "UFO enthusiast," it nowmakes sense why he regards theUFO subject as "having to do morewith religion and superstition thanwith science." In his own way heattains a weird kind of logic, on thispoint at least.We have digressed enough fromour discussion. Back to Sagans"Cosmos" errors.5. ERROR: In discussing the "starmap" associated with the Hill case,Sagan asked offhandedly why any-one would take it seriously? Heanswers his own question by statingthat some of the same (undefined)"UFO enthusiasts" havewidelypub-lished a similar map — that is, aconfiguration of actualstars —bear-ing a marked resemblance to Bettysmap.FACT: Reputable scientists, in-cluding Dr. David Saunders andStanton Friedman, havelaboriouslyconcluded, by more than one set ofproofs, that the Hill map seems to bean adequate replication ofthe positionof certain planet-bearing stars in ournearby area of the galaxy.6In thatparticular part of our galactic neigh-borhood, all the stars depicted inboth the Hill and researchers mapsare recorded by astronomers as thetype which would be logically ac-companied by planets, and that oneplanet for each star would logicallyhave a proper ecological environ-ment for the emergence of intelli-gent life as we know it.6. ERROR: Sagan, in pointingout that some stars on Betty Hillsmap were not even catalogued untilyears after she allegedly viewed themon the alien map aboard the craft,was holding this map for visual em-phasis. However, instead of pointingto the group of three stars aboutwhich he wasspeaking, Sagan pointedto the two stars in the Zeta Reticuli
  • (Calif. Report, Continued)system — two close-together starswhich have been long known toastronomers. The three stars he wasverbally describing were on the otherside of the map graphic and weretotally ignored by him during thisentire discussion.7. ERROR: Sagan madereferenceto the "navigation lines" which hadallegedly been seen by Betty Hillbetween the "stars" on the mapaboard the UFO, and which hadbeen replicated onto the duplicatemap by Marjorie Fish, the researcherwho did the original work on theHill map. He stated, "If some otherset of lines is substituted, the eye issuddenly biased against seeing anysimilarity between the two maps atall." Suiting action to the word (thistime), he showed two sample mapsin which different lines had beendrawn between the "stars."FACT: This illogic is unworthyof a man of Carl Sagans intellectualcapacity. When trying to prove thattwo leopards were members of thesame species, biologists of old didnot try to confoundtheir research bydying one leopards pelt so that thespots showed pink, while the otherleopard was permitted to remain hisnatural color. Evidently, whateverwas responsible for the Hill exper-ience induced Betty to see certainlines drawn between different spotsof light (stars). Researchers into themeaning of this "map" had to workwith the sketch Betty provided them.Scientists and other researchers haveno right to change essential facts,merely to prove that an observationcannot be true.8. ERROR: Sagan stated that thestars in the Fish map were "pickedand chosen" from a large number ofavailable stars, hinting that this wasdeliberately done in order to obtaina match with the Hill map.FACT: Sagan did not mentionthat the stars chosen by MarjorieFish were all the potential planet-bearing stars within a certain dis-tance of earth. The researchers whoproduced the "match" with the Hillmap worked only with the factsavailable to them. Carl Sagan does1981 UFOCONFERENCES1981 UFO Conferences SecondLondon International UFOCongress, May24-25.Speakers include David Haisell(Canada), Dr. Bruce S. Maccabee(United States), Bertil Kuhlemann(Sweden), Stuart Campbell (Scot-land), Charles Bowen (England).Exhibition, documentary film, dis-cussion panels. Sponsored byBritishUFO Research Association. Informa-tion: BUFORA, 6 Cairn Ave., LondonW5 SHY, England.APRO UFOHIO 81, June 5-7.Marriott Inn-Airport, 4277 West150th St., Cleveland, OH 44135.Theme: "The Case for Aliens." Ten-tative speaker list: Dr. R.Leo Sprinkle,Stanton T. Friedman, Dr. DanielHarris, Dr. Peter Van Arsdale, Dr.John S. Derr. Sponsored by AerialPhenomena Research Organization.Information: APRO, 3910 East Klein-dale Rd., Tucson, AZ 85712.Tarheel UFO TrainingConference, June 20-21.Location, time, fee to be announced.Emphasis on training of investiga-tors, with general information forattending public. Sponsored byTar-heel UFOStudy Group and MUFON-N.C. Speakers include Allan Hendry,Tom Deuley, Richard Hall, WayneLaPorte, George Fawcett. Informa-tion: Gayle McBride, P.O. Box 46,Winston-Salem, N.C. 27102.MUFON UFO Symposium, July24-26Kresge Auditorium,M.I.T., Cambridge(Boston), Mass.Theme: "UFOs: TheHidden Evidence." Hosted byMUFON of Massachusetts. Speakersinclude Dr. J. Allen Hynek, TedPhillips, Ron Westrum, Dr. BarryDowning,-Budd Hopkins, A. Clamar,Peter Gersten, Lt. Col. LawrenceCoyne, Stanton T. Friedman. Infor-mation: MUFON, 103 Oldtowne Rd.,Seguin, TX 78155.Center for UFO StudiesResearch Conference,September 25-27.Theme: "The ScientificExaminationof the UFO Phenomenon." At aChicago-area hotel, to be announced.Speakers to be announced. CUFOShas issued a call for papers, deadlineJune 30,1981. Information: CUFOS,P.O. Box 1402, Evanston, IL 60204.not. In the UFO field, he picks andchooses — as far as his limitedknowledge of the subject will allow— only those statements, innuen-does, and incomplete facts whichfithis thesis, his thesisbeing that "UFOsare bunk."9. ERROR: Sagan stated the Hillencounter istouted byUFO research-ers as "the best attested case of UFOclose encounters."FACT: Although the Hill en-counter is considered a classic case,it is only one of hundreds of suchreported, documented encounters,all of which seem to present someevidence that something unexplainedis happening. Although no closeencounter HI or IV by itself presentsproof positive, the total of all suchcases, reported by reliable and saneindividuals, does present overwhelm-ing evidence that the phenomenonis real.Sagan dispatched the entire UFOquestion within 5 minutes. Slough-ing off the subject so summarily, hegave the distinct impression thatUFOs were not worthy of more thanpassing mention. I would hope thatthese few flashes of "static" are notthe only public reaction Saganreceives. I would hope that receiv-ing static from many sources —scientists, researchers, and lay lis-teners alike —Carl Sagan willbeginto take a second look at UFOs. Sincehe is obviously a man ofintelligenceand sensitivity,a logicalappeal to hissense of fair play might yield positiveresults.NOTES1. Too voluminous to give representationhere,but for example: see THE PROCEEDINGSOF THE 1980 MUFON SYMPOSIUM,withscientific papers on UFO technology.2. THE INTERRUPTED JOURNEY, by JohnG. Fuller, The Dial Press, New York, 1966specifically pp. 15-16.3. op. cit, pp. 16-17.4. op. cit., p. 17.5. "The Zeta Reticuli Incident," 32-page re-print of original December 1974 ASTRON-OMY article and subsequently publishedarticles.15
  • LettersCorrectionEditor,I write to thank you for giving somuch space to my modest bookUFOs — The Greatest Mystery.. .Theonly shortcoming of the review (No.152, October 1980) was the verypardonable one of not realizing thatin this country, ifnot in yours, Hilaryis a name given to boys as well asgirls, and I have to say that Iam aMr.and not a Ms., Hilary EvansLondon, England(Editors reply: Mr. Evanshasreceivedour apologies. He has a new bookscheduled for publication this yearentitled Intrusions: Society and theParanormal. He also expressed appre-ciation for the global outlook of theJournal, something we hope to ex-pand on and has granted permissionfor reprinting his article on abduc-tion cases which will appear in theApril issue.)Paraphysical ControversyEditor,In his report, "The Extraterres-trial-Paraphysical Controversy: ACommunication" (No. 153, Novem-ber 1980), Mr. Budd Hopkins takesme to task for my views on theParaphysical (vs. Extraterrestrial)nature of UFO occupants and ab-ductors. I would like to brieflyrespond.Are we entitled to set limits forhow UFO beings behave? Mr. Hop-kins believes not and this is a per-fectly acceptable stance to take. ButIthink a case could be made for theopposite position. UFO occupantsusually resemble us; this is especi-ally true of the beings who oftenengineer UFOabductions. They alsohave a technology which seems tobe an extension of ours — that is,they apparently use metal and flytheir craft in an intelligent manner.These factors might lead one tosuggest that these beings shouldthink and behave something like us aswell. They should at least think ra-tionally and laterally. Butthey dont.Interactions with UFO occupants are16often absurd and metalogical. Theonly conclusion one can reach is theUFO occupants look humanoid butdont think humanoid. This makesno biological sense, since there isconsiderable evidence that thoughtprocesses are probably geneticallyprogrammed.So just how do UFO abductorsbehave? As I point out in my recentanthology, UFO Abductions, theycommunicate through absurdities,space-time incongruities, and sym-bols. This also just happens to be theway that our own dreams speak tous. This couldnt all be merely coin-cidence and indicates that "alien"beings are somehow linked to ourminds. While investigating (withAnn Druffel) the abductions andcontacts which constitute the "TujungaCanyon Contacts," I was struck byhow often the reports we were gain-ing from our witnesses resembledhuman dreams — and usually con-tained symbolic reflections encap-sulating their own psychosexualconcerns and conflicts. This hardlyfits in with the idea that they wereabducted by alien beings from an-other planet! I note too that BuddHopkins totally ignores this vitalpiece of data — upon which theunraveling of the Tujunga CanyonContacts rests — in his report. Icertainly do not deny that thereexists a technological aspect to theUFO mystery; anyone who doesmust be very naive indeed. But anyultimate explanation for UFOs musttake into consideration the veryhuman and psychological elementsof this mystery.I would also like to comment onmy concept of "The Phenomenon"which Mr. Hopkins blatantly mis-represents to his readers and tries toequate with Vallees concept of a"control system." Contrary to whatMr. Hopkins suggests, there isnothing metaphysical about my useof this term. I am merely postulatingthe existence of an X-factor in theuniverse — nature unknown —which produces the UFO mystery.The term "The Phenomenon" istotally neutral. Byreinterpreting thenature ofthis agency, Mr- Hopkins ismerely demonstrating an unfortu-nate bias.In conclusion, I have no a prioribias against the extraterrestrialhypothesis I have just found thatthis explanation simply doesnt fitthe evidence and stories about UFOsI have either read about or investi-gated. I would also remind Mr.Hopkins, and readers of this reply,that a theory can only be consideredtruly scientific if it can be experi-mentally tested. Any other theory ismerely a lapse into metaphysics. Inmy UFO Abductions, I outline how-my theories about the nature of theUFO abduction syndrome is, in fact,testable. I wonder if promoters ofthe extraterrestrial hypothesis wouldbe willing to do the same?D. Scott RogoEditor,After reading this article I mustask myself if Mr. Hopkins is the DonRickles or Bennett Cerf of the UFOmedia before I can even begin un-ravelling this crazy-quilt article.How many close encounters hasHopkins had? Has he had any CE-IIIs? From the way Mr. Hopkinspresents his view Iassume hes had a"CE-IX" —the abduction and returnof Hopkins was so entirely success-ful that hes returned as a walking-talking cryptogram, who, being soexpertly enciphered, cannot locatehis own key!Mr. Hopkins concludes "...it willbe easier for us to invent and polishearthly, though paranormal or evenquasi-religious explanations forwhat we observe than to understandthe technologies, values, andmethods of another world." Prior tothis conclusion Mr. Hopkins makesit abundantly clear that he may him-self be inhumane, untouchable,aboveour concepts of good and evil, andhas placed himself atop the pillar inthe Center of the "Cosmic ControlSystem," and qualified himself arepresentative of the "clockwork-gone-awry" mechanism itself!Timothy Lee King(Note: The letters above were sub-mitted by Associate Editor AnnDruffel, author of "California Re-
  • (Letters, Continued)port," on behalf of two of her col-leagues.)Editor,Budd Hopkins article is a breathof fresh logic and a reminder thatultimately we must understand theUFO phenomenon in terms ofhuman intelligence, not humansuperstition; in terms of scientificreasoning, not magical short-cuts.We need to rethink and inter-nalize a fact which we know, at leastin the periphery of our thinking:When confronted with advancedscience from another culture,humankind almost invariably con-cludes that the supernatural hasarrived, wielding wondrous miraclesand awesome punishments. Ther>araphysical conclusion presentssimilar faulty thinking: nuts and boltsUFOs, with extraterrestrials at thehelm, are not capable of the tech-nical gymnastics reported. Para-physical proponentsalso apparentlyconclude that if an encounter in-volves telepathy, psychokinesis, orevidence of other psi abilities, it doesnot involve biological extraterres-trial beings.Paranormal aspects to cases canbe explained in terms of beings withminds advanced beyond our mindsby a few hundred or thousand years.We humans are beginning to under-stand our psychic abilities in ration-al, scientific terms and this under-standing may eventually lead todeveloping these abilities. There isno hocus pocus involved in this stepforward for humanity, nor is thereanything magical about beings whohave developed these abilities al-ready.There is no guidebook whichsays that they cannot be from otherstellar worlds simply because theremight be paranormal aspects tosome cases. Why must humankindimmediately jump back into the oldhabit of assuming that advancedtechnology is evidence of super-natural beings?It seems very reasonable to as-sume that the beings inside UFOswill walk up and introduce them-selves on the day that humansrealize that we are their equals assolid, sentient lifeforms. On that day,perhaps we will have maturedenough to go out into a galaxy teem-ing with sentient life without givingin to our old disgusting habits ofgroveling before gods and chasingwitches and demons. We are capableof intelligence!I dont pretend to have access tothat handbook of Alien Visitors froma Distant Galaxy either, that wouldsay when extraterrestrials wouldcome on down and shake hands. Tomake conclusions from a non-existent handbook on Alien Natureis an error in scientific investigation.Thank you, Mr. Hopkins, forremind-ing us all of this important fact.Diane TessmanSt Petersburg, Ha.Rebuttal to Sagan and HopkinsEditor,Despite those who deny thevalidity of UFO reports, the subjectremains as mysterious and asworthy of scientific investigationtoday as itwas 30 years ago.Nothingis known for certain. Those whopush one explanationat the expenseof others do so by examining bitsand pieces and ignoring the overallpicture.In a recent episode of "Cosmos"entitled "Encyclopedia Galactica,"Carl Sagan took a cursory look at theUFO phenomenon and determinedit to be without substance. Arbitrarilychoosing the abduction of Betty andBarney Hill as being one of the bestcases, he then implied that theirexperience was either a hoax or anhallucination. From this single in-cident he concluded that UFOs areunworthy of serious attention.Dr. Sagan obviously chose thiscase because it may very well havebeen hallucinatory. Also hiscriticismthat almost any stars may be made toconform to the map observed byMrs. Hill is valid. (Not accordingtoDr. David Saunders, Walter N.Webb,Stanton Freidman and others. —Editor) However, the Hill abductionis certainly not the best nor the mosttypical of UFO sightings. Surely theExeter sightings or that of LonnieZamora would have been fairerchoices.Further, Sagan banishes UFOsfrom the realm of science altogetherby stating they belong more to therealm of religion and superstition.We would do well to remember,however, that science is not a singleentity. It is a collection of intellectualtools used by man to discover thetruth about himself and his world.With these tools he can investigateany subject, even those consideredreligious. After all, surely no onetoday believes that science and reli-gion are irreconcilable opposites?We can perhaps forgive those,like Carl Sagan, who speak fromincomplete knowledge. But whatabout those active UFO researcherswho refuse to consider any theoryother than their own? Budd Hop-kins in his article "The Extraterres-trial — Paraphysical Controversy: ACommunication," (No. 153, No-vember 1980) attacks the para-physical theory without, however,supplying any evidence for the ex-traterrestrial theory which hechampions.Hopkins states that those whoadvocate the paraphysical theoryclaim that UFOs do not behave as weexpect alien visitors to act. He ispartially correct in retorting that wehave no way of knowing how extra-terrestrials would indeed acttowardus. Itis not illogical, though to expectthem to act rationally. UFOs, for themost part, do not display rationalbehavior. After having supposedlytraveled untold light-years to Earth,they spend their time buzzing air-craft, performing acrobatics, andfrightening our people. They actlikemischievous children, spirits, or theproducts of the unconscious mind.The evidence for either theory isinconclusive and its really not thatimportant what one believes UFOsare. What is essential is that onekeep an open mind and examineallthe facts. Thats what true science isall about.Kim L. NeidighSan Antonio, Texas17
  • (Directors Message, Continued)type of UFO questions from the"call-in" audience. These men are tobe commended for their brilliantfielding of questions and the scienti-fic confidence which they instilled inthe audience.Larry Kingannouncedthe address of MUFON on sevenoccasions duringthe 3-hourprogram.We have been literally flooded withfavorable mail from peopleinterestedin joining the Mutual UFO Networkand subscribing to the Journal.The third edition of MUFONsFieldInvestigators Manual, to beavailable early in 1982, will be up-dated to include state-of-the-art tech-niques such as photo analysis bycomputer enhancement, and hyp-notic regression as tools for UFOresearch. Specialized sections willbe revised by the authors of thesecond edition published in 1975.This announcementis an invitationto membersto submit material whichthey feel would be appropriate forinclusion in the new manual. Dr.Richard Haines and Wayne Laportehave already submitted material thatwill be used. Dr. Haines has special-ized in pilot UFO sightings, there-fore he plans to prepare a newsighting report form and a sectioninthe manual devoted to this phase.All proposed papers and revi-sions should be mailed to MUFONby September 1,1981, so the editor,Raymond E.Fowler, MUFON Directorof Investigations, and MUFON mayedit, produce, and publish our newmanual. We still havea small supplyof our current manuals which arereadily available at existing prices.Obviously, the new manual will costconsiderably more than our presentmanual due to inflation during thepast 5 years. The MUFON FieldInvestigators Manual has beenadopted as the standard in manyEnglish-speaking nations. The Cen-ter for UFO Studies has distributedour manual since its inception toCUFOS investigators.We have been advised by Dr. J.Allen Hynek, ScientificDirector, andJohn Timmerman, Chairman of theCUFOS Board of Directors, con-cerning major changes in the organ-ization ofthe Center for UFO Studiesnecessitated by financial considera-tions. One of the most notable costreductions involved the closing oftheir offices at 1609 Sherman Ave.,Suite 207, Evanston, IL 60201 andtransferring the administrative officesto the residence of Dr. and Mrs. J.Allen Hynek in Evanston, Illinois.The mailing address of CUFOS isP.O. Box 1402, Evanston, IL 60204.Allan Hendry, CUFOSChief Investi-gator now living in Stone Mountain,Georgia, will be removed from thepayroll of CUFOS effective March1,1981, as well as the office secretary,Estelle Postol. Basically, Dr. Hynekwill head up the scientificand inves-tigative activities, whereas Mr.Timmerman will manage the busi-ness aspects. Ms. Paula Harris inBoulder, Colorado, plans to coor-dinate the CUFOS investigatorsunder the direction of Dr. Hynek.Mrs. Mimi Hynek will edit the annualJOURNAL OFUFO STUDIES insteadof Dr. Elaine Hendry. Further detailsof the reorganization will be pub-lished bythe Center for UFO Studies,Associate Newsletter and IUFOR inthe magazine "Frontiersof Science."All mail destined for John Timmer-man should be sent to CUFOS, P.O.Box 1621, Lima, Ohio 45802.Having operated MUFON since1969, your Director is very cogni-zant of the financial limitations of anot-for-profit corporation inthe fieldof UFOlogy. Since MUFONs incep-tion, the administrative offices havebeen provided rent-free to the or-ganization, by the Director whichincluded the heat, air conditioning,and lights. Our payroll consists oftwo people, an office manager/sec-retary and a part-time clerk. Every-one else in MUFON is a volunteer.The organization could not existwithout the fantastic fine work ofthese volunteers throughout theworld, who treat their personal ex-penditures as an avocation. We couldnot afford the luxury of a suite ofoffices and remain viable from afinancial position. We are indebtedto the wonderful people inMUFON,who have made the organizationwhat it is today.Financial problems have beenobstacles to all UFO organizationsthroughout the years. NICAP, oncethe largest and most active, suc-cumbed due tofinances,poor manage-ment, and external pressures. Jimand Coral Lorenzen, at AFRO, recog-nized these problems many yearsago and took preventive steps tokeep their overhead costs from be-coming excessive. CUFOS is nowrectifying their financial position sothat they may continue to be a viableorganization. When CUFOS wasorganized and first announced in1973 on the Dick Cavett TV show,MUFON was and still is the onlymajor UFO group to volunteer burcooperative support to the Centerfor UFO Studies. Dr. Hynek andJohn Timmerman fully recognizethis fact and are endeavoring toremove the stigma thatgives one theimpression of "a one-way street,"whenever material is submitted toCUFOS.A reduction in personnel in theCUFOS office obviously will notresolve this problem. UFO enthu-siasts around the world write toMUFON with personal requests forinformation that a staff of a dozencould not fulfil. We are thus sym-pathetic to the problems faced byCUFOS. In behalf of MUFON,CUFOS, and I am sure APRO aswell, we appeal to all of our mem-bers and subscribers to recognizeour limitations for services. It isinteresting to note that the mostdemanding people are non-memberswho want to write books, articles,research projects, and produce motionpictures, television or radio pro-grams.Some readers have noted thatthe APRO Bulletin has not beencurrent for many months. Due toMr. Lorenzens full time job and thepoor health ofMrs. Lorenzen, neitherhas been able to devote the timerequired to publish the bulletin orperform the numerous functions of(Continued on next page)18
  • Lucius Parishin OtherswordsAn article in the January 27issueof NATIONAL ENQUIRER quotesvarious UFO investigators on thepossibility that some UFOs are ac-tually living creatures of pure energywhich have been dubbed "zeroids."The February 3 issue of theENQUIRER features Bob Pratts re-port on November 1980 sightings ofUFOs in northern Missouri andKansas.James Obergs "UFO Update"column in the February issue ofOMNI rehashes the stories surround-ing astronauts sightings of UFOswhile on various space flights. Little,if anything, here that you haventread elsewhere.(Directors Message, Continued)former years. Allen Benz, AFROstaff librarian, is currently solicitingthe help of influential people inUFOlogy, who are members ofMUFON, CUFOS, and formerlyNICAP,"to assist APRO in leader-ship roles. This may be a difficulttask for Mr. Benz, because some ofthese people havebeen subjectedtosome very unfortunate and degrad-ing experiences when they weremembers of APRO many years ago.Jim and Coral have contributedimmensely to the field of UFOlogy,especially in the 1950s and 1960swith their books, that helped to keepinterest alive. 1981 may be the yearwhen the Board of Directorsof APROrecognize the advantages of coop-erating with CUFOS and MUFON,so as to present a united front to notonly the worldwide scientific com-munity, and UFOresearchersevery-where, but also to the few vocaldebunkers who obtain unwarrantedpublicity. This is a public invitationto the Boardof Directors of APROtoreconsider their isolationist attitudeand establish a cooperative rapportwith MUFON and CUFOS in thebest interest of UFOlogy. DThe 1981 UFO ANNUAL, fromthe publishers of UFO REPORT, ismade up almost entirely of articlesreprinted from past issues of themagazine. Nothing new, if youre aregular reader of UFO REPORT.What was originally called TRUEFLYING SAUCERS & UFOs, whichthen became TRUE UFOs & OUTERSPACE, is now TRUE OUTER SPACE& PARANORMAL WORLD. What-ever they call it, the #21 issue hasvery little of interest in it. One pos-sible exception is an "encore" articleby the late Edward Ruppelt, ori-ginally published in TRUE over 20years ago.The March issue of FATE hasPart 1 of George Barleys article,"Crashed Saucers and Pickled Aliens."Earley casts a skeptical eye at thereports of crashed alien ships beingtransported from the southwesternstates to Wright-Patterson Air ForceBase in Ohio. He contends that itwould have been virtually impos-sible to accomplish such atask byair,rail, or highway in the late 1940s orearly 1950s, when some of the re-trievals allegedly occurred. Part 2ofthe article will appear in the Aprilissue of the magazine.An article dealing with the "newwave" of UFO theories is featured inthe March issue of AMAZING. Itcontains a few errors, along withquotes from some UFO theoristswhose ideas are questionable, atbest.A brief look at recent and forth-coming books of possible interest:T.B. Pawlickis HOW TO BUILD AFLYING SAUCERhasbeenpublishedin a "Reward" paperback edition($6.95) by Prentice-Hall. Erich vonDanikens latest work, SIGNS OFTHE GODS, and Margaret SachsTHE UFO ENCYCLOPEDIA haverecently been released by G.P. Put-nams Sons. THE UFOCATALOGby Milt Machlin is out from QuickFox Publishers in a paperback edi-tion. Zecharia Sitchin, author ofTHE12TH PLANET, has a new book outfrom St. Martins Press, THE STAIR-WAY TO HEAVEN.Ronald D.StorysUFOs AND THE LIMITS OFSCIENCE is scheduled for Marchrelease from William Morrow. Alsocoming out in Marchfrom Macmillanis Greta Woodrews ON A SLIDEOF LIGHT, dealing with allegedcommunications from extraterres-trials. What promises to be an ex-ceptionally interesting book is Dr.Harley D. Rutledges PROJECTIDENTIFICATION, to be publishedby Prentice-Hall in a "Reward"paper-back edition in April, with a hard-cover edition slated for July. Also setfor July release is Budd Hopkinssbook, INVISIBLE EPIDEMIC, dealingwith UFO abductions cases. Thiswill be published under Putnams"Marek" imprint in hardcover.STAMPDONATIONSA stamp collector makes dona-tions to MUFON to support foreignexchange of UFO information inpro-portion to cancelled foreign stampsthat we provide to him.The programcontinues to be highly successful, andwe acknowledge recent stamp dona-tions from the following members/subscribers:Larry W. Bryant, Arlington, Va.;Cynthia Hind, Zimbabwe, Africa;Anders Liljegren.Norrkoping, Sweden;Barbara Mathey, Los Angeles, Calif.;W. L. Moore, Dewey, Ariz.; GreyWoodman, Clinton, Iowa; and A.U.M.,Austin, Texas.Additional stamp donations havebeen received from ChristopherCenti, Jamestown, N.Y.;Diane Tess-man, St. Petersburg, Fla.; and A.Thorpe, Culver City, Calif.Send cancelled foreign stamps inany quantity to Richard Hall, 441839th St., Brentwood, MD20722.19
  • DIRECTORS MESSAGE byWalt Andrus"UFOs: The Hidden Evidence"is the theme for our twelfth annualUFO symposium to be held July 24,25,and 26,1981 in the Kresge Audi-torium on the campus of the Massa-chusetts Institute of Technology(M.I.T.). Joe Santangelo, RegionalDirector, and MUFON of Massachu-setts will host our first symposium inthe Eastern Region. Program Chair-man, Miss Joan Thompson, has an-nounced the names of the featuredspeakers and their subject matter.The Keynote Speaker will be Dr. J.Allen Hynek, an overview and statusof the UFO phenomenon; Ted Phil-lips, UFO landing-trace cases; RonWestrum, sociology of UFOs; Rev.Barry Downing, religion and UFOs;Dr. Bruce Maccabee or Richard Hallwill make an announcement con-cerning the Fund for UFO Research;Budd Hopkins and Ms. AphroditeClamar, hypnosis and abductions;Peter Gersten, C.I.A./Governmentinvolvement; Lt. Col.Lawrence Coyne,the 1973 helicopter experience; andStanton T.Friedman, crashed saucersand the Roswell Incident.Several workshops and films havebeen scheduled simultaneously withfeatured events to provide a wellrounded program. Workshopspeak-ers presently scheduled are Mrs.Cynthia Hind, MUFONForeign Rep-resentative for Zimbabwein Africa;Dr. Hauser representing MUFON-CES in West Germany; andRay-mond E. Fowler on field investiga-tions. A flyer containingthe reserva-tion details will be includedwith theMUFON UFO JOURNAL for theconvenience of people planning toattend. The package price to attendall sessions will be $20. Through thefacilities of M.I.T. they are offering aspecial price for meals,hospitality,and a banquet, which requires anadvanced reservation. Details andthe deadline for reservations will beannounced in the Journal. Symposiumreservations also include the HaydenPlanetarium show.. The Center for UFO Studies hasannounced the dates for their secondUFO Conference to be devoted tothe scientific examination ofthe UFOphenomenon. It is scheduled forSeptember 25, 26,and 27,1981, andwill have a Chicago-area hotel as theheadquarters. CUFOS had their firstconference on the state of UFO re-search in 1976. We have been ad-vised that APRO has moved the datefor their 1981 UFO Conference inCleveland, Ohio, up to June5,6, and7, to be held at the Marriott Inn-Airport. By spreading the dates andthe regional area for each confer-ence, we hope that each may be asuccessful event. By being the onlymajor UFO organization conductingannual UFO symposiums, MUFONhas established a fine tradition thatothers would like to emulate.Dr. Mohamad Abdo Yamani,Minister of Information for thegovernment of the Kingdom ofSaudiArabia, has accepted our invitationto be our representative in this influ-ential middle east nation. Dr. Ya-mani earned his doctorate in geolo-gy from Cornell University in Ithaca,N.Y., and has authored a UFO bookprinted in Arabic. MUFONs Inter-national Coordinator, MichaelSin-clair, has recently met with our rep-resentatives in Switzerland and WestGermany. He will share the benefi-cial results of these meetings withJournal readers in a forthcomingissue. He has made tentative planstovisit our representatives in Londonand Paris,to coordinate UFO researchand cooperation in Europe.Stanley C. Ferguson, one ofMUFONs first State Section Direct-ors, has moved from the Dallas,Texas, area to accept a very signifi-cant employment opportunity in theOdessa/Midland, Texas community.In the past few months, Stan hasdone a fantastic job in helping torevitalize the MUFON-Metroplexorganization. We hope that this en-thusiasm will be extended into hisnew assignment as State SectionDirector for the followingwest Texascounties: Ector, Midland, Upton,Crane, Andrews, Winkler, Martin andWard. Stans new address is 2762Brentwood, Odessa, TX 79726.Rev. G. Neal Hern, State Directorfor Texas, has appointed Lewis J.Willis, Jr., 3917 Roma Court, Rock-wall, TX 75087 to fill the vacancycreated by Stans reassignment. Louwill be responsible for Dallas, Rock-wall, Kaufman, Ellis, and CollinCounties. Mr. Willis is currently con-ducting a Field Investigators train-ing course utilizing MUFONs manualfor members in MUFON-Metroplex.On February 6,1981, "The LarryKing Show" emanating from theMutual Broadcasting Systemstudiosin Washington, D.C., was devoted tothe subject of UFOs. Carried by over200 radio stations in the UnitedStates, it is the nations most popularradio-talk show. After yourDirectorinitiated the contact for the show, itwas placed in the very capable handsof our MUFONpeople in the Wash-ington, D.C.,area who couldpartici-pate as a panel in the MBS studioswith Larry King as moderator. FredWhiting made the finalarrangements.To obtain maximum benefit fromthis nationwideexposure, it was de-cided that Dr. BruceMaccabee, Chair-man of the Fund for UFO Research;Richard H. Hall, Editor of TheMUFON UFOJournal;and Don Ber-liner, aviation writer, would make avery diversified panel to handle any(Continued on page 18)