Mufon ufo journal 1981 7. july


Published on

Published in: Spiritual, News & Politics
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

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

No notes for slide

Mufon ufo journal 1981 7. july

  2. 2. 1The MUFONUFO JOURNAL(USPS 002-970)103 Oldtowne Rd.Seguin, Texas 78155RICHARD HALLEditorANNDRUFFELAssociate EditorLEN STRINGFIELDAssociate EditorMILDRED BIESELEContributing EditorWALTER H. ANDRUSDirector of MUFONTED BLOECHERDAVE WEBBCo-Chairmen,Humanoid StudyGroupPAULCERNYPromotion/PublicityREV. BARRY DOWNINGReligion and UFOsLUCIUS PARISHBooks/Periodicals/HistoryMARK HERBSTRITTAstronomyROSETTA HOLMESPromotion/PublicityTED PHILLIPSLanding Trace CasesJOHN F. SCHUESSLERUFOPropulsionDENNIS W. STACYStaff WriterNORMA E. SHORTDWIGHT CONNELLYDENNIS HAUCKEditor/PublishersEmeritusThe 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. Copyright1981 bythe Mutual UFO Network.Secondclass postage paid at Seguin,Texas. POSTMASTER: Send form3579 to advise change of addressto The MUFON UFO JOURNAL,103 Oldtowne Rd., Seguin, Texas78155.FROM THE EDITORThe Boston MUFON Symposium is now history (a majorevent), and the next large conference is that of the Center for UFOStudies (CUFOS) in Chicago, September 25-27. It has been anextraordinary year for UFO meetings in the U.S., and a healthy signthat serious researchers are actively seeking better organization,new approaches, and improved information-sharing.In that spirit, we propose mutual cooperation among all UFOgroups and private investigators to form cross-group Documenta-tion Teams (see article this issue) to concentrate on compilingthoroughly documented case books of significant case types.Persons with training or experience in the disciplines relevant toeach of these case types are requested to work together to assurethorough investigation and full documentation of significant casesin each category. The resulting compilations would be a challengeto science and national opinion-makers.In this issueNORTH CAROLINAUFOCONFERENCE 3By Richard HallUFODOCUMENTATION 4By Richard HallCREDIBILITY OFUFOHYPOTHESIS:ACRITIQUE.. 5By Virgil StaffADPLANE IFOs 7By Wayne LaPorteOPERATION BLUEBERRY:The OeydalenEncounter.. 9By Ted BloecherUFO SECRECY UPDATE:"Where to from here?"... .13By Larry W. BryantAIRCRAFTAND"AIRCRAFT" 14By Robert WandererBOOKREVIEWS 16LETTERS... 18IN OTHERSWORDS 19By Lucius ParishDIRECTORSMESSAGE 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 in ashort 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 subject to editing forstyle, clarity, and conciseness.Permission is hereby granted to 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 Oldtowne Rd.,Seguin, Texas" isincluded.
  3. 3. ""MUFON UFOJOURNALOFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF MUTUAL UFO NETWORK, INC.WHAT ARE UFOs?We dont know. Some of the things reported as "UFOs" are balloons, planets, meteors, satellites, stars, adver-tising aircraft, and the like. The "hard" sightings are yet to be explained: daylight discs, objects with lighted"portholes," objects simultaneously tracked visually and on radar at fantastic speeds, objects which leave phy-sical evidence after landing. These "hard" cases cannot currently be explained by anything we now know. It isin this category of sightings that the serious UFO researcher is attemptingto gather additional evidence.The JOURNAL has access to and publishes UFO sighting reports from all over the world as investigated andreported by MUFONs international liaison representatives. It has a staff of reporters and columnists second tonone in the UFO publishing field. Guest writers include members of MUFONs Advisory Board of Consul-tants, most of whom possess doctorates in their respective fields of expertise.The JOURNAL is our most significant means of sharing details of UFO sighting reports and vital informationrelated to the UFO phenomenon with our members and readers throughout, the world. THE MUFON UFOJOURNAL (Successor to SKYLOOK founded in 1967) has established itself as one of the leading monthlyUFO magazines in the world today. A subscription to the JOURNAL is included in the annual MUFON mem-bership dues of $15.00 for adults in the U.S.A, $16.00 foreign, (U.S. funds) and $12.00 for students under 18years of age. There are people vitally interested in the UFO enigma, but for various reasons prefer not to beactively involved in UFO sighting investigations or research. They may elect to join MUFON as a "Contribut-ing Subscriber" at the regular membership rate of $15.00 U.S.A. and $16.00 foreign. A sample copy may beobtained for $1.50.If you are interested in finding out the latest on UFOs on a monthly basis, why not join the worlds fastestgrowing UFO organization and begin reading THE MUFON UFO JOURNAL?For your convenience please mail theattached subscription blank to:MUFONMutual UFO Network, Inc.lOSOldtowne RoadSeguin, Texas 78155 U.S.A.NameAddressCityCountrySUBSCRIPTION BLANKPlease begin or renew my subscription with theTHE MUFON UFOState Zip Code 1 enclose $issue ofJOURNAL,in U. S. FundsD Check DMoney Order(Please do not send cash, except at your risk. Thank you.)M A red check in this block is a reminder that your subscription expires with this issue. In order to keep current with the latestworldwide UFO information, sightings, and news,please renew immediately. Thank you.
  4. 4. NORTH CAROLINA UFO CONFERENCEBy Richard HallAbout 100 people attended the5th Annual MUFON-N.C UFOConference held at the NatureScience Center, Winston-Salem,N.C., June 20-21. Sponsored by theTarheel UFO StudyGroup, the eventreceived a large amount of newsmedia attention. Ray Rhein servedas Master of Ceremonies.After opening remarks by JayneWare, President of TUSG,and HenryMorton, N.C. MUFON State Direc-tor, Allan Hendry was scheduled asthe first speaker. Since he was ill andunable to attend, Mr. Morton dem-onstrated the microcomputertapesthat Mr. Hendry had developed.They included a UFOMAP of NorthCarolina and parts of surroundingstates, containing strategic plots(military bases, technical facilities)and identification of investigatorsacross the state;a MICROCAT cata-logue of local UFO sightings; andIFO guides.Also available isa video-tape that allows plotting of astro-nomical objectsfor the time and dateof a UFO sighting (see notice else-where with this article).Ray Rhein, M.C.Dr. Willy Smith, a physicist fromNorcross, Georgia, and consultantto the Center for UFO Studies, de-scribed and showed photographsand sketches of an unusual aerialphenomenon seen over ArgentinaGayle McBride and her humanoid head sculptureand Brazil on June 14, 1980. Thesuspicion that the phenomenon hadbeen caused by a NASA experimentcalled "Project Firefly" originallyscheduled for mid-June was incor-rect, he said,because the experimentwas cancelled.Paul Norman, visiting fromVictoria, Australia, gave an updateon the Frederick Valentich case, inwhich the young pilot disappearedon October 21,1978 over Bass Straitafter radioing that a UFO washover-ing and maneuveringnear hisplane.The Australian government has re-fused to release the tape of his con-versation. Witnesses have beenlocated to establish that Valentichhad turned off the coast on thecorrect course; 15 witnesses havebeen found who saw an unexplain-ed green light over the strait at thetime of the encounter. A photographof an object seen emerging from thewater 20 minutes before the en-counter is undergoing analysis.An analysis of UFO propulsionwas presented by Henry Morton,stressing diamagnetism (aforce "op-posite" to magnetism) as "onepossible answer." He sketched aUFO design that might allow use ofdiamagnetism for propulsion, andwhich would emit microwaves andother electromagnetic radiation ashas been reported with UFOs. Thefeatures of the hypothetical craft alsowere applied to other commonly re-ported effects from UFOs, includ-ing light patterns and an ozone smell.Wayne La Porte presented an up-date of his fault zone theory andsightings, previously reported in theJournal.Speakers on Saturday eveningand Sunday included the following:Richard Hall on "UFO Docu-mentation" (see separate summary).George Fawcett, pioneer UFOinvestigator in North Carolina, gavean overview of the UFO field after 30years and reviewed case historiesand photographs.Bernard Haugen, a chemist fromOxford, N.C., analyzed reports ofUFOs that indicated them to beaircraft-like objects in certain re-spects, including some that appear-ed to have some form of rocket(Continued on next page)3
  5. 5. (N.C. Conference, Cont.)propulsion. He made the importantpoint that a one-dimensional view ofa UFO can be misleading, citingcases in which objects appeared tobe round and flat but displayed adifferent form after being seen closeror at different angles.Rupert Von Fox, a chiropractorfrom Clemmons, N.C., gave a per-,sonal report on a sighting ofa Saturn-shaped UFO during the summer of1950 in the Ohio coal fields.Sam Jacobson, a hypnotist andteacher of self-actualization atWakeForest University, spoke on . thenature of reality and a philosophicalview of man.Libby Cocchiarella also discuss-ed our concepts of reality and therole of science, raising the questionof whether our physical models ac-curately describe the universe.The final speaker was TomDeuley, a Navy engineer with train-ing in atomic weaponry, and Secre-tary of the Fund for UFO Research.After a report on grants and otherFund projects to date, he spoke onradiation and UFOs. He stressedthat there is no reason to link UFOswith radiation nor to assume thatthey use atomic propulsion. Radia-tion found at UFO sites could comefrom a number of sources and doesnot prove an outer space connection.If UFOs do emit radiation as somecomponent it could be in severalforms. He explained how to investi-gate suspected radiation at a UFOlanding site to determine its formand possibly also its nature. Sincethe talk included important back-ground information for investigators,it will be printed in a future issue ofthe Journal."Amateur Astronomy Handbook," avideo program for home computers thatcan be used to display star, planet, andmoon positions for the date and time of aUFO sighting, is available from TheSoftware Exchange, 6 South St., Milford,N.H. 03055 for $14.95 plus $2.50 post-age and handling.UFO DOCUMENTATIONBy Richard Hall(Summary of talk presented May 21,. 1981 at Fifth Annual MUFON ofNorth Carolina Conference.)UFO documentation is veryfundamental to what we do as uro-logists, from accurately identifyingnewspaper clippings to carefullyrecording all aspects of a UFO caseinvestigation. Without a carefullydocumented body of facts, there isno point in trying to theorize aboutUFOs. If we ever expect to haveUFOs taken seriously by scientistsand other important people, wemust progress beyond the point ofcompiling interesting anecdotes tothe compilation of thoroughly in-vestigated and documented case re-ports that will command attention.I personally heard a radio newsreport about a crashed saucer andoccupants, one said to be still alive,about 1952 while working in a gen-eral store. Being young and naive inthose days, I made little effort todocument the story beyond listen-ing for additional news (which, ofcourse, never came). I could haveand should have called the radiostation, talked with radio wire ser-• vice persons, checked newspapersin a library, etc. Since I didnt, the."story remains only an interestinganecdote rather than a documentedreport.The Roswell Incident book abouta1947 crashed saucer case also pro-vides an exampleofpoor document-ation. Though the central story aboutodd material that fell from the skyfollowing an explosion does appearto be well documented, the rest ofthe story does not. The book ispadded with undocumented, al-leged astronaut UFO sightingsmanyor most of which have acceptableconventional explanations. Thebook also includes unidentified1947 newspaper clippings so thatefforts to authenticate them wouldbe very difficult.Len Stringfields investigationsof crashed saucer/retrieval reportsprovides another example of a spe-cial problem of documentation. Hav-ing cooperated with him on a num-ber of investigations and havingseen some of his private documen-tation, I am more aware than mostpeople that he isclearly dealing withrespectable first-hand witnesses orclaimants...first-hand to him andhearsay to everyone else. His pro-blem is that he was only able toobtain the information in the firstplace by promisinganonymity to hissources and he would be violatingconfidences to release all the in-formation he has. His hands are tiedas far as public documentation; pri-vately, 1affirm that the reports arereal,from responsible people, andapparently not part of some elabo-rate hoax since they have trickledout slowly over the years and oftenobtained only by painstaking detec-tive work. The accusations madeabout Len Stringfield by disgruntledOhio "ufologists" are misguidedandirresponsible.The CIA documents releasedunder Freedom of Information Actrequests represent still another facetof trying to document UFO history.Ihave read and studied the 892 pagesand find clear internal evidence toshow that the CIA is stonewalling inits failure to release its UFO casefiles. Where are the radar/visual/pi-lot cases that led the CIA in 1952 topropose to the National SecurityCouncil a major scientific investiga-tion of UFOs? Where are the files of"finished intelligence reports"maintained on file by the CIA Phy-sics and ElectronicsBranch, referredto in the realeased administrativedocuments? Where are the UFOsighting cases that I, as a repre-sentative of NICAP, loaned to theCIA at their request in 1964? The(Continued on next page)"4.
  6. 6. UFO Documentation, ContCIA UFO case files, no doubt very,extensive, are being withheld fromthe public.UFO waves come and go, andinterest fades after each wave...1947,1952, 1957, 1966-67, and the lastwave to date, 1973. How can webreak out of the cycle and reach anew plateau of sustained scientificand public interest and support? Ipropose that we form cross-groupdocumentation teams, drawing onskilled investigators and scientistsfrom all of the UFO groups andprivate individuals, and focus onbuilding Case Books of high qualityassembling under one cover the bestinformation available in at least thefollowing areas:* Physical traces and artifacts(physical analysis)* Medical/physiologicalevidence cases* Instrument cases (radar,photographs, E-M effect cases.)* Hidden cases (includinghis-toricaldocumentation)* Abduction reportsSuch Case Books could providea powerful new tool in the battle forrecognition of UFOs as an importantproblem.There is an old oriental sayingthat if you only have one tool, and itis a hammer, you tend to see everyproblem as a nail. Our basic "tool" isUFO reports and our basic problemis nonrecognition of their seriousnature. Part of the problem is ourown failure to filter out, document,and adequately present the solid coreof information in those reports in away to command attention and res-pect.Allen Hendry in his UFO Hand-book has stressed the importanceofthe investigative tools we workwith;we now need to sharpen up andmore clearly focus the best informa-tion we haveavailable as atool in thebattle for recognition of UFOs andtheir potential importance for hu-mankind.THE CREDIBILITY OF UFO HYPOTHESES: A CRITIQUEBy Virgil StaffStuart Campbells article (No.156, Feb. 1981) apparently is in-tended to remind ufologiststhat theydo not understand the source ormeaning of the UFO phenomenon.But this can hardly be reckoned asvery newsworthy to most ofus. Withthe exception ofnumerouscontacteeswho may live in their own world,most critically minded ufologistsclearly have not arrived at a conclu-sion. In fact, the presence of variousinterpretations isto be considered ashealthy evidence of a willingness toperuse the phenomenon in an ab-sence of agreement as to what thisphenomenon signifies.Campbell gently denigrates ufol-ogists for their interpretations, buthe provides little data to indicatepossible justification for limitingtheir views to the upper three levelsof his chart, when there appear to beno secure interpretations withinthose levels for certain reportablephenomena. Space does not permita paragraph by paragraph consider-ation of Campbells assumptions. Butthey are rather evenly spread through-out the manuscript, and paragraphs12-19 are near-totalguesswork. Quot-ing the guesses ofothers, even whenthese support ones views, does notnecessarily increase reliability.Campbell seems to believe thatthe ETHis the heaviest ofthose usedby ufologists, and he has produced,on page 9, a chart covering degreesof assumption. Without losing one-self in Campbells assumptions re-garding the nature of science and ofthe credible, it can be seen that hisviews would force acceptance ofnonsensical identifications into thethird level of his chart, even shouldpresent levels of technology be in-sufficient to enable comprehensionof probable alternatives. WhatCampbell does not understand isthat when third-level assumptionsare improbable, then further con-jecture may be demanded. To holdthat certain phenomena are actuallyrare unknowns ofthe third level is toindicate ones thinking is tied withina straitjacket.If it should appear that the phe-nomenon is not natural — as de-fined, and not an artifice of man —then it would seem to be either anartifice made by someone else, or aseries of particulars for which thereis no comprehension. One may arguewhich of the two is more difficult tobelieve, but with the level of presentunderstanding, there may not bemuch agreement. This is our presentjuncture. In any case, the chart willbe inadequate because it may ex-clude certain possible phenomena,and because it makes the leap toalien levels without it being ap-parent that other factorsmay requireinclusion.One of the principal assump-tions in alien artifice hypotheses isnot necessarily that alien intelligenceexists but that it has a good chance ofexisting. Campbells statement thatthere is no evidence for the formermay be strictly correct, but it ignoresthe views of a host of scholars wholack the arrogance to claim likeli-hood of being alone in the universe.One cannot help wonder if the hos-tility to SETI astronomers does notarise from their own ETH, thus pro-viding certain unintentioned supportto the views that ETs could be tech-nologically superior, if not ingeni-ously mobile. Those, who for theirown reasons, are inimical to thisview, will certainly attempt to locatepresent day sightings within thecharts Level 3.To argue that we are probablynot the only "intelligence" in theuniverse, may be something of apresumption, but it seems hardly arash one. Most ufologists have nocertitude regarding alien in-telligence. To be uncertain is(Continued on next page)5
  7. 7. UFO Hypotheses, Contmore honest, inthe possible absenceof sufficient corroborating data,thanto locate certain unexplainable phe-nomena in Level 3and then presumethat there is no alien intelligencewith us. The denial of alien ability toarrive here only indicates the degreeto which such individuals are cul-ture bound by the limitations oftheir own immediate technology.Ofcourse, if there are no aliens any-where, then they clearly will not befound here.Campbell isunable tomake senseout of what, to some, appear asantics, and he seems inclined topresume that these antics indicateeither that the aliens are not here, orthat they fail to function as we might.Since he would not operate in thisfashion, he presumes unlikelihoodthat they would do so. But none ofthis has any direct relation to theETH, nor does it reduce the credibil-ity of the ETH. The ETH may be asound alternativeto variousexplana-tions presumed to belong in Level 3.At the moment we really do notknow. To presume otherwise wouldbe to include a host of items inLevel3 which, in all good sense, do notseem to belong there. To includealLphenomena on the third level —even the incomprehensible —wouldremove the need for any Level 4.This is undoubtedly what somewould prefer, but to do so would re-quire the adjustment of Level 3 intoa menagerie useless for classification.If there is no alien intelligence,then there-can be no place for Level4 in the chart. And if there is noLevel 4, then there will be no Level 4events. Such a view does not con-sider the nature of individual inci-dents, but rather inserts them intoLevel 3 prior to investigation. Thisappears to be instructive concern-ing the nature of scientific methodbest understood by detractors andvarious agency apologists, but it hasnever met the standards of Ufology.Certainly the presumption of a pos-sible Level 4 phenomenon is notgreatly larger than one which placesall sightings into Level 3 with ex-planations that satisfy only the wild-est reaches of the imagination. Infact, these explanations have beencommonplace among the detractors,but they do not convince theincreas-ingly large category of citizens whohave experienced the phenomenon.One suspects that suchexplanationsmay increasingly build lack of re-spect towards the scientific com-munity. With growing numbers ofthe population apparently becom-ing convinced of the reality of thephenomenon, one can only hope fora renewed willingness to considerthe uniqueness of the performance.It is difficult to believe that thesearch for extraterrestriallife shouldbe anathemato the scientific methodmerely because there is no unargu-able indication at the present thatwould prove the same. It is a simplematter to debunk anything that hasnot been accepted. The belief in analien advanced technological civili-zation may indeed be unscientific,but the search for such is anothermatter, as is the attempt to deter-mine if sighting particulars might beunexplainable as planetaryphe-nomena. Campbell tells us there isno reason to believe the purportedaliens do not think like us, but heshould know that there is also noreason to believe that they do. Heshould be reminded that anythingwe learn of the purported alien en-counters should be based on theparticulars of given sightings, andnot merely on assertion and whim.Employment of the words "cred-ible" and "scientific" can be a cul-de-sac, if these are defined in suchmanner as to restrict the breadth ofones views. To refuse movement inthe direction of Level 4 is to controlones breadth of view because onecannot presently comprehend thephenomenon. One then allocates allsightings to Level 3 though no otherreason is given than that it is un-scientific to move further.Theories of scientific methodpresume an openness to phenom-ena and their study. A useful meth-odology presumes such. Where thereis no candor, one may rightfullyquestion the degree to which realknowledge is available.State fund-ing and control of given projects arerelevant factors. Whereinformationis not released to the public,and thecitizenry are not taken into theirgovernments confidence, there canbe no assurance that the public willbe capable of making adequate deter-minations. There isreason tobelievethat the State has not been totallyforthright, and since we have notbeen informed of what is allegedlyknown, it becomes necessary to ap-proach the subject in our own man-ner, and within our own limitations.This is not a historicallyinvalid ap-proach. In fact, itis quitethe oppositesince most of us are not privy toagency research findings. To pre-sume there is no censorship, as dosome, isto presume that funded pro-grams have produced no informa-tion conducive to furtherance ofLevel 4 understandings. This is cer-tainly a presumption on the part ofagency apologists, and to thiswriterit seems only intelligent to search forfurther meanings in a world dedi-cated to providing store-boughtinterpretations.Campbells time-travel explana-tions, while somewhat convincing,are in some respects akin to thewhisperings of an Australian primi-tive who has never previously ex-perienced 20th century technologi-cal particulars. The writer has neverheld to these views, but they do notseem totally inane. For example,signals faster than light may not bean impossibility,and should this betrue, then such signals directedtowards one observer might travelbackwards in time with respect toother observers. One is reminded ofthe Stuckelberg-Feynman conceptof a position as an electron inchingbackwards in time. Godel, in hisown calculations, appears to believethat a speed 72 percent that of lightwould be sufficient to produce timetravel backwards.This is not to pre-sume any knowledge of the subject,but only to remind Campbell thatopposite views to the conventionalare not necessarily totally spurious.Campbell quotes Shklovskys(Continued on next page)
  8. 8. UFO Hypotheses, ContDictum that "every object must beassumed natural until proved un-natural." The word "proved" canmean allthings to allmen, but essen-tially this is the approach employedin field investigation—the chiefcompromisers being the debunkerswho do not comprehend that thedictum should not be a sanctificationof the status quo, or intended as alimitation on employment of induc-tive-deductive techniques.Campbell employs various formsof logic and assertion to prove histhesis, but it should be recalled thatOccams Razor, while useful, will pre-dict nothing with certainty. Predic-tions, based on simplicity, are pre-supposed to fit facts that are notavailable. Since the next fact isneveravailable, one can only indulge inthe hope of simplicity. Indeed, thenext fact may lead to the next levelofcomplexity.Credibility factors may be amatter of opinion or choice, and thelimitation of assumptions in a givenexample may prove to be less ade-quate than the hypothesis with amore complex assumption pattern.The assumption that UFOsare reallythird level IFOs has not been indi-cated, and may include more pre-supposition than reality. To say thatsuch a presumption ismorecredibleis to question the very usefulness ofthe so-called "credibility factor." Adictionary definition of "credible"may be more useful: i.e., "capableofbeing believed; plausible."It may be as foolhardy to hold, asdo some, that certain allegedper-ceptions do not exist—when thereare phenomena that cannot be satis-factorily explained—as to constructones philosophy around the exis-tence of such alleged phenomena.Each side then employs presump-tions, with the detractors claimingcredibility by takingrefuge in defini-tional syntax, or in the creation oftools or charts inadequate to theirpurpose. New ideas are not neces-sarily forthcoming, nor are newmeans of interpreting phenomena.What is required is an open mind,AD PLANE IFOsBy Wayne LaPorteLenticular clouds, meteors,air-craft, and balloon IFOs have beenwith us for some time. However, thelighted advertising plane is a fairlyrecent newcomer. The comments inthis articleare based on my personalinvestigative experiences with adplane IFOs, and an interview withTommy Futch, an ad plane pilot forFlying Billboardsof Charlotte, N.C.Futchs plane is a Cessna 150which is a high-wing pleasure plane.Its powered by a 100hp Continentalengine located in the nose. Suspend-ed below the wings is a 44 foot longby 10 foot wide array of wires con-taining 360 6Vlight bulbs. The matrixarray runs below the fuselage fromone wingtip to the other. Braces ex-tending down from the wings holdthe wire contraption in place.The signs message is controlledby an onboard computer. A tapedmessage is fed into the computer.When Futch isover the "target area,"he flicks a switch and 10 foot tallletters appear to flow in space belowthe plane from left to right. This, in-cidentally, isthe same type of systemthats used on the Goodyear Blimp.and the willingness or ability tofollow.It is this writers view that Mr.Campbell has some useful thoughtspresented for the wrong reasons.We feel no compunction to supporttheories we do not hold, and sincewe accept none of these with anycertainty, we are not disquieted bycritically viewing the assumptionsmade by those who are anathema tothe assumptions of others. It is ahealthy experience to view theguesses of others—as it isones own.Our own assumption is that some-thing bizarre istaking place that callsfor evaluation. Such evaluationnecessarily requires some assump-tions and we are not concernedabout these as long as we recognizethem as such.Futch flies the Cessna at about1,500 feet. At this height the ap-parent size of the plane (at armslength) is about three times the ap-parent size of the full moon (orabout three aspirins placed side byside at arms length).Some witnesses often mistakeFutchs plane for a blimp. There aretwo reasons why. He must fly theplane as slow as possible at a highangle of attack (theplanes nosemust be angled upward). Normally,Futch flies the Cessna at about 45mph which is just above the stallspeed (speed below which the planewill lose aerodynamic lift and wontfly). To fly this slow he must run theengine at a slow speed. Consequent-ly, because ofthe slow engine speedand high angle of attack, witnesseson the ground hear only a mutedengine sound and think the plane isactually "some kind of blimp."Although some witnesses mis-take the ad plane for a blimp, moremisidentify it as a UFO. The lightedsign is the main reason. On a clearnight it can be seen for miles. How-ever, to see the message clearly youmust be directly in the planes pathand within about one-half mile ofthe approaching craft. Those notfamilar with the ad plane and view-ing it from off to one side often mis-perceive the aircraft as an alien UFO!From a distance, many see it as ashimmering mass of light or glow-ing craft (usually discoid, cigar-shaped, or lens-shaped). Within afew miles of the plane witnesses canmake out the sequencing lights. Manythink they are viewing a craft withcabin lights, sequencing lights, orfixed lights on a rotating part of theUFO.Both the red and green wingtipnavigational lights canbe seen as theplane approaches (note: these lightscant be seen when the airplane is(Continued on next page)7
  9. 9. Ad Plane, Continuedmoving away). However, one of thelights can be obscured by the wingas the aircraft is making a turn. Wit-nesses viewing the turningcraft mayreport seeing only a green or a redlight, depending on which way theplane was turning.The Cessna 150 has a small redlight on the top leading edge of thetail and a small white light on theback of the tail.Witnesses seeing theplane approach often describe the"UFO" as having a red-lighted dome.And, people observing the ad planeas its flying away often report thatthe UFO has a white signal light ontop of the craft.The sign lights are incandescent,meaning they give off white lightwith a yellowish-cast (same asa lightbulb in a reading lamp). However, inhaze or pollution these lights mightappear as orange or red. Also, thesign lights are on a wire array sus-pended below the plane.This meansthe lights can also be seen frombehind the plane. Of course, youcant make out the message, but youcan see a flickering glow as thevarious bulbs light up in sequence.Futchs ad plane is equippedwith a brightener. This is a devicewhich at a flick of a switch can throwa surge of current to brighten thesign lights. The purpose ofthe bright-ener is to draw peoples attention.And, it does. Some even think the"UFO" is pulsating or signaling tothem!The most common descriptionof the .nl plane "UFO" is a bell-shaped discoid with flashing or se-quencing lights on the bottom.However, Ive also had the ad planedescribed as ovoid with rows oflights, turtle-shaped with bottomlights, football-shaped with win-dows, hamburger-shaped withcabinlights, and lens-shaped with blink-ing lights.My advice to any UFO investi-gator is to establish good relationswith any ad plane pilotsin their area.Many pilots like Futch, carry a flightlog which lists the flight path and ap-proximate time the plane was flying.North Carolina Advertising PlaneMost ad plane cases can be easilysolved by checking the encounterlocation and times with the pilotslog. However, some witnesses arehesitant to accept an ad plane ex-planation, while others will readilyaccept what you tell them — some-times in a humorous manner.One night a very excited youngwoman called the Charlotte policeto report a UFO. They referred herto me, and I interviewed the womanover the phone. It sounded like anad plane case, so Icalled Futchs resi-dence. He wasnt in as he was upflying. However, his wife was athome and she informed me thatFutch was flying in the area that theyoung woman lived. 1 called herback and informed her that she wasviewing an ad plane. To this she re-plied, "Well, at least Charlotte is safefrom an alien attack tonight."UFO DA TA MAR T(A service for MUFON members/subscribers, except commercial en-terprises.)SALE OR TRADEApproximately 125 issues of Fly-ing Saucer Review, some very early,including Case Histories and SpecialIssue supplements. For list, SASE toJohn M. Cook, 4102 Leewood Dr.,Stow, OH 44224.INFORMATION WANTEDUFO periodical project seeks in-formation (publisher, editor, pastand present address, span ofpublish-ing, frequency) of any UFO periodi-cals printed 10% to 100% in English.Interested in back issues for loan,trade, xeroxing, donation, or sale.Tom Lind, P.O. Box711, Hobe Sound,FL 33455.NORTHWEST-MUFONNew quarterly publication PacificNorthwest UFOdesigned tostimulateregional interest in MUFON willcover Washington, Oregon, andIdaho occurrences. To emphasizequality research and avoid rehash-ing or duplication of common infor-mation. Sample copy 50<t from GregLong, 301 Armistead, Richland, WA99352.
  10. 10. From the Humanoid Study Group Archives — VOPERATION BLUEBERRY: THE OEYDALEN ENCOUNTERBy Ted Bloecher(©1981 by Ted Bloecher)Date of Sighting: Friday, August 20,1954.Time: Early afternoon (otherwiseunspecified).Locale: Oeydalen Valley, nearMos-joen, Norway (NordlandCounty).Witnesses: Miss Edith Jacobsen(24);her sister, Mrs. Aasta Solvang(32), both of Mosjoen.Duration: Unspecified, but probablyabout five minutes.Closest Proximity: Face-to-face,within arms length of MissJacobsen.Investigators: Oddvar Larsen, HansAlmaas and other unidentifiednewsmen of the newspaperNordlands Folkeblad.HumCat Classification: Serial #0243,Type B (entity observed gettingin and/or out of UFO).Introduction/Toward the end of August 1954,newspapers around the worldamused theirreaders with the enter-taining story of two Norwegian sis-ters who met a "spaceman" whilepicking blueberries in a valley near"Mofjell." (The name of the townwas Mosjoen.) This "spaceman,"who seemed friendly enough, ad-dressed the women in an unknownlanguage, drew some pictures ofcircles that suggested stars or planets(hence leading the girls to deducehe came from "outer space"), andled them to a clearing where heclimbed into his "flying saucer" andtook off.The story, naturally enough, be-came a sensation. A day or so later,itcame crashing to earth (to allintentsand purposes) with the denoue-ment: the "spaceman" turned out tobe a U.S. Armyhelicopter pilot fromCouncil Bluffs, Iowa, who was inNorway on NATO maneuvers at thetime of the sisters encounter.The "denouement" was offeredwith great good humor by the wireservices, except that it turned out tobe about as dependable as the name"Mofjell." The pilot was soon lo-cated in Stuttgart, Germany, wherehe denied having been anywherenear the Oeydalen valley. Not sur-prisingly, the newspapers had bythen tired of the story, so the Ameri-can pilots denial went largely un-reported. (See accompanying pressstories.)Perhaps because most peoplewere left with the impression thatthe Norwegian encounter had beensatisfactorily explained by thatAmerican helicopter pilot, it is diffi-cult to find references to it in theUFO literature. You cannot find asummary of it in Jacques Valleesotherwise nearly all-inclusive ap-pendix of his "Type I" cases in Pass-port to Magonia (Regnery, Chicago,1969). You will search in vain for itin Charles Bowens classic compen-dium of UFO occupant reports, TheHumanoids (American hardcoveredition published by Regnery, 1969).Its omission from that reference iscurious, however, since The Human-oids first appeared in 1966 as a specialedition of Flying Saucer Review, and itwas in an early issue of FSRthat oneof the few published accounts of theNorwegian case is found: a state-ment by one ofthe two sisters, EdithJacobsen, translated from a Nor-wegian published interview, appear-ed in Vol.I, No. 4 (issue for Septem-ber/October, 1955), pages 6 & 7.The one book in which you canfind a reference to the Norwegiancase is, curiously, Edward J.Rup-pelts Report on Unidentified FlyingObjects (Doubleday, Garden City,N.Y., 1956). Ruppelt seems to haveswallowed the helicopter pilot storyhook, line, and saucer, for on page308he writes:"... Afew dayslaterit was discovered that the man fromouter space was a lost USAF (sic—TB) helicopter pilot who was flyingwith NATO forces in Norway. AsIve always said, Ya gotta watchthose Air Force pilots—especiallythose shaggy-haired ones fromBrooklyn." Ruppelt, whose signalswere crossed on the pilots correctservice, didnt even seem to knowthat the pilot was from Iowa and notBrooklyn, but that didnt matter aslong as the story could be turnedinto a joke.The Norwegian incident is in-cluded in the Project Blue Book casefiles as a secondary report, wherethe case material consists exclusive-ly ofseveral wire service news stories.The full-length report by OddvarLarsen is presented here in Englishtranslation for the first time.OPERATION "BLUEBERRY"By Oddvar LarsenMosjoen is the name of a littleseaside town in the Nordland countyof northern Norway. It is surround-ed by mountains and narrow valleys,and most of the population are de-scended from farmers or fishermenwho in recent decades have aban-doned their parents way of life,becoming merchants, craftsmen orintellectual workers. Everyoneknows one another, at least on sight,and the common feeling of most isone of easy-going, sedate compla-cency. If a man falls off a roof andbreaks one of his legs, it is a subjectof wide interest; if he breaks both ofthem the story is a sensation.(Continued on next page)9
  11. 11. Blueberry, ContinuedThen one August day, in 1954,two young ladies turned up andclaimed that they had seen a landed"flying saucer" and that they had"talked" with the pilot. They wereable to give a detailed description ofhis aircraft, and they could tell howthe fellow was dressed and what helooked like. In short, they turned thetown upside down.And not just the town—oh, no!Their story created a controversywhich divided the Norwegian peopleinto two camps in a few hours, andthat was just the beginning. By thenext day the two ladies were knownall over the world. They were in-vited to participate in a Swedishradio show, they received telephonecalls and letters from foreign news-papers they scarcely knew of, andthey found their photographs on thecover of a picture magazine whichordinarily features stars likeMarilynMonroe, or royal weddings. Theywere scared stiff.At the time this happened, I wasthe managing editor of Helgeland, anewspaper published in Mo i Rana,some miles north of Mosjoen. I wasalso in charge of our Mosjoen edi-tion, Nordlands FolkMad, which wasfurnished with local news by ourstaff reporter, Mr. Hans Almaas.One morningjust beforethe firstedition was going to press, the Mo iRana office heard from Mr. Almaasby telephone. He had talked to alittle bo>, he said, who had been toldby somebody that they heard acer-tain Miss EdithJacobsen, 24,and hersister, Mrs. Aasta Solvang, 32, hadseen a "flying saucer"and met a manfrom another world. Perhaps, sug-gested Mr. Almaas, it would be agood idea if we did a little research.He had been more or less acquaint-ed with the two ladies allhis life, andthey couldnt tell a lie ifthey tried to.Our first reaction was to tell Mr.Almaas to stay away from the bottle.But the young mans reputation wasas solid as an iron foundation, andeven ifhe had exaggerated when heinsisted that the girls were incap-able of making up tall tales, it was10quite obvious that he had somegood reason for paying attention tothem.From that moment on, we wereinto it.We rang up the Mosjoen policeheadquarters on the telephone andasked the officer in charge if he hadheard anything about the two ladiesand the man from another planet.He hadnt. We then created a riot atthe local telephone office request-ing long distance callsto all Mosjoensubscribers listed under the nameofSolvang or Jacobsen, or somethingsimilar, only to find out that theywere the wrong parties. Then theMosjoen police officer telephonedus and scared us out of our wits, tell-ing us that the ladies, who werebrought in for questioning, had con-firmed allthe rumors and describedthe "space man" right down tominute details about the length ofhis hair.Fifteen minutes later the storybit the pavements. That was Tues-day, August 24, 1954.The incidentdescribed by the two ladies was saidto have taken place some days be-fore, on Friday, August 20th.Here is the story as told by MissEdith Jacobsen to one of our re-porters:"My sister and Ihad gone up intoOeydalen (avalleyclose to Mosjoen)to pick raspberries, but we didntfind any, and instead we began topick blueberries near a marsh I knewof. At the time we went up into thevalley, we had been together with amale relative,but he left us, and wedidnt meet again until we were onour way home several hours later."As my sister and I were busypicking blueberries, we suddenlynoticed something that moved be-hind some bushes not far from us. Iremember that I said: A sheep, Iguess. But it was aman."It has been written in somenewspapers that we got scared. Thatis not true. The man who came outfrom behind the bushes lookedveryordinary—like all other people, thatis—and he smiled to us in an openand reassuring way. He had a darkcomplexion, and his hair was verylong, but not down to his shoulders,as some newspapers have stated. Itwas a haircut of the kind which wasvery popular with Norwegian boysabout 1946(aswith Johnny TarzanWeissmuller—OL). He had verynice teeth, and he was of ratheraverage stature. He seemed friendlyand charming from the very firstmoment."He was dressed in a tight-fittingsuit. I could see neither buttons norzippers, but it was furnished with abroad belt. The shoes I did notnotice."He walked towards us andsmiled, and stretched out his hand. Ismiled.back and stretched out myhand, thinking of course that he wassome man who happened to comearound and that he wanted to shakehands, like people used to do. Butinstead of shakingit,he laidthe palmof his hand close to the palm of myhand so that they touched, and thenhewithdrew it. Then he began totalk, but we didnt understand aword. Neitherdid he understand mewhen I tried to speak to him in Eng-lish, German and French. (MostNorwegians speak English, and inhigh school they learn German andenough French to make themselvesunderstood—OL.) Ihave been askedif perhaps his language might be oneof the East European ones. I dontthink so. Ihave heard Russian on theradio, and it sounded rather staccatoto my ears. The strangers languagewas very melodious, and it seemedas if it didnt consist of separatewords, but flowed freely like a smoothstream."By now it was quite obvious tothe man that our conversation wasuseless, and from one of his pocketshe took something which lookedlike a little mirror. It was greyish.Using a pencil, or something like it,he drew some circles and showedthem to us. He pointed at one of thecircles, then at us and then he liftedboth arms indicating all of the sur-roundings, the marsh, the bushes,and so forth. Then he pointed athimself and one of the other circles.(Continued on next page)
  12. 12. Blueberry, ContinuedPlanet is a word which came to mymind much later. At the time ithappened, I simply didnt think ofthe fellow as peculiar in anyway.He was just a stranger, thats all."The man made a sign that hewanted us to go with him.He turnedand began to walk, and nearby wecame to a clearing where we saw anobject on the ground. Tome it lookedlike two pot covers put together,rim-to-rim. It measured from six tonine feet across, and was approxi-mately five feet high. I am positivethat the man couldnt stand up in-side it—he would have to sit down.As to the color, I dont know how todescribe it. It was a kind of blue orgrey, Im not sure."So far as I can remember, it wasat this moment that it dawned on mefor the first time that something veryodd was happening to me and mysister. We were standing quite closeto the thing when the man noddedand smiled, and then opened ahatchand boarded the craft. The last wesaw of him was his hand. He waved,and then he closed the hatch behindhim."The next minute the craft leftthe ground and smoothly ascendedsome 40 or 50 feet. The only soundwe were able to hear wasa humming,or a very soft buzz—absolutely noengine roar. At the same time, thecraft started to rotate around its axisat an increasing speed, and then allof a sudden it rose straight upwardsand disappeared. The velocity wasquite fantastic."The strange craft left the twogirls in a rather confused state ofmind. They felt sure that nobody inMosjoen would believe them, and ifthe story got out,the chances werethat they would be made a laughingstock all over town. So they decidedto keep their mouths shut.Several days passed, and by thenthe strain had become too much forthe married sister, Mrs.Solvang. Herhusband understood that somethingwas worrying her and began to askquestions, and as a result she toldhim everything. The next day thestory was out.From the very beginning theOeydalen affair became a topic ofnationwide interest. I have alreadymentioned that the Norwegianpeople were divided into two camps,and I mean it quite literally. One sidefek sure that the girls were makingup the best fairy tale since the daysof Hans Christian Andersen; theother side was half-inclined to be-lieve them. The main debate ran likethis:(1) Some newspapers stated thatthe girls had read Flying Saucers HaveLanded, by Desmond Leslie andGeorge Adamski,and had discussedthe book a bit too much. The girlsresponse was "No," they had dis-cussed it like everybody else, butthey had never read it.(2) What about the relative whohad been with them? Whyhadnt heseen anything?The ladies answeredthat they had been walking togetherwith him as they went up into thevalley, but then he had left them.They hadnt the faintest idea of howfar or near he had been to themwhen the occurrence took place. Asa matter of fact, they didnt meetagain until they were on their wayhome.(3) How could the sisters explainthe fact that the police were unableto find traces of "the thing?" (Thepolice conducted an investigation atthe site, with negative results.) Well,the ladies answered, as a matter offact they did go withthe police to thespot where the "saucer" had landed,and each had picked out the siteindependently. That was true. Butthey had seen the "saucer" on Fri-day, and the police had visited thesite on the following Wednesday,five days later. Ifthe grass had beencrushed, it would have plenty oftime to rise again.(4) Then came the day that themost influential Norwegian news-paper, Aftenposten, reported that theladies had seen an American heli-copter and that they had talked tothe pilot,Mr. Billy Fauret.The ladiesresponse.was "No," and this timethey were supported by the police.There had been no helicopter in theOeydalen Valleyon the day in ques-tion; this was confirmed by the pilothimself who some days later waslocated in Stuttgart, Germany. Hetold a United Press reporter thatAfternposten was wrong, and that hehad never been to Oeydalen in allhis life. And that is where it allstands.I have been asked hundreds oftimes what I myself think of theOeydalen affair. I dont know, Ireallydont. I have witnessed some veryclever and very sane reporters com-ing back from interviews with theladies, believing every single wordof their odd story. I have talked withreliable men and women who haveknown the girls since they werechildren, just to hear that they musthave told the truth; anything elsewould have been impossible.Why havent I seen the girls my-self? Oh, no—not me! What a situa-tion that would be, if I came backfully convinced that "flying saucers"really existed. I am still a ratheryoung man looking forwardto betterjobs, and I wouldnt want news-paper owners to get any bad ideas.(End of Larsen account.)CommentsWith candid, if humorous, cyni-cism, Oddvar Larsen frames his ac-count of the Norwegian encounterin all too familiar terms. His attitudeis not so different from that of Lt.Pessca when the latter was askedhow he felt about the Santa MariaAirport incident. (No. 160, June1981) Even though the guards storyremained consistent through threedays ofinterviews, Pessca confessedthat "I personally dont believe." So,it doesnt matter how credible a wit-ness is, or how compelling thecir-cumstances of his story are—the willto disbelieve is just as compelling,and just as arbitrary, as the "will tobelieve" that is so often invoked bythe UFO skeptic.The Oeydalen and Santa Mariaencounters, taking place within amonth of each other, are presented(Continued on next page)11
  13. 13. Blueberry, Continuedin sequence for obvious reasons, de-scribing as they do almost identicalsituations, featuring two ordinary,human UFOnauts, whose behaviorand attitudes are practically the same.With so many similar details, thesetwo UFO events provide a usefulexample of a very particular type ofencounter—that is,direct confronta-tion. Even though the languagespoken by the beings in each casewas incomprehensible, the broader,implicit message of each event wasclearly unmistakable.Lima (Ohio) News. Wednesday, August 25,Norwegian Women Describe Weird VisitorFriendly Saucer Pilot No SpikkaFour Languages, Just Draws CirclesOSLO W—Two Njrwegianwom-en claim they not only had a closelook at a flying saucer but theytalked to its "dark-skinned, long-haired" pilot. Skeptical policehave launched an investigation.The two women, Mrs. AastaSolvang and her sister Edit Jacob-sen, said the saucerman poppedout at them from behind somebushes last Friday near Mofjell,in northern Norway.THE TIMES-PICAYUNE NEW ORLEANSSaucer* Prank Denied by PilotSTUTTGART, Germany, AUK.28 (fft—A United Slates Army heli-copter pilot said Friday he wasnttbe roan who frightened two Nor-wegian vomcn inlo thinking theyhad seen the pilot of a flyingsaucer. Andjhe doesnt resembleat all (he man. the women saidthey sawBillie C. Faurol, 2n, CouncilBluffs, Iowa, a warrant .officer,was one of several pilots whomade n secret training missionflight to Norway last week.Reports from Oslo said twowomen, out picking berries, werestartled by a dark-skinned, long-haired man who tried to talk lothem, then sailed off in a strangecraft that looked like "two deepsaucers."Word got around later in Oslothat It might have been USpilots playing a prank. Faurot,the first of the pilots to return,said, "The only thing I knowabout the women is what I readin the papers."He has a ruddy complexion,short hair, stands 5 feet 10 Inchesand weighs 150 pounds.The US Army declined com-ment, saying the flight was in the"classified" (secret) category.The Times-Picayune.New Orleans, La.August 29,Their story was published yester;day by the local paper NordlandiFolkeblad.This was the sisters account:"We were (licking berries whensuddenly « /.ark man with longhair ,— but otherwise looking verymucn like an ordinary human beiins — came out from behind comebushes. , 1"We were frightened at first,but!the man appeared very friendly,and stepped toward us;"* » »ONE OF them addressed him InEnglish, French, German, aridNorwegian. "He didnt seern^ tounderstand a word."The stranger then attempted tocommunicate by drawing "circlesand what looked like pictures ofheavenly bodies" on a piece ofpaper. The stranger finally ledthem lo his craft, which lookedlike "two deep saucers sand-wiched together," about* 15 feetacross.The mystery man opened a hatchand crawled into the disc. Mo-ments later the craft "rose fromthe ground and began rotating,first slowly, then Increasingly fast-er." Then, suddenly, it disap-peared at an "incredible speed."SDNESDAY EVENING, AUGUST 25, 1954 Elizabeth (N.J.) Journal FIFTEEN2 SayTheyTalk ToSaucermanOSLO (/P) — Two Norwegianwomen claim they not only hatf aclose look nt a flying saucer, Ihdytalked to its "dark-skinned, lone-haired" pilot. Skeptical police havelaunched an investigation.The two women, Mrs.AastaSolvang and her sister Edit Jacob-sen, said the sauccrman poppedout at them from behind somebushes last Friday near Mofjcll,in norlhern NorwayThis way Ibo sisters nrrounl:"We were picking berries whensuddenly H dark man with longhair—but otherwise looking verymuch like an ordinary human be-ing—came out from behind somebushes."We were frightened at first,but the man appeared veryfriendly, and stepped toward us."One of them addressed him inEnglish, French, Gorman, andNorwegian. "He didnt seem lounderstand a word."The stranger (hen attempted locommunicate by drawing "circlesand what looked like pictures ofheavenly bodies" on a piece ofpaper. The stranger finally ledthem lo his craft, which lookedlike "two deep saucers sandwichedtogether," about 15 feet across.The mystery man opened ahatch and crawled Into the disc.Moments later Ihc craft "rosefrom Iho ground find began re-lating, first slowly, then increas-ingly faster." Then, suddenly, itdisappeared at an "incrediblespeed."12
  14. 14. UFO SECRECY UPDATEWhere to From Here?By Larry W. BryantWhen I undertook this columnabout 16 months ago, I had no illu-sions that its contents would hastenthe resolution of "the UFO problem."I still have none.What I set out to do in this spin-off from Just Cause (the newsletter ofCitizens Against UFO Secrecy—CAUS) was to offer MUFON mem-bers and other UFO-oriented citi-zens a certain perspective, a certainfocus on the policies/programs/practices involved in one aspect ofthe problem: official governmentsecrecy in the acquisition, analysis,and dissemination of hard-core UFOdata.After several thousand words ofexploration of the issues and com-mentary upon the relevant researchfindings, were nearing a crossroads.If thiscolumn, and the work it repre-sents, were to cease, what then?Who would care? How valuable tocivilized society is the result of thateffort? Questions for a philosopher,of course. And, if the composing ofthis column doesnt qualify its authoras a philosopher, then perhaps itsdigestion and later appraisal by itsreadership will so qualify him.The duty of a philosopher, as Isee it, is to be aware of ones limita-tions in analysis and interpretationof facts and events—and, through-out, to maintain a sense of humor.That said, let me proceed toreview the status quo, to raise somemore philosophic questions, and topoint the reader in the direction ofanswers.First of all, the legal scene:GSW Vs. CIA. Of course, theworldwide publicity about the Free-dom of UFO Information case ofGround Saucer Watch, Inc., versus U. S.Central hitelligence Agency continuesto grasp the imaginations of sea-soned UFOlogist and detached ob-server alike.For this ground-breakingcase of anti-UFO secrecy is the foot-in-the-door by which can be dis-cerned the general outline of thepicture painted over the last 30-oddyears by the Federal UFO policy-makers. But that crack in the CIAspicture window may be mending.Now on appeal from a district courtdecision in favor of the Agency, theGSW cause celebre has spawnedthree other freedom-of-informationlaw suits, all filed by the public-interest group Citizens Against UFOSecrecy:CAUS Vs. U. S. DEFENSE INTEL-LIGENCE AGENCY. Here, we havethe case of an agencys failure tocomply fully with the spirit of the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, speci-fically as to conducting a thoroughsearch of its UFO-related files. Andhere again we have the U. S.DistrictCourt for the District of Columbia,on a motion for summary judge-ment, ruling in favor of the defend-ant. CAUSplans no appeal of the de-cision, choosing instead to concen-trate its limited resources on the CIAappeal.CAUS Vs. U. S. FEDERAL AVIA-TION ADMINISTRATION. Can anagency levy whatever the traffic willbear when itcomes to setting fees fordocuments sought via freedom-of-information requests? And can thatagency act in an arbitrary and capri-cious way to deny a requestor accessto its UFO-related records? TheFAA answers to those questionsmust have satisfied the judge, be-cause he ruled in favor ofthe agency.Again, owing to itslimited resources,CAUS plans no appeal.CAUS Vs. U. S. NATIONAL SE-CURITY AGENCY. This is the realbiggie in thistrioof post-GSW litiga-tion, according to CAUS counselPeter A. Gersten. Closely aligned tothe GSW-CIA case, this effort tomake the NSA leadership fully ac-countable to the provisions of theFreedom of Information Act now ison appeal from the District Courtsjudgment in favor of the defendant.Chances that either the CIA orthe NSA appeal will bear fruit for theCAUS harvest of Federal UFO docu-mentation are slim.Indeed, the foot-in-the-door is getting numb fromthe tight fit. And if recent develop-ments within these two agencies areany indication, then the door, whenit finally slams shut, may be tootough ever to re-open.For example, the National Se-curity Agency long has been lobby-ing Congress for dispensation fromthe provisions of the Freedom of In-formation Act — on grounds that bydefinition the NSA mission andmodus operand!are too sensitive tobear critical viewing by the publiceye. Recent FOIA court rulings infavor ofthe Agency tend to strengthenits position. Will Congress relentand let the Agencys past/present/future UFO documentation off thehook? Answer: only if we UFO-oriented citizens remain apatheticenough to let this happen.Now, perhaps most disturbingin the recent reports of intelligence-agency hostility toward the Act andits users is the prospect that theCentral Intelligence Agency is (1)secretly trying to revive its infamousrole in so-called domestic intelligence(whereby it was able to infiltrateUFO research groups and partici-pate in "UFO news management");(2) openly trying to get itself absolv-ed from any FOIA compliance.As to the first point, it seems thatCongress wont let any ClA agents(Continued on next page)13
  15. 15. AIRCRAFT AND "AIRCRAFT"By Robert Wanderer(MUFON Research Specialistin Communications)You see a light moving in thenight sky. Your first thought: air-craft. It comes closer, and you see thetypical pattern of wingtip lights, youhear the sound, you dimly make outthe shape of a plane. Your firstthought, aircraft, is confirmed andmay now be considered "fact."You see another light moving inthe night sky.Again, your first thoughtis aircraft. But as it comes closer, yourealize that its moving faster thanany plane can. The lights colors andpattern of intensity are like nothingyouve ever seen, you hear no sound,you cannot make out any shape.Calling this a craft is thus "inference,"not fact.Secrecy, Continuedresume their earlier, unfetteredcounterintelligence activitieson thehome front; the CIA leadership, infact, avers it seeks no such resump-tion. But if the Agency does succeedin getting the Freedom of Informa-tion Act off its back, isnt it conceiv-able that eventuallythe Agency couldslip back into its evil ways withassurance that the public no longerwould have a ready device to detectthe change?And when the current GSW/CAUS litigationends, what tool canUFO-oriented citizens use to pryloose from the Agency any futurecollection of UFO-related records?These questions for the UFOphilosopher have wider implicationsin the body politic, of course — notthe least of which centers on theissue of governmental credibility.If90 percent of Americas adultpopu-lation disbelieves in the govern-ments official position on the realityof UFOs, what does this tell us aboutthe survivabilityof our basic institu-tions —especially those that dependon a high level of public support intimes of crisis?14A crucial distinction. Fact iswhatyou see; inference is how you inter-pret what you see. What you saw inthe second case might be termed analleged craft, or what Ithought was acraft, or simply a "craft" with quota-tion marks around it. Those quota-tion marks or modifiers—in bothyour writingand your thinking—arevital in a UFO investigation Theyalso help us avoid that monerror of holding on to our fi :tenta-tive conclusion even when later ob-servation makes our initial theorymuch less likely.Consider the famousTravis Wal-ton case. Walton and his six co-workers are in a truck returning inthe dark from a long day of treethinning in a remote Arizona forest,and they see a "dazzling sight"just afew yards off the ground. One mansays, "My God, its a flying saucer."Then, during the next few para-graphs of Waltons book describingthe experience, thiswhatever-it-wasis termed a disc, a craft, a ship—allwithout quotation marks or modifiers.1We can understand the cry of"flying saucer" in the frighteningsurprise of that confrontation. Butmonths laterwhen Waltonwrote thebook he neglected to qualify what hesaw. Because he did not distinguishbetween fact and inference, and be-cause he and hiscohorts were lockedinto their first theory, they could notconsider the possibility that theymight have seen a rare and unex-plained natural event.Lets go back to the aircraft sight-ing in the second paragraph of thisarticle. That was based on "UFOSighting in Mexico" in a recent issueof this journal.2A particularlygoodexample of the problem, becauseauthor Walter Blaney comes acrossas a competent and accurate observer,yet he fails to make the fact/inferencedistinction, and he stays with hisoriginal theory of aircraft even whenwhat he sees no longer fits.He first sees "what I thought tobe some jet airplanescomingtowardme." But in the next sentence, andon throughout the article, he refersto what hes seeing as craft (withoutquotation marks or modifiers), evenas he notes that the colors and pulsa-tions and speeds he was seeing werequite incompatiblewithconventionalaircraft.He points out, curiously: "Icouldnot see the craft themselves, butonly the light which they emitted."A few paragraphs later he even de-duces from the pattern of movinglights that he isseeing "saucer-shapedcraft." Most remarkably, he says "Iknow how easy it is to be fooled bywhat one sees," but neverthelessinsists "I know them to be craft faradvanced from anythingthe generalpublic knows about as faras conven-tional aircraft are concerned."Most people will agree withBlaneythat aircraft was a reasonable theoryto tentatively explain what he firstsaw. But it quickly became apparentthat he saw only lights, not an actualaircraft. The only aircraft he "saw"were the ones he created in hisperception.A quick rundown on how weperceive:From the vast panorama alwaysaround us, we choose certain thingsof interest for our eyes to notice.Within a split-second we do aquick"computer check" of our memory tofind similar material already in ourbrain. Then we construct a "picturein our head" which is our personalcreation in which we combine whatwe have chosen to look at and whatwe have chosen from our memoryto relate that to.(Continued on next page)
  16. 16. Aircraft, ContinuedThe picture in our head, of course,is not the same as the "real event"out there. As a practical matter, wecan agree that certain sights andsounds makeup aircraft, and we canconsider that aircraft a fact. We getinto trouble,however, when we makean inference and then treat thatinference as if it were a fact. Peoplecan agree on facts, but we disagreeabout inferences. And unless we usequotation marks and modifiers andother such qualifiers when we talkabout inferences such as Blaneys"aircraft," we are severely limitingour chances of findingexplanationsfor events that puzzle us.When I brought this matter upwith Richard Hall, the editor of thisjournal, he agreed on the impor-tance of making the distinction be-tween fact (observation) and infer-ence (interpretation), but asked,"Why shouldnt one believe in hisinterpretation of what he saw ifhe isa critical observer?" Unfortunately,someone who isa critical observer isnot necessarily a valid interpreter;Blaney gives the impression of accu-rate observation, but when he tellsus he "knows" they are some far-advanced kind of "craft," he is stat-ing his inference, his estimate ofprobability, without telling us whatother factors have gone into hisassessment.What alternate explanation isthere for what Blaney saw? Oneproblem in answering such a ques-tion is that because Blaney was con-vinced that what he saw were ad-vanced aircraft, he did not investi-gate any other possibilities. In glanc-ing through my own files as Iwrite, Inote UFO cases from a temperatureinversion,3radar beams bouncingoff clouds,4electricity leaking from ahigh-tension power line,5and a swarmof moths illuminated by atmosphericelectricity.6While none ofthose situa-tions would seem to apply here,some other environmental factormight well be the explanation. Unlesswe keep our options open with accu-rate use of language, well never findthat explanation.The need for quotation marksand other qualifiers to help us keepfacts and inferences separate is notconfined, of course, to instances of"craft" as in the Blaney case and theTravis Walton one. An equally seri-ous situation—one that might holdthe UFO movement up to publicridicule—surrounds the hypnotiz-ing of people who have had somesort of UFO experience. Under hyp-nosis, they come up with a story,usually of being taken aboard a UFO,being given a physical examination,and having various adventures with"aliens" before returning. These arecalled "abductions"—but these areseldom if ever qualified as "what theperson under hypnosis experiencedas an abduction," or as an "allegedabduction," or even as an "abduc-tion" with quotation marks aroundit.In these cases, the experience isaprivate, personal one: there is nosupporting "hard"evidence or inde-pendent testimony that an abduct-ion occurred. Is it "real"? Its un-doubtedly "real" to the person underhypnosis, but theres no wayof deter-mining if its "real" in the moregeneral sense. There is considerablewarning in the UFO literature aboutthe dangers ofhypnosis: the Hynek/Vallee book points out that hypnoticsubjects "are extremely compliant,"and ifyou ask for a UFO story, theyllcome up with a UFO story; subjects"fabricate" material from "wishfulthinking, fantasies, dreams."7Undersuch circumstances,quotation marksare desperately needed around those"abductions."Even the term "unidentified fly-ing object" itself is an unfortunatechoice. We think of an "object" assomething solid, and by using thatword we tend to eliminate manypossibilities from consideration, suchas reflections, clouds, and electricalphenomena. The word "flying" im-plies movement in the sky, whereasmany UFOs are on or near theground, or even ifin the sky may notbe moving. More confusing, becauseit involves such a subtle assumption,is that we think of "flying" as imply-ing conscious control, so again wetend to exclude natural phenomena.As a practical matter, it is too lateto change the expression "unidenti-fied flying object" to something moreaccurate and specific. But I think itsuseful to "think in quotes"—to putthose quotation marks around UFOswhen you think about them, as areminder to yourself that this par-ticular one youre looking at or think-ing about might well turn out to bewhat more accurately might be calledan "event" rather than an "object"—some sort of electrical or electro-magnetic or meteorological or otheractivity.Whether you put quotation marksaround "UFO" or not, they or someother qualifierare vital when talkingand thinking about "craft" and"abductions" when we do not havesufficient hard evidence to considerthem a "fact."NOTES & REFERENCES1. Travis Walton, The Walton Experience,(Berkley Medallion Books, 1978).2. "UFO Sighting in Mexico," Walter Blaney,MUFON UFO Journal, January 1981.3. United Press story from Clovis N.M., 1-26-75.4. United Press story from Buenos Aires, 10-24-78.5. Time magazine, 11-19-73. (This article doesnot mention any UFO, but does describea"blue glow" around a high-voltage elec-tric wire. Since there were several othereffects related to the wire, the "blue glow"was not ascribed to a UFO, although Isuspect that similar cases of "glowings"near electric wires may come from somelittle-understood electricity/environmentinteraction.)6. Time magazine, 11-20-78; Associated Pressstory from St. Petersburg Fla., 1-16-79.7. J. Allen Hynek and Jacques Vallee, TheEdge of Reality, (Henry Regnery Co., 1975),pp. 107 and 91.CUFOS SYMPOSIUMThe Center for UFO Studies1981 Symposium will be held atthe Midland Hotel, West Adamsat LaSalle, Chicago, Illinois,September 25-27.For information write toCUFOS, P.O. Box 1402, Evanston,IL 60204 or call Mark Rodeghierat (312) 648-0270 during businesshours, (312)761-9012 weekdayevenings.15
  17. 17. BOOK REVIEWUFOsandthe LimitsofScienceBy Ronald D. Story (WilliamMorrowand Co.,Inc. New York, 1981). 290 pp.$12.95.Story, who last year, with J. RichardGreenwell, gave us that excellentcompilation, The Encyclopedia ofUFOs, now presents his personalviews on the subject. Despite itsgood points, the book is on thewhole disappointing.It is almost entirely derivative.There are very few new facts orideas. For example, Chapter 2, "TheModern Age of Flying Saucers," re-peats yet again historical materialthat everyone is familiar with thesubject has read a dozen times. Un-less Story felt that he was writingforreaders quite new to the subject,surely to retread this well-troddenground was unnecessary.Puzzling inclusions of materialare accompanied by equally puzzl-ing omissions. In Chapter 1, "TheFirst UFOs," Story discusses in detailthe cave paintings in France andSpain that have been thought bysome UFOlogists to include draw-ings of "spaceships with landinggear." But he omits two importantaspects of the "ancient astronauts"theory: first, his own very com-mendable work in exposing the ab-surdities of the theories of vonDaniken, who isstill widely read anduncritically believed; and second,the curious religious beliefs held bythe Dogon tribe of Africa, describedin The Sirius Mystery, by RobertTemple. No discussion of possibleancient astronauts is complete with-out including these books.Another extraordinary conflictoccurs in the same chapter, in thesection on biblicalUFOs.Here Storychooses as an example of UFOphenomena in the scriptures the"pillar of cloud by day and pillar offire by night" that guided the Israel-ites in their 40-year wanderings. Ofall biblical "UFOs" this seems theleast likely —unless one is preparedto accept a sighting that lasted for40years. But as for Ezekielswheel, that16does not appear .at all in Storysdiscussion.Having dealt so unevenly withthe historicalaspects of UFOs, Storytakes up, in Part II,the "elusive harddata" — physical traces and photo-graphs. The chapter on traces in-cludes a great mixture — everythingfrom three cases of "blobs"(Forteanbut irrelevant, since no UFO activitywas reported in any of the threecases described) to humanoid bod-ies (discussed unfairly, it seems tome, under the heading "The ScullyHoax"; Len Stringfields data areincluded, but it is clear that Storydoes not accept dead UFO occu-pants, or abductions either).I was greatly surprised to readthat Story calls the Socorro, NewMexico, case "highly dubious," "notdeserving the high credibilityratingthat it gets from the majority of UFOproponents." His judgment is ap-parently based on statements madeby P. Klass. But Story himself, inanother part of the book, criticizesfdasss plasma theory vigorously,and elsewhere warns the UFO stu-dent to be aware of the bias ofinvestigators. Surely he knows thatMasss aim is to debunk every sight-ing as misinterpretation, or asresult-ing from fear and confusion on thepart of witnesses, or as deliberatehoaxing. Why, then, does he takeKlass on Socorro so seriously?Other matters discussed in thischapter on traces are Delphos,Kansas; the Utatuba magnesium;three angel-hair cases; the 1967 re-port from FalconLake —the StevenMichalak case (here Story hints atpsychological explanation); Austral-ian "saucer nests", and alleged UFOlandings in soy bean fields.The chapter on photographs isexcellent. Instead of the usual stalewarnings about len flares and hoaxphotographs, Story simply presentsthree strong photographic cases: theTrent photos at McMinnville,Oregon, and the Mariana film takenat Great Falls, Montana, both in1950; and the Trindade Island,Brazil, photo series of 1958.The New Zealand film of 1978appears as one of Storys "ten bestcases" in the next chapter. In theIntroduction he has told us that hecircularized UFOlogists askingeachone to submit such a "ten best" list,and that he was amazed at the lackofconsensus, which obliged him toselect his own ten best. For my part,Iam surprised at his amazement.Among them, UFOlogists have aroster of strong cases thatprobablyrun into the hundreds, and to expectagreement on a mere ten wasnaive.All of the cases he presents areindeed strong, and have been wellpublicized. Together, theyillustratemost of the striking circumstancesand phenomena in UFO history:attempted interception byjet planes,police involvement, radar confirma-tion of visual sightings, animal re-actions, E-M effects, etc. All metStorys triple test: more than onewitness, strong documentation, andwitness integrity. Three others arereports from abroad: Lakenheath,England, 1956; Boiani,New Guinea,1959; and Iran, 1976. Sixare domes-tic: Nash-Fortenberry, 1952; Level-land, Texas, 1957; Betty and BarneyHill, 1961 (Story accepts the UFOwith occupants but rejects the ab-duction story); Exeter, New Hamp-shire, 1965; The Portage County,Ohio, chase, 1966; and the Coynehelicopter case, 1973.For most of these, Story exa-mines the "rational" explanationsoffered by debunkers, and showshow dismallythese explanations failto fit the reported facts.In "The Search for Patterns,"Story briefly classifies UFOs byshape and structure and points outsimilarities in behavior. He alsomentions some of the temporal andgeographical patterns that research-ers think they have detected andhave attributed to various alien mo-tives for examining Earth. He pro-perly points out the weakness ofallpattern theories; namely, that noone really knows how many genuinesightings have occurred, or when, or.where.Coming in hislast chapter, to thesecond part of his title, Story pointsout two major limitations that(Continued on next page)
  18. 18. Story Review, Continuedhamper scientists in trying to un-ravel the UFO enigma: First, thesephenomena do not lend themselvesto analysisby the customary scientif-ic methods; and second, scientistsare human beings subject to thesame biases and prejudicesas otherpeople (here he refers to a mostinteresting study of the psychologyof scientists, conducted by M.J.Mahoney of Pennsylvania StateUniversity).The Foreword,by Thornton Page,a member of the famed RobertsonPanel of 1953 and now with theJohnson Space Center in Houston,isextremely interesting.Page charact-erizes the writings of Condon,Menzel, and Philip Klass as "a regret-table pseudo-^scientific attempt todebunk the whole UFO matter";says that the Condon Report seem-ed to be unscientific and inconsist-ent; notes "how difficult it is toexplain some of the reliable UFOreports" and endorses Storys re-commendation for a philosophicaland epistemologicalapproach to thesubject as a basis for answering thecentral question, What is the natureof scientific evidence? (Butwill thisapproach actually elucidate the mys-tery of UFOs, or merely breed morecontroversy?)The Appendix, on the otherhand, entitled "The Limitations ofScience," by Bruce Murray, Directorof the Jet Propulsion Laboratory inPasadena, California, is standard-issue orthodoxy regarding Forteana,complete with the usual jumbledcategories, superficial comments,and complacency that we have en-countered so often before.Throughout, Story is diligent inexpressing skepticism about certainaspects of UFOlogy. But on balance,he is clearly a "believer," refusing todismiss the hard-core evidence withthe sweeping generalizations usedby the debunkers. Perhaps, when hehas become familiar with the manycomplexities of the UFO picture, hewill supply us with a more completebook and one that does not so oftengive the impression of deja vu.Isabel DavisBOOK REVIEWMissing Time: A DocumentedStudyofTJFO Abductions, ByBuddHopkins (N.Y.: Richard Marek Pub-lishers, 1981) 258 p.; $12.95.This book should not be read byimpressionable children. The veryidea thatalien entitiesare mesmeriz-ing and abducting us, and perform-ing medical/biological tests on us,one by one, stealthily, covering theirtracks by inducing amnesia in theirsubjects, is the stuff of nightmares.By all common sense, it is also pre-posterous.In presenting the results of hyp-notic regression sessions duringwhich this scenario has emerged,the author displays a proneness tospeculate and assume particularsbeyond the given evidence to sup-port the view that it is really hap-pening. His view is that aliens areusing us as laboratory specimens forreasons unknown. His departurefrom objective or neutral reporting,though, is excusable on the groundsthat the stories emerging under hyp-nosis are astoundingly congruent.The simplest hypothesis is that it isreally happening.The best alternatives anyone hasbeen able to come up with are that:(1) the stories are confabulations ofhypnosis, subtly drawn from absorb-ing culturallore about UFOs or tak-ing hints from the investigators; (2)each of us carries within ourselvesthe raw materials for an abductionstory, in an archetypal sense, whichmay be triggered into the consciousmind as a modern myth decked outin the cultural clothing of today(Hilary Evans, No. 158, April 1981);or (3) some—at least—of the ab-ductees may be revivifying birthtrauma emotions and sensations, forwhich parallel data exists in LSDexperiments (Alvin Lawson, paperto be presented at September 1981CUFOS Conference).Although the reliability of hyp-nosis as a truth-seeking technique isjustifiably controversial, and thewhole question cries out for illumi-nation, both the means by which thestories have emerged and their con-tent seem to militate against Hy-pothesis 1. Both Hypothesis 2 andHypothesis 3 remain to be furtherexamined, though neither on theface of it seems adequate to explainall or most of the core data. Thatthere is some unfortunate "feed-back" from investigator to subjectseems clear even from the authorsown anecdotes about follow-upcon-versations with the abductees. Oftenthe subjects do seem to be "en-couraged" to come up with or elab-orate an abduction scenario.Despite these lapses—and theauthor properly labels his own specu-lations as such—a compelling case ismade, and reinforced by the profes-sional opinion of psychologistAphrodite Clamar, that it could bereally happening. Enough paralleland coincidental information hasemerged pretty well on its own,world-wide, and without obviousinvestigator cues to the subjects, tosuggest that some real and unex-plained thing has happened to theabductees. Whether it will ultimate-ly prove to be real abductions orsome bizarre psychological aberra-tion remains to be seen. In anyevent, psychologists ought to payattention and involve themselves inscientific study of abduction reports.Taken for what it is, the authorsstory ofbeing drawn into the investi-gations and watching the abductionscenarios unfold, the book is a bril-liant one. His own comments onwhat he has observed and experi-enced are incisive and thought-provoking. The book is well writtenand totally absorbing. Furthermore,his thesis is highly defensible givenwhat we now know—or think weknow—about the human mind andhypnosis. Should some other hy-pothesis ultimately prove to be cor-rect; the author cannot be faulted.His isan honest and forthright workthat will serve to focus attention onthe perplexing subject of abduc-tions, and will help point the way toa resolution.—Richard Hall17
  19. 19. Letters"Close Encounter"Editor,Neither your limited space normy limited time allows me to refutethe numerous misstatements madeby Quentin Fogarty (No. 157, March1981) in which he purports to re-count what transpired during ourmeeting. (Both of us made tape re-cordings of our "Close Encounter.")Let me cite one example ofFogartys distortions. He wrote: "Itsthe character assassination that Ifind particularly offensive. In a letterto me, Mass accused Bill Startup (thepilot) of having suicidal tendenciesand Geoff Causer (the radar opera-tor) ofbeing derelict in his responsi-bilities."Compare Fogartys claim withwhat I actually wrote him on March25, 1980, in response to his requestfor my views on the New ZealandUFO incident. I first pointed out thatthe primary responsibility of anytraffic controller is to maintain safeseparation of an airplane under hiscontrol, and to give directions to apilot facing a potential mid-air colli-sion on the maneuvers he shouldtake to avoid such a conflict.Then I wrote: "In listening to atape recording of the communica-tions between the Wellington Center[i.e., Causer] and Capt. Startup, andin studying the transcript [of theirradio conversations] I fail to find ordetect any evidence of concern orany evidence that Wellington at-tempted to direct Startup out of theseemingly potential conflict situa-tion [with the "UFO blips"]. Nor do Idetect that Startup was at all con-cerned about the situation."One possible explanation forthis is that the traffic controller wasderelict in his responsibilities andthat Startup has suicidal tendenciesand has lost alldesire to live. Anotherpossible explanation is that the con-troller and Startup were playinggames for your benefit, never dream-ing that the incident would mush-room into an internationally famousincident. I am unable to think of anyother alternatives."18Fogarty concludes that my UFO-skepticism stems from a search for"notoriety" and he charges I am a"publicity junkie." I achieved inter-national fame more than a quarter ofa century ago, thanks to the prestigeof Aviation Week & Space Technologymagazine. I have appeared on television and the TV ofBritain, West Germany, and Italy, inconnection with my expertise inavionics and "spy satellites" as wellas high-energy lasers.I will not attempt to assess all ofthe factors that motivate Fogartysviews on UFOs.Butas he haspubliclyadmitted in print, he went to greatlengthsto financially exploit the filmand his experience.Ican understandhis bitterness at not achieving thefinancial bonanza he expected, buthe ought not put all of the blame onme for his misfortune, including theloss of his job as a reporter forStation O in Australia.—Philip J. KlassWashington, D.C.Retrievals ResponseEditor:In response to Virgil Staffs criti-que of my review of Stringfieldsmonograph on saucer crashes andretrievals, I have three comments.First, on my doubts concerning U.S.government interest in UFOs, if Imust choose between two possibili-ties, that I have "not read the litera-ture with care" or that I "interpret(s)it differently from most Ufologists," Iwill opt for the latter.Second, I am not disturbed aboutthe supposed involvement ofjuniorpersonnel in retrievals; what disturbsme is that, almost invariably, theyare the only ones revealing their in-volvement (and even then, anony-mously). Why no revelations bysenior personnel and by scientists?Third, Staff is under a miscon-ception concerning the resourcesavailable within "government agen-cies." Manyof the specialists neededto study retrieval materials, particu-larly those in the biological sciences,would have to be outside contrac-tors; that is, scientists affiliated withconsulting firms, universities, andindustry, who would not necessarilyfeel morally bound — and certainlynot intellectually bound — to thedictates of the contracting govern-ment agency, especially over a longperiod. What positions, then, arejeopardized? What are the "penal-ties" for tenured professors whowould loveto go down in the historybooks? Im not talking about juniorindividuals who would "try to ex-pose" such a secret. I am talkingabout senior individuals who wouldexpose such a secret, openly, direct-ly, and fully. Why, even the CIAitself cannot control its own people,as evidenced by former agent PhilipAgee, who went so far as to publish atrade book revealing governmentsecrets.If Mr. Staff doubts the govern-ments reliance on outsidetechnicalsupport, then he is unacquaintedwith the traditional working struc-ture shared by the federal govern-ment, academia,and industry,whichis not like in the movies. In fact, onecould ask why the Air Force Aero-space Medical Research Laboratory,located at WrightPatterson Air ForceBase — right where one would ex-pect the "littlefellows"to be taken—periodically issues requests for pro-posals to anatomists and anthro-pologists to undertake research onhuman and primatefunctional mor-phology, research they desperatelyneed to sponsor in support of aero-space medicine studies, but whichthey have no in-house capability toconduct.J. Richard GreenwellTucson, ArizonaLetters to the Editor are in-vited, commenting on any articlesor other material published in theJournal. Please confine them toabout 400 words. Articles of a-bout 500-750 words will be con-sidered for publication as "Comments"or "Notes." All submissions are subjectto editing for length and style.
  20. 20. Lucius Parishin Others wordsA report of"space vampires" ter-rozing inhabitants of northeasternBrazil is featured in the June 2 issueof NATIONALENQUIRER. Num-erous UFOs have been seen in theregion and it is claimed that peoplehave suffered strange wounds of un-known origin. Bob Pratts report inthe June 16 ENQUIRER tells of ahuge UFO seen by policemen inWill County, 111. on November 25,1980.The June 9 issue of THE STARreports on the 8-year study of UFOsconducted by Dr. Harley D. Rut-ledge in southeastern Missouri.Rut-ledges work is detailed in his newbook, PROJECTIDENTIFICATION,published by Prentice-Hall (andhighly recommended).Daniel Cohen contributes the"UFO Update" column for the Juneissue of OMNI. Cohen gives a fairlyobjective summary of the "great air-ship flap" of 1896-97. His book onthis subject is schedule for publica-tion by Dodd Mead later in the year.Another heavy dose of rehash inthe #22 issue of TRUE OUTERSPACE & PARANORMAL WORLD.Much ofthe materialpertains to sub-jects other than UFOs.The July issue of FATE has aninteresting article by Pearl Gonzalezon UFO abductee Betty Hill. Muchof the article centers around the"landing area" where Betty claims tohave observed and photographedUFOs on many occasions.If you happened across a bookwith the title, HOW TO BUILD AFLYING SAUCER: AND OTHERPROPOSALS IN SPECULATIVEENGINEERING, you might be for-given for regarding it with somesuspicion. However, there is such abook and its author, T. B.Pawlicki, isnot a crackpot. On the contrary, he isa very informative and entertainingwriter who has compiled a lot of in-triguing material for this book. Notonly doesitcontain Pawlickis theorieson UFO propulsion (as the title im-plies), but he also discusses suchesoterica as time travel, the methodsused to build the Pyramids andother megaliths, the possibility ofanancient, world-wide communica-tions network, etc. In one chapter, hegoes "Beyond Velikovsky" insug-gesting explanations for a numberofsolar system mysteries. Granted,much of his material is speculation,but it is informed speculation, whichis a far cry from wild guesses. I en-joyed the book very much and cer-tainly recommend it to you.It isavailable in a trade paperback edi-tion for $5.95 from: Prentice-Hall,Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632.(Directors Message, ConL)future class to be conducted in theSan FranciscoBayArea should writeto Mr. Gates at 1055 RemingtonDrive, Sunnyvale, CA 94087.Robert Spencer, State Directorfor Colorado, has announced thatthe next "Colorado MUFON GetTogether" is scheduled for 2:00 p.m.Sunday, July 26,1981, at the home ofVance Reed, 11353 Humboldt, Northglenn, CO 80233.Tim Martin, Amateur RadioVE-4AJM in Canada, has responded tothe recent article in the Journal sug-gesting the formation of an interna-tional UFO net in the 10, 15, or 20meter amateur radio bands. We in-vite others around the world to ex-press their interest in such a weeklynet by either writing to MUFON inSeguin, Texas, or Tim Martin, 213Alcrest Drive, Winnipeg, ManitobaR3R OY2, Canada. (We sincerelyhope that the mailstrike in Canada ispromptly resolved, since it has al-ready affected our correspondenceand monthly Journal delivery.)Starting with the April 1973UFO flap in the Piedmont, Missouri,locality, Harley D. Rutledge, Ph.D.,has been conducting an instrument-ed search for UFO evidence. Dr.Rutledge and his associates at South-east Missouri State University tookon the task of witnessing, photo-graphing, and recording UFOsunder controlled conditions. Hisnew book titled "Project Identifica-tion: The First Scientific Field Studyof the UFO Phenomena" (Prentice-Hall) is a complete report,illustratedwith photos, diagrams, and statisti-cal tables of their work. Please con-tact your local book store to order acopy, listed at $10.95.The entire MUFON organiza-tion has offered its heartfelt condol-ences to Mr. Norbert Mathey, hus-band of BarbaraC. Mathey,MUFONContinental Coordinator for Africa,French Translator and ResearchSpecialist. Barbara died June 10,1981. She was born on September10, 1917,in Sewickley, Pa., and at-tended Vassar College. She residedin Paris, France, for 10 years and inthe LosAngeles area for many years.Services were held on June 13th atSt. Aldans Episcopal Church inWest Los Angeles. After attendingevery MUFON UFO Symposiumsince 1975, Barbaras presence inCambridge, Mass, was sadly missed.She and Norbert have expressedtheir support of the Mutual UFONetwork over the past few yearsthrough their generous contributions.19