Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Mufon ufo journal   1981 8. august
Mufon ufo journal   1981 8. august
Mufon ufo journal   1981 8. august
Mufon ufo journal   1981 8. august
Mufon ufo journal   1981 8. august
Mufon ufo journal   1981 8. august
Mufon ufo journal   1981 8. august
Mufon ufo journal   1981 8. august
Mufon ufo journal   1981 8. august
Mufon ufo journal   1981 8. august
Mufon ufo journal   1981 8. august
Mufon ufo journal   1981 8. august
Mufon ufo journal   1981 8. august
Mufon ufo journal   1981 8. august
Mufon ufo journal   1981 8. august
Mufon ufo journal   1981 8. august
Mufon ufo journal   1981 8. august
Mufon ufo journal   1981 8. august
Mufon ufo journal   1981 8. august
Mufon ufo journal   1981 8. august
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Mufon ufo journal 1981 8. august

237

Published on

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

  • Be the first to like this

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

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. THEMUFON UFOJOURNALNUMBER 162 AUGUST 1981Founded 1967•OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF$1.50MUTUAL UFO NETWORK, INC.iSite of London International UFO Congress
  • 2. The MUFONUFO JOURNAL(USPS 002-970)103 Oldtowne Rd.Seguin, Texas 78155RICHARD HALLEditorANN DRUFFELAssociate EditorLEN STRINGFIELDAssociate EditorMILDRED BIESELEContributing EditorWALTER H. ANDRUSDirector of MUFONTED BLOECHERDAVE WEBBCo-Chairmen,Humanoid StudyGroupPAUL CERNYPromotion/PublicityREV. BARRY DOWNINGReligion and UFOsLUCIUS PARISHBooks/Periodicals/HistoryMARK HERBSTRITTAstronomyRQSETTA HOLMESPromotion/PublicityTED PHILLIPSLanding Trace CasesJOHN F. SCHUESSLERUFO PropulsionDENNIS 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. 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 EDITORWe present in this issue still another interpretation of abductionreports, this time as psychological imagery. The ferment of thoughton abduction cases is a healthy sign. The authors idea is interestingand deserves to be studied, though its application to some cases (e.g.,Travis Walton, with independent witnesses to a UFO, and others withphysical evidence effects) would seem to be strained. Still, it may haveapplication • to some of the cases and therefore warrants discussionrather than outrof-hand rejection. As with- some other recent"theories," the author may be stretching it too far. However, the im-agery phenomena described do bear sufficient resemblance to someaspects of close encounter cases to suggest that the notion deservescritical review.In this issueIMAGERY AND CLOSE ENCOUNTERS 1 3By Keith BasterfieldSECOND LONDON INTERNATIONALUFO CONGRESS. 7By Dennis StacyPERCIPIENT-DEPENDENT COMPONENTS 10By Luis SehoenherrBOOK REVIEW ("TheRoswell Incident") 11By Bruce S. MaccabeeCALIFORNIA REPORT 12By Ann DruffelCARL SAGAN: A COMMUNICATION 15By William H.SpauldingBOOK REVIEW("Casebook of a UFO Investigator") 16By John F. SchuesslerLETTERS 16IN OTHERSWORDS 19By Lucius ParishDIRECTORS MESSAGE 20By Walt AndrusThe contents of The MUFONUFO JOURNAL are determined by the editor, anddp not necessarily represent the official position of MUFON. Opinions ofcontributors are their own, and do not necessarily reflect those ofthe editor, thestaff, or MUFON. Articlesmay be forwarded directlyto 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. All submissions 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 authorof the article is given credit, andthe statement "Copyright 1981 by the MUFON UFOJOURNAL, 103OldtowneRd.,Seguin, Texas" is included.
  • 3. IMAGERY AND CLOSE ENCOUNTERSBy Keith BasterfieldThe great majority of reportedobservations of UFOs are explainablein conventional terms once commonsense investigation has taken place.Aircraft, weather balloons, clouds,the moon, the sun, stars, planets, andmeteors have all been the cause ofreports from people caught either bysomething which they havent pre-viously observed or by an unex-pected or unusual aspect of viewing.Ground markings reportedly asso-ciated with UFOs have been causedby fungus, slime mould, leaf smut,animals, whirlwinds, helicopters andhoaxes.Even photographs have fallen tothe use of sophisticated computertechnology which has now eliminatedall but a few of the more than 1,000photographs known to have been in-vestigated since 1947.Radar "evidence" has been con-fused by the lack of understandingthat even in this medium the humanelement of interpretation still comesinto play and that other cases can beeliminated by the words "anomalouspropagation." The January 1979 NewZealand radar reports in associationwith two movie films represents thepoint in question. The New Zealandgovernment declared the radar targetsto be due to faulty equipment andanomalous propagation effects. Thesecond film was said to be Venus anddoubt was cast on the initial film asbeing of littlescientific value.(This in-terpretation, of course, is stronglydisputed by Dr. Bruce S. Maccabee.-Ed.)The residue left after the above ex-planations have been taken into ac-count are a few photographs whichhave passed computer analysis, asmall group of physical trace cases,and a larger number of close en-counters where verbal testimony isthe only evidence available.It is this latter group of reportswhich will be the subject of thispaper.The following examples ofreported encounters will illustrate thetypical event under consideration.Gum Creek, South Australia (1964)A farmers wife lying awake at0200 hrs. (CST)1noticed a "figure"suddenly appear outside the bedroomwindow, as if a "movie screen hadbeen unrolled." The scene seemedvery bright as if daylight and the en-tity was revealed in great detailbecause of the unusual lighting. Themale figure appeared to be taking"photographs," then advancedtowards the window. The ladywanted to speak to the figure butfound she couldnt. She slipped downinto bed and fell asleep. It was con-jectured by her that the lighting camefrom an object above the house. Notraces were found.Sandford, Tasmania (1978)Awakening due to a dog barking, awoman rose at 2350 hrs. (EST)2andlooked out of the window. She no-ticed a "doorway" of white light outon the rough, front driveway. It wasdark everywhere else surroundingthe "door." However through andonly through the "door" she could seethe drive as if it were lit up bydaylight. Then a golden glow spreadfrom the door and both went out in-stantly. No traces found.Boyup Brook, West Australia (196 7)A man was driving alone at 2130hrs. (WST),3doing a steady 100 kph.Suddenly he became aware of the ap-proach of a lighted object from theair. The car was immediately"stopped dead" and all electricalsystems ceased to function.There wasno feeling of deceleration at all. Look-ing up he reported seeing an irrides-cent blue oval over the car with atube of light extending down into thecar. After an estimated five minutesthe object left and he found himselftravelling along at 100 kph again withall systems working and no feeling ofacceleration. His watch was laterreportedly found to be 5 minutesslow.Prospect, III., USA (1977)At 0100 hrs. (local) while drivingalone a 19-year-old man claimed hewas abducted from his car and takeninto an object where weird entitieswere observed. He was then returnedto his vehicle and found himself stilltravelling at speed.An inspection of a large (300) sam-ple of such close encounters withinAustralia lead to the conclusion thatmost are reported to occur in rural orisolated localities, at night, mainlywith only one person present, fre-quently when they are driving a vehi-cle. There are peaks in the times ofreports, namely 2000-2200 hrs. and0200-0400 hrs. (see diagram l). Thetype of object reported varies tremen-dously, and in some cases a humanoid"figure" is described in associationwith the UFO. There are physicallyinexplicable events described such as"materialization," cars being "takenover" from the drivers control, andabduction stories of medical examina-tion.In attempting to determine if therewas a real event without resort to theextraterrestrial hypothesis or othermore fanciful theories, two casescaught my attention. Details follow.Ivy Tanks, South Australia (1973)A lady was travelling as a passen-ger in a semi-trailerand decided to goto sleep at 0200 hrs.1About 0300 hrs.she heard a warm male voice callingher name and telling her to look outof the window. By the side of theroad she saw an egg-shaped objectsurrounded by a "force field." The en-tire thing was alight with a whiteglow which seemed to come from all(continued on next page)
  • 4. Imagery, Continuedover and inside it. She feels the ovalmay have been semi-transparent. Thisillumination was so good that she wasat a loss to compare the color andglow to anything she could think of.Although the viewing time was short(5 seconds) much detail was noted.The "force field" glow died down inan inexplicable manner. She woke upfeeling fresh and upon questioningthe driver found he had said and seennothing.Frankston, Victoria (1972)While driving home, a 37-year-oldhousewife encountered a large silver-blue irridescent object hovering overher car. Twenty-two days later asimilar or thesame object appearedover her car at the same location. Sud-denly the cars engine cut off andcouldnt be restarted. She tried thesteering wheel, pumped the brakeand changed gear, all to no avail. Thecar "controlled itself" to the side ofthe road and stopped. All sound wasdrained out of the air and she was toldthree things. The engine then starteditself and she drove to a policestationand reported the incident. Later amental message told her to return tothe spot. On the way a man "material-ized" then later "dematerialized" in-side her car. Meeting two other peo-ple at the spot she again saw this"man" then lapsed into unconscious-ness and while physically in thepresence of two people who sawnone of this, she described beingtaken inside a "room." There was novisible sign of illumination yet theroom was well lit. She then recoveredin the car. Other odd psychic eventsoccurred at around this time (e.g.,voices in her head). She was regardedas an average, normal healthy personby those who knew her.As will be noted from these tworeports there are items which wewould consider impossible. Cars donot take over control of themselvesand materializationisnot an everydaypractice. Remember, though, we arenot talking of cranks or crackpotshere, we are speaking of credible,reliable, healthy, average personswho stood up to rigorous cross-examination. These events are singleor at most multiple over a period of 6months in an entire lifetime, not con-stantly repeated unlike so-called "con-tactee" claims.A court would have nodoubt about the status of these peopleas reliable witnesses.A literature search revealed thatthere are known psychologicalphenomena which are still not fullyunderstood (as far as a mechanismgoes) which seem to provide a possi-ble examination for these events.These are hypnopompic and hyp-nagogic imagery.4Hypnopompic imagery was sonamed by Alfred Maury in 1848.Maury perceived "faces" in the dark.Both types of imagery most often oc-cur with the eyes closed, but may alsooccur in a darkened environmentwith the eyes open. McKellar (1972)reports encountering individuals whoreported remarkably similar imagerywhich occurred when they were fullyawake.The imagery content is visual, orauditory, in the main but also includesensation of heat/cold, smell, ortouch. They may be reproductions ofthe events of the day or strange,bizarre imagesof pleasing or frighten-ing proportions. There seems to belit-tle control over their appearance, andthus a person could certainly befrightened by their sudden onset.Reality and images of this kind can bereadily confused. One of the mostbasic auditory images is that of hear-ing ones name called. You may recallinstances where sleeping or dozingwaiting for a morning call to break-fast, you hear your name called andobediently trot into the kitchen onlyto find a half-cooked breakfast and apuzzled chef.Visual images range from simple(patches of color) to integrated andcomplex scenes. Objects can be"strange" or noticed from an unusualangle with sometimes an unusualclarity of detail. Durations range fromseconds to minutes. Persons exper-iencing these images comment on theunusual intensity of color and lightsusing such phrases as "strangeluminosity" and "glow of the Sun."Surveys which have been donehave led to speculation that such im-agery is experienced by all but deniedby some as some deny havingdreams. The incidence of imageryamongst the population has beenfound to range from 50-70% withevents occurring to a number eithernightly or regularly experienced on atleast half the nights.As an example of just how "real"these images can be, an instancequoted by McKellar(1968) is of note.A young couple had a routine of thewife getting breakfast ready for herhusband and then seeing him off towork. One morning she recalled get-ting out of bed, washing, dressing,getting breakfast, and then kissing herhusband goodby. At this point she"woke" to find her husband kissingher goodby. She had been asleep inbed all the time until that point.Green and McCreery (1975) re-lated what they called type twoawakenings where we find peopleawakening normally to find them-selves in bed. The surroundings atfirst appear normal but then becomeunusual or uncanny. Alternativelythey may awake immediately to astressed or stormy feeling. In eithercase they may experience fear, panic,or an hallucination or apparitionalef-fect. This may also be accompaniedby a seeming paralysis of the body oran "out of body" state.To an outside observer the personwould appear asleep, lying with eyesclosed. Occasionally type two falseawakenings are simply the sensationof awakening, then really awakening. Table 1 compares characteristicsofUFO events and imagery.I would suggest that events such asIvy Tanks (1973), Gum Creek (1964),and Sandford (1978) are imagerycaused as they occurred on theawake/asleep interface where weknow imagery occurs.The accounts of the Boyup Brook(1967), Prospect (1977) and Frankston(1972) cases contain the same basicelements and occurred to personstravelling alone in an environment ofunrelieved nature, driving along arelatively isolated road where onewould have the probability of beingin relaxed wakefulness on the sleep/-awake interface.(continued on next page)
  • 5. Imagery, ContinuedThere are hundreds of such eventsdescribed in the UFO literature whichthe "image" hypothesis appears to beable to satisfactorily explain.About 100 cases exist on recordwhere people claim to have been "ab-ducted" by aliens and subjected to amedical examination on board aUFO. An in-depth examination of 25cases indicated strong correlationwith the types of event alreadydiscussed. There are the same basicdetails present, except these abduc-tion events result in a more convincedreporter with seeming physiologicaland physical traces, (e.g., glazed eyes,needle puncture marks). However,many cases occur where the witnessesclaim to have been awakened fromsleep or travelling in a vehicle whereimage conditions are optimum.One abduction case (Calgary,Canada 1967) presents a furtherpointer to this hypothesis being cred-ible. A boy on a 3-minute walk be-tween two houses along a paddockarrived home in a daze. Under hyp-nosis he revealed he heard a high-pitched noise, looked up and saw anobject. He was taken up into it andmedically examined. However, thehypnotist believed that the incidentwas actually a subconscious memoryrecall of an earlier appendectomyoperation.Physiological and physical occur-rences in people might have a parallelwith the medically recognized"hysterical conversion." Hysteria isrecognized as an illness resulting fromemotional conflict and is classicallymanifested by dramatic physicalsymptoms involving the voluntarymuscles or the organ of special senses.During the process of conversion un-conscious impulses are transmittedin-to bodily symptoms. The emotionalconflict is expressed physically (e.g.,facial swelling, tunnel vision, orshock).MechanismAlthough we accept imagery as oc-curring we are still not certain of itsmechanism. EEC experiments revealthat creative imagery is connectedwith the Theta brain wave patternand that excess theta may be evidentin schizophrenics and psycho-neurotics. Victims of the former canwithdraw into fantasies and hallucina-tions. Much more investigation needsto be performed and it would bepremature to speculate on the possi-ble mechanism here beyond reportingthat Ferguson (1973) describes howWilliam Dent and associates of Stan-ford University looked at neuraldischarges — PGO (pont ine-geniculo-occipital) spikes — which oc-cur most heavily (but not exclusively)during paradoxical sleep. These burstsare thought possibly to bring on theintense visual imagery associated withREM (rapid eye movement) sleep.If abnormal discharges of this kindoccur to normal, healthy people atother than REM sleep periods, thismight prove to be a possiblemechanism.If these encounters are in fact im-ages, we would need to addressourselves to the question of why theform of imagery is metallic spaceshipsand entities. Surely imagery has beenwith us through the years7Looking back through time we doin fact find support. People exper-ienced "visions" and "apparitions"which were reported in a religiouscontext; perhaps they became thevillage oracle or were held to bewitches. In the middle ages webecame afraid of elves, hobgoblins,and fairies. A percentage of thepopulation could be found who ac-tually reported seeing such creaturesin isolated spots, notably during thehours of darkness. Materializationand dematerializationof entities wasreported. A general belief in all thispervaded all classes of people, withthe grass roots of society firmly con-vinced.The 20th Century brought us adisbelief in such happenings; belief inthem was seen as childish. Alongcame aircraft, rockets, missiles, andtalk of extraterrestrial life. Manypeople today believe life exists out-side of the Earth. The jump from ex-istence to visitation has been stronglyreinforced by science fiction films,books, and open discussion on thesubject. I would suggest that we havemerely moved the content of our im-agery from the supernatural to UFOs.NOTES1. Central Standard Time — GMT plus9Vi hours.2. Eastern Standard Time — GMT plus 10hours.3. Western Standard Time — GMT plus 8hours.4. The intermediate period between wakeand sleep is termed "hypnagogic and be-tween sleep and awake "hypnopompic."REFERENCESFerguson, M. The Brain Revolution(New York: Taplinger Publishing Co.,1973)Green, C. and McCreery, C. Appari-tions (London: Hamish Hamilton,1975)Horowitz, M. J. Image Formation andCognition (New York: Appleton-Century-Croft, 1970)McKellar, P. Experience and Behavior(Penguin Books, 1968)McKellar, P. "Imagery from theStandpoint of Introspection" (Chapter2 of The function and Nature of Imagery,ed. P. Sheenhan, Academic Press,New York and London, 1972)Magoun, H. The Waking Brain (C. C.Thomas, 1958)Reed, G. The Psychology of AnomalousExperience (London: Hutchinson Uni-versity Library, 1972)Richardson, A. Mental Imagery (Lon-don: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.,1969)Schreiber, F. R. Sybil (Penguin Books,1973)Sheehan, P. W. The Function and Natureof Imagery (New York and London:Academic Press, 1972)Stevens, L. A. Explorers of the Brain(UK: Angus and Robertson Ltd, 1973)University of Colorado Scientific Studyof Unidentified Flying Objects (NewYork: Bantam Books, 1969)Vallee, J. Anatomy of a Phenomenon(London: Neville Spearman, 1966)(Table and Diagram on page 6)
  • 6. Imagery, ContinuedTable 1- COMPARISONImageryOccurs on the sleep/awakeinterface — can occur during day.rEyes closed, or in a darkenedenvironment usually.Little control over the appearanceor disappearance.Vary from simple to complex.Little control over the content.Unusual quality of lighting/color.Healthy normal people and percipients.Contents may be bizzare/unusual.OF IMAGERY VERSUS CLOSEENCOUNTERSdose Encounter ReportsMainly occur at night, often when driving alone or whenawoken from sleep during night, few occur during daylight.fiMainly occur in a darkened environment.Occur suddenly and unexpectedly and most objects moveaway at incredible speed.Momentary encounters to longer duration abductions.All sorts of descriptions of objects and aliens. This has been said to bea good reason to disbelieve the ETH.Main point brought out by people reporting encounters is the intenselighting and vivid color of LJFOs.Normal healthy people report.Car stops, car paces, engine failures, weird electrical effects which donot last, etc. Seemingly impossible.2015102 2 4 b 0 1 0 1 ?AMTIMENO. OF REPOHTSB To T?PMDiagram 1. —Statistical Breakdownof Time at Beginning of Event — 225 Cases(Local Time)
  • 7. Second London International UFO CongressBy Dennis Stacy(Staff Writer)The Second London InternationalUFO Congress convened the week-end of May 24-25, 1981, at theMount Royal Hotel, near Hyde Park.At least two Lords were in attendanceand so were some 350 mainly Euro-pean and American urologists. TheCongress was sponsored by theBritish UFO Research Association(BUFORA). Featured speakers in-cluded Dr. Bruce Maccabee, Chair-man of the Fund for UFO Research;Charles Bowen, editor of Englandsprestigious "Flying Saucer Review";Bertil Kuhlemann, of Project URD(UFO Research Data), Sweden; HilaryEvans, of the Society for PsychicalResearch; and Nigel Henbest, radioastronomy, Cambridge, and consul-tant in astronomy for "NewScientist."Lord Kings-Norton, former Headof Britains Air Defense, and currentBUFORA President, convened theCongress on a Sunday morning. Hewas joined in the audience by LordGlencarty, Brinsley le Poer Trench,who initiated the 1978 House ofLords Debate on Unidentified FlyingObjects, in which both participated.Le Poer Trench is himself the authorof several books about UFOs and aformer "FSR" editor.In his opening remarks. Lord Kings-Norton noted that as a child he wasoften asked if he believed in SantaClaus and similar ephemera and thatinvariably the answer was no. Butnow that he has participated in theHouse of Lords Debate and acceptedthe Presidency of BUFORA, report-ers ask him in the same tones if hebelieves in UFOs. "And Im afraid thistime I have to say yes," Lord Kings-Norton said. "I do believe that life ex-ists elsewhere. I do believe that it willone day make itself known, and I dobelieve that man will one day com-municate with this life. But I do notbelieve that it has been proved toLord Glencarty, left, with Staff Writer Dennis Stacyhave happened yet," he added. Still, itwas in the interest of perhaps resolv-ing just such a question that he wascalling the Second Congress to order.And it was this dual tone of faithand skepticism that colored most ofthe subsequent proceedings. RobertDigby, BUFORA, delivered the open-ing address and asked ufologists,"Have You Got Your Facts Right7"Digby compared the ufologists taskwith that of the police trying toreconstruct the events leading up toan automobile crash: both parties, hesaid, begin with what is essentially acold trail. Thus, the witness becomesthe main instrument of the investiga-tion and it is imperativethat we beginto recognize this inescapable facet ofthe UFO investigation.This is also thereason why separate and individualwitnesses are so imperative, if acontamination factor of personal orfamilial origins is not to creep into thereport.Finally, Digby said, the investigatorhimself must beware of introducinghis own contaminations into the case.Were your questions leading or other-wise designed to support a personaltheory? Did you ask the witness whathe or she saw, and not what you hopedhe saw, for example?Bertil Kuhlemann of Swedenfollowed Digby to the podium andaddressed the Congress on "The LinkBetween Investigator and Scientist."Kuhlemann is Head of Computer Ser-vices for his governments IVA Ad-ministrative Department and is also amember of the Swedish Royal Acad-emy of Engineering Sciences. Thelink Kuhlemannproposed was the in-ternational adoption of Project UFOResearch Data, or URD, a two-foldprogram designed to coordinate in-the-field data gathering with com-puter analysis of that data.Kuhlemanns proposal was alsosubmitted to the Provisional Interna-tional Committee on UFO Research(PICUR) which met the day beforethe Congress in a closed-doormeeting. The working party session(continued on next page)
  • 8. London, Continuedwas attended by delegates fromEngland, Scotland (Chairman PeterHill), Holland, Denmark, Sweden,Italy, the United States, and Canada.David Haisell, of UFOCAN, repre-senting the Canadian UFO organiza-tions, proposed that Michael Sinclair,MUFON International Coordinator,be accepted as MUFONs permanentdelegate to the committee, a motionthat was duly ratified. This reporterrepresented MUFON in Sinclairstemporary absense. Dr. Bruce Mac-cabee, MUFON State Director forMaryland, a board member ofCUFOS, and Chairman of the Fundfor UFO Research, was the other U.S.representative.PICUR was originally establishedduring the First International Con-gress in London in 1979 with the in-tent of coordinating the internationalinvestigation of the UFO phenomena.Anyone who has followed the some-times chaotic history of UFOorganizations around the worldrealizes that the Committee has itswork cut out for it. Too often, thecivilian effort has been characterizedby jealousy and a proprietary regardfor collected data which has workedagainst the best interest of ufology asan objective and legitimate scientificdiscipline. Whether PICUR canreverse this sad state of affairs re-mains to be seen. In the meantime,the Committee has taken the firststeps toward credibility and should beapplauded accordingly. MUFON haslong led the way in internationalcooperation and looks forward toworking with others of a similar in-terest and intent.Project URDProject URD itself, developed byKuhlemanns fellow countryman and.computer programmer, Bjame Hikansson,of Stockholm, is designed to standard-ize international investigative tech-niques and to insure the compilationof a minimum UFO data base accept-able to scientific analysis by com-puter. A field investigators manualhas already been prepared in Englishwhich would familiarize individualsStuart Campbell (BUFORA, Scotland), left, with Hilary Evans (BritishSoc. of Psychical Research)with the use of the Projects Form Aand B punch cards. Form A is in-tended to gather general informationabout the UFO sighting, includinggeographical coordinates, duration,and applicable meteorological condi-tions. Form B collects specific dataabout the UFO stimulusitself, such assize, shape, and characteristics ofhehavior, such as changes inluminos-ity, movement, and audible sounds.As currently outlined, Project URDwould employ an IBM 360/175 com-puter, a system already widelydeployed around the world,includingthe communist bloc countries, whichwould greatly facilitate any future in-ternational interface.Kuhlemann also told the Congressaudience that as ufologists theywould have to ask themselves somevery hard questions. "Why do we notenjoy a wider acceptance amongsociety and science at large, for exam-ple? Part of the problem is un-doubtedly because most politicians,bureaucrats, and scientists are still get-ting their information from mediawhich tend to sensationalize UFOreports and thereby mitigate againstpersonal involvement."But all too often, Kuhlemannwarned, UFO organizations them-selves are to blame. By trying to exertpressure upwards in the social heirar-chy, ufology has defeated its ownpurpose."If we really want to see more ofsocietys resources applied to a studyof the UFO phenomenon, we muststart at the top with the scientistsandthe politicians in control of thoseresources. It is up to ufologists toadopt the methodological approachesacceptable to science as a whole. Andthat means we need a body of reli-able, computer-processed data whichindicates that there is indeed some-thing new and unknown up there."Project URD, of course, could pro-vide just such an indication and oncethat is done, Kuhlemann urged, therewould be no reason why PICUR, or asimilar federation of internationalUFO organizations should not beformed with the goal of seeking af-filiation with the International Coun-cil of Scientific Unions.Almost all of the Congressspeeches were provocative, butKuhlemanns may well prove to havethe most reverberating consequencesfor the future of ufology. Time, as ithas so often been said, will tell.Other highlights of the LondonCongress included Hilary Evans com-(continued on next page)
  • 9. London, Continuedparison of traditional psychic phe-nomena with some aspects of contem-porary UFO reports. In particular,Evans pointed to the similarities in-herent in many UFO contact storieswith the historical accounts of out-of-the-body experiences, so-called"bedroom visitations," and"orthodox" poltergeist phenomena,including possession and instances ofpsychokinesis.Charles Bowens "Reflections of anEditor" and Nigel Henbests discourseon "Implications of Black Holes forSpace Travel" were also well re-ceived. For the past 17 years Bowenhas been responsible for putting outone of the worlds most highlyregarded UFO journals, Flying SaucerReview. First published in the spring of1955, the quarterly celebrated itsSilver Jubilee Anniversary last year."Like the worlds economy,"Bowen said, "we are currently in astate of recession which greatlyrestricts our activities, and I cannothelp but wonder why this is so." If, associologists tell us, UFO reports are aconsequence of the stress modern life,Bowen wondered, then where are to-days flaps, or periods of peak activ-ity, for surely the world has seenenough stress recently7 Bowen wenton to cite the assassination of JohnLennon, the attempt on the Popeslife, and the continuing strife inNorthern Ireland, the Middle East,and other troubled parts of the world."Never before have there been morearticles and books and movies aboutUFOs than there are now and still, wehave yet to see the surge of modernreports that might be anticipated."But recessions have their oppor-tunities, too, Bowen noted, and workof lasting importance would be done,if investigators were to go back andexplore in detail some of the earliercases, particularly those from theearly sixties.Bowen recalled several cases whichwere characterized by a high degreeof absurdity. In Venezuela, a perci-pient saw two eight-foot tall beingsemerge from an apparent craft in abeam of light. He was soon engagedin a conversation which contained theCharles Lockwood (BUFORA);Peter Hill (Chairman, ProvisionalInternational Comm.); David Haisell (UFO Canada)following dialogue:"Are there more like you livingamong us?""Yes," came the immediate reply,"Two million, four hundred seven-teen thousand, eight hundred andfive.""Have you any powerfulweapons?""Yes, we have a compressor whichcan destroy the moon with only onedischarge.""Did you bring it with you?""No."In another instance Bowen cited,not even the percipient himself couldbelieve what happened. AFrenchmanhad encountered a disc-shaped objectin a field. Standing between him andthe disc was a dwarf-like being whokept repeating in a mechanical voice:"Truth is refused to the constipated,"and then, "Cancer comes from theteeth (or: what is eaten)."Nigel Henbest considered thephysical improbability of at least oneUFO theory in his talk entitled,"Im-plications of Black Holes for SpaceTravel." It has been proposed thatUFOs may be interdimensional, i.e.,capable of flitting between universesby a quantum mechanics processknown as "tunneling," in which aUFO in one space-time continuumenters a black hole in one universeand emerges from a white hole inanother. The known facts, as Henbestpersuasively argued, do not supportsuch a supposition.As far as we know, black holes canonly be formed as the result of a starcollapsing, or going supernova, or atthe center of galaxies where thenecessary conditions may also becreated. When a star such as our sunexplodes, the forces of implosion maywell compress the stars inner core tothe degree that a black hole isformed,Henbest noted. Unfortunately, theblack hole itself is not a thing to betreated lightly. Long before anastronaut (or ufonaut) could make useof a black holes supraphysicalproper-ties, he would be stretched asunderby what is called "spaghettification."As an astronaut approached a blackhole, say, feet first, contorted forcesof gravity initiate what might becalled a cosmic "taffy-pull," stretchinghis limbs out in a long line while theupper part of his body remained forthe time being unaffected.Paradoxically, however, the largerthe mass of the black hole, the less the(continued on next page)
  • 10. London, Continuedtidal stretch effect. And where mightthe more massive black holes befound? At the center of galaxies, ofcourse. But now a new problemarises; instead of the deadly conse-quences of gravity, a potentialufonaut must now consider the conse-quences of overexposure to radiation.A black hole at the center of a galaxywould inevitably begin to attract vastclouds of interstellar dust and gas,forming a tremendous spiral plane ofcosmic debris. But as this mattermoves closer and closer, faster andfaster, towards ultimate absorption,friction creates tremendous heat andthe resulting free electrons arethrown off vertically as X-rays.Again, any form of life or matter aswe know it, could not possibly hopeto survive such a close approach. Inshort, while not ruling out thepossibility that some UFOs may havetheir origins in another solar system,the chances of their tunneling fromone alternative universe to anothervia black holes is extremely remote ifnot physically impossible.But what about the Extra-Terrestrial Hypothesis itself, whichhas enjoyed somewhat of a rollercoaster career since its inception morethan three decades ago? This was thesubject of Dr. Bruce Maccabees talkto the Congress. ETHs fall from gracebegan in the mid and late 1960s asmore of the patently absurd contacteecases were becoming more widelyknown. Not only were the aliensgiven to spouting juvenile theology.and ludicrous physics, but their ownbehavior was suspect, as well; not atall the sort of thing one would expectfrom a truly intelligent and advancedrace of extraterrestrials.More recently, the ETH has comeunder fire because it was said to beultimately unverifiable and therefore"unscientific." But according to Dr.Maccabee, the theorys burial mayhave been a bit premature. He of-fered the Congress at least four ex-amples of cases which might not beexplainable by any alternative theory:(1) the radar and multiple witnesssightings of December 21 and 31,PERCIPIENT-DEPENDENT COMPONENTSIN UFO EXPERIENCESBy Luis Schoenherr(Innsbruck, Austria)Hilary Evans article "Abducted byan Archetype" in the April issue (No.158) reflects a ufological trend whichwill gain increasing importance in thefuture. It is good scientific method-ology (and economy as well!) to ex-amine UFO reports from a psycholog-ical and even a psychoanalyticalview-point before the men of the "hard"sciences move in. Which would beworse: trying to interpret true phys-ical data in psychological terms or tosearch for physical explanationswhere only psychological ones couldbe found? For me this question hasbeen answered by the unproductiveconfusion of the last three decadessurrounding the close encounter andabduction cases.There is no science which couldsupply us a reliable frame of ref-erence for the evaluation of thepresumed extraterrestrial componentsin UFO reports. Therefore the mostsubtle arguments (and how manyhave 1 thought out myself) can onlylead into inconclusive ambiguities and1978, near Kaikoura, New Zealand;(2) the Lonnie Zamora landing report,outside Socorro, New Mexico; (3) theMcMinnville, Oregon, photographstaken in 1950, which were closelyreplicated by another picture taken inRouen, France, four years later; and(4) the Roswell, New Mexico, inci-dent of July 1947, alleging the crashand retrieval of an apparent flyingdisc and its alien crew."The Roswell Incident, of course, ispotentially the whole jackpot," Mac-cabee said. "I say potentially becauseit is not yet a completely investigatedcase."In conclusion. Dr. Maccabee urgedthat the theory of extraterrestrialvisitation be maintained because "itmakes us look at things in new ways,and who knows? — ultimately, itmay prove to be right."vicious circles. If the most notableastronomers and cosmologists assureus that, according to their probabilitycalculations, there must be an incredi-ble number of inhabited planets in theuniverse, does this help us to prove inthe specific, actual UFO case that theextraterrestrial visitors could or couldnot have had bald heads, luminousbodies, and bulging eyes?On the other hand we know a lotabout man (albeit not enough) andthere exists a large and well-triedbody of theory and experience in thesocial sciences, which can serve as abasis of reference in the psychologicalapproach. Moreover, the dominantinstrument of ufology is necessarilythe human being and it is this instru-ment that must be calibrated. This issimply a question of methodologyand has nothing to do with mysticismor debunking. For these reasons thepsychological approach should beassigned increased priority. There isof course no room in ufology for apsychology that.is misused for dis-criminating against UFO witnesses oreven the whole field (similar thingshave in other fields led to the angrycatchphrase of the "terror of psychi-atry").It cannot be overlooked, however,that the indiscriminateattempts to in-terpret all phenomenal characteristicsof UFO experiences in terms ofrealities existing independently of thewitness, can only lead into confusion.But it is not sufficient to usepsychological methods solely for theelimination of fraudulent and patho-logical cases. The implications of thepsychological approach are far moreimportant and I wont be astonished ifthose supposedly "soft" methodswould some day yield more durableresults than the premature application(continued on next page)10
  • 11. BOOK REVIEWThe Roswell IncidentBy Charles Berlitz and William Moore(N.Y.: Grossett and Dunlap), 1980;168p.The Roswell Incident is probablythe first of several books to come fromauthors who will try to convey to thegeneral public the reasons why theUFO "community" is presently be-coming more involved with the Crash-ed Disc Syndrome (CDS). The firstoccurred in the early 1950s with thepublication of a book by Frank Scullyentitled Behind the Flying Saucers.Scullys book was thoroughly dis-credited when investigators deter-mined that his sources were unscrupu-lous men, and that his book wasfilledwith errors of fact because of poor re-search on his part. By the middle1950s the CDS had faded ir^to thebackground of "mainstream Ufology,"largely as a result of the efforts ofUFO buffs themselves. What, then,is this CDS which was rejected yearsago as a possible solution to the fly-ing saucer mystery? And, more im-portantly, why has it been resur-rected in this more modern, doubt-less (?) more enlightened decade ofthe 1980s? The answers to thesequestions are quite straightforward,as will be seen.The CDS could be defined as thefeelings a person gets and the actionsa person takes upon learning that thegovernment has in its possession oneor more crashed discs with one ormore occupants. More and more peo-ple are "suffering" from the CDSthese days because of recent revela-tions under the Freedom of Informa-tion Act, and, more importantly, be-cause many reputed witnessesof suchcrashed discs are now speaking outabout their experiences. The avail-ability of this new information isthe reason why the CDS is being re-surrected.As an example of FOIA informa-tion, consider the following verbatimtranscription from an FBI documentdated March 22, 1950, sent fromSpecial Agent in Charge (abbrev. SAC)in the state of Washington to FBIHeadquarters in Washington, D.C.:The following information was furnishedto SA (i.e., to the Special Agent) xxxxxxx(name crossed out) by xxxxxxx (namecrossed out).An investigator for the Air Forces statedthat three so-called flying saucers hadbeen recovered in New Mexico. Theywere described as being circular in shapewith raised centers, approximately 50 feetin diameter. Each one was occupied bythree bodies of human shape but only 3(continued on page 1 7)Percipient, Continuedof the (not necessarily always "hard")natural sciences.There are, for example,indicationsthat the tunnel-images, the largerooms perceived during (or perhapsonly remembered) abduction experi-ences, may be related to the birthtrauma. It will be possible to test thishypothesis by comparing the experi-ences of abductees born by Caesareansection with those of a control group.The experience of diffusely lighted in-teriors with no visible light source aswell as the experience of beingblinded, as it is reported again andagain, may also turn out to be amemory of birth. Some psychologiststend to regard this "light screen" asthe proto-hallucination of the dreamand it seems that even prenatal psy-chology will have something to sayabout those matters.Jung regarded the discoid shape ofUFOs as archetypical images and it isnot impossible that they are in factrelated to memories of embryonicstructures. It seems to be a pre-posterous thing that a not yet existingindividual brain should "remember"the embryonic shape of its later body.But concepts like Jungs CollectiveUnconscious or even PersingersGeopsyche may help us some day tounderstand this.Ufology, however, should notmake the mistake of going from oneextreme to another. Now as beforewe should be aware of the possibilitythat the phenomenon includesimpor-tant physical components. One of thegoals in the field should be theverification of the hypothesis that inphysical trace cases the reports them-selves are generated independently ofthe physical traces. This would settlethe controversy about the percentageof explanatory myths (whose in-fluence is, for example, detectable inthe development of folk lore) givingthe remaining physical trace events abetter level on the evidence scale.In my opinion the critical as well asthe promising point lies in the factthat the UFO phenomenon is (if com-pared with any other conventionalevent) to a hitherto unheard of degreedualistic by its very nature. We can-not say at present that the physical orthe psychic component is dominant.But the fact that there is such adiscouraging diversity in the phenom-enal profile of UFO reports should besufficient to indicate that the psychiccomponent is probably far more im-portant than has been thought.In any case it issafe to regard everysingle UFO event (and not only thewhole population of all reports) as anintricately interwoven complex ofphysical and psychic components.Any progress in UFO research willdepend on whether we can find outhow those two components interactand how they are mutually depen-dent. In a 50-page paper* I have dealtwith this problem and some relatedtopics. The paper demonstrates that,notwithstanding effective filteringfactors, thought-provoking psychicmaterial appears in published UFOreports and that even a case onceunanimously regarded as an outrightfraud is not that simple.To paraphrase Evans: could it bethat some people possess insidethemselves the do-it-yourself kitnecessary for transforming collectiveor individual memory images intoreality and is the modus operandi aninteraction of the observer/percipientwith an as yet unknown transientforce or cgndition in his physical en-vironment?*Luis Schoenherr, "Percipient Depen-dent Components in UFO Ex-periences," UFO Phenomena, 1980, VolIV (Editecs Publishing House, P. O.Box 190, 1-40100 Bologna, Italy).11
  • 12. By Ann DruffelThe "Pitiful Pockets" of UFO ResearchSome areas of the United States(and other countries) are well cov-ered as far as the gathering, filtering,and correlating of UFO sightings isconcerned. In these localities, dedi-cated investigators and researchershave banded together to collect re-ports, diligently weed out IFOs, anddisseminate and publish meaningfulcases.These well-watched areas, how-ever, are very few, and even in thoseplaces where public UFOreportsareconsistently collected, there are piti-ful pockets where no technically-trained observers are available toactimmediately on a puzzling report.A flurry of sighting reports in theLos Angeles Basin, beginning onDecember 10, 1980 emphaticallydemonstrated this pathetic lack.Butfirst — a brief review of the presentsituation of UFO research in thissprawling metropolis (approximate-ly 1,500 miles square) will point upthe urgency which exists at timeswhen researchers stumble againstthe "pitiful pockets."Since 1965 I have been ProjectCo-ordinator of a filter center andtracking system in the Los AngelesBasin. Known as SKYNET, it hasknowledgeable observers living invarious places around the area, whoare available to be called if an object— a potential UFO — is reported intheir line-of-sight. SKYNET is smallin size in relation to the area itpresumes to cover.1Even thoughour present group ofabout 60 mem-bers does an excellent job, you cansee how impossible it is to ade-quately cover such a large territory.One of our biggest problems, ofcourse, is that the majority of publicreports occur "after the fact," that is,after the UFO has already vanishedfrom view. Most of the cases whichare long-lived enough to warrantactivating the system involve objectswhich are identifiable.We have over the past 15 years,however, collected valuable, cor-relative material which gives rathersubstantive evidence of UFO "win-dow areas" in Southern California,such as the communities of YorbaLinda, Temple City,2and certainparts of the Tujunga Canyons.3Another suspected "windowarea" is over the offshore waters ofthe Pacific Ocean between the coast-line of Long Beach and the island ofSanta Catalina, which lies 20 milesfarther out. Evidence collected bythis writer from 1962 through 1980points to the possibility that thisparticular ocean area either attracts orpermits the formation of huge, cigar-shaped UFOs.4Attimes these shapesare shrouded in clouds and are simi-lar to the giant UFOs which theFrench researcher, Aime Michel,termed "cloud cigars."5Other timesthey seem to be unadorned "shells"or almost transparent. Cloud-shrouded or not, these huge UFOsinvariably seem to be aggregationsof smaller UFOs which depart from,return to,and maneuver around themain object."Cloud cigars" are reportedworldwide. They are relatively longlasting. The smaller glowing and/ormetallic-like objects associated withthem are sometimes called "surveil-lance craft."In the LosAngeles area, the giantcigar-shaped objects hover or moveslowly and seem generally confinedabove the channel waters. Duringfour known appearances of thesegigantic cigar-shapes since 1962,smaller UFOs were seen simultane-ously, making forays inland. Thegiant shapes have remained station-ary for as long as 3 hours.Recently, however, a flap of in-land sightings continued for weeksafter the manifestation of a giant,maroon-colored, hazy UFOover thechannel. (See Fig. 1.) The witnessesto this object, Mrs. D. G. and herdaughter,6viewed it at 1:30 a.m. onDecember 10,1980, from their homein Hollywood, 20 air miles inland.Itwas the apparent size of three fullmoons and seemed almost trans-parent. It "had a great deal of move-ment going on within its shape,"butbecause ofits great distance from thewitnesses, they could not determinewhat the "movement" was. Its posi-tion in the sky seemed to be some-where around or past Long Beach.As it moved farther away over thePacific, it became brighter andpinker. Its traveling motions werejerky and erratic, with abrupt shiftsand extended periods of hovering. Itshrank in size as it moved away.The entire sighting lasted about5 minutes, but there is no way ofknowing how long the strange ob-ject was in the sky before beingnoticed by the Gs. No correlatingsightings have surfaced up to thepresent time.Following this report, a virtualstream of UFO reports came fromvarious inland cities in the Basin.They numbered on the average twoor three per week and, except for afew, they were too numerous toeven investigate thoroughly.7Noneof these 1980-81 reports, however,occurred simultaneously with thesighting of the December 10th ob-ject. It was almost as if, I speculated(continued on next page)12
  • 13. Pockets, Continuedidly, that the giant cigar-shapedUFOs had "learned" not to stayaround while the smaller craft weresurveying inland! All of these cases,including the initial December 10thsighting, were received by SKYNETand other Basin sources "after thefact."Then, on April 18, 1981, a callwas received from SKYNET #1 inHollywood. A Mr. J. R., who lived 3miles southeast of SKYNET #lslocation, had been watchinga lumi-nous, white object with "a red lighton its tail," circling above his apart-ment building,dartingin and out ofthick rain clouds. Since SKYNET # 1was unable, because of pressingfamily responsibilities, to handle thecall, I phoned five other SKYNETlocations within five miles of Mr. Rshome to try to get an experiencedobserver to help determine what hewas watching. As can be seen inFigure 2,these five locationsformeda half-oval around Mr. Rs site.Unfortunately, SKYNET mem-bers, like most UFO investigators,work on a strictly voluntary basis.They have no obligation to be homewhen they are needed to checkout aSKYNET call — and they werent.The urgency of this particular callcame from the fact that a "cloudcigar" had been reported on Decem-ber 10th and numerous inland UFOsightings had occurred after thatdate. Suppose the disk-shaped lightthat Mr. R was reporting was asso-ciated with a "cloud cigar" hiddenamong the thick cloud cover whichlay over the Basin? I had to know,but the pitiful pocket on the SKY-NET map where no members wereavailable frustrated my efforts.It was suspected, of course, thatMr. R wa^ viewing searchlights onclouds. Numerous times after a rain,commercial searchlights playing onclouds appear as cohesive spots ofbright, white light and are dutifullyreported as UFOs. The light beamsusually associated with searchlightsare not visible from many viewingangles when the atmosphere israin-washed and clear. The tight circlesand other intricate, long-lasting•tJL iFigure 1. —The G. sighting of Dec. 10,1980 sketched by Mrs. D.G. Dotted linesindicate erratic movement among star field backgroundmile from the Wilshire police sta-tion, she couldnt be sure. She alsocould not Jell me whether the AirSupport Division had sent heli-copters to that location.In desperation I consideredjumping into my car and driving15miles to Mr. Rshome, but the prob-ability that the object was merely asearchlight on clouds dissuaded me.Mr. Rhad first seen the object at 8:15p.m. and itwas now about 10:00 p.m.The possibility that he was seeing anactual UFO manifestation continuedto nag me. Talkingwith him againbyphone, he continued to insist thatthe object had "a red light on itstail."I tried to interpret how searchlightsappeared without beams after rain,and tried suggesting that the "redlight" was an afterimage. He insistedthat he was watching somethingtruly unusual. Then, as we talked,the "object suddenly went up intothe clouds and disappeared."About one-half hour later theobject was back.This time it periodi-cally "split in two," according to Mr.Rs excited description, so that twolights were circling and maneuver-ing in the clouds. Both objects had"red lights on their tails." A patrolcar came finally, Mr. R reported, butthe officers were busy trying to il-luminate the objects with their ownpowerful spotlight and could not(continued on next page)Figure 2. - SKYNET observerslocationsmaneuvers of Mr. Rs object werefamiliar, too. In the past severalyears, at least three separate times,long-lived "circling lights" havebeen excitedly reported as UFOs.8I talked at length with Mr. R byphone. He described a "very solid,white light,sometimes round, some-times oval," circling over his apart-ment. Two police helicopters werenearby, he said, seemingly inter-ested in the object. He describedhow the light occasionally "dove upinto the clouds, pushing the cloudsaround as it moved through them."Checking out his story with thepolice, I learned that no patrol carwas available to go out on the call.The courteous woman officer onduty obligingly looked in the direc-tion of Mr. Rs home and saw whatseemed to be searchlights on clouds.However, she could see no beamreaching up from the earth, andbecause Mr. Rs home was about a13
  • 14. Pockets, Continuedcome up to his apartment to speakwith me on the phone.The Wilshire police stationwould not give me the names of thepolicemen who had answered thecall. The pleasant woman officer wasno longer on duty. At the switch-board was an abrupt male who washandling a police emergency.By thistime it was 11:00 p.m., and I gave upfor the night.The next morning I learned thatanother witness, Mrs. B,a neighborof Mr. R, had seen the lights andidentified them as searchlights onclouds. She had not seen any redlights on their tails! Checking againwith the Wilshire station, I learnedthat no police report had been filedregarding the incident.So another IFO entered SKY-NET files, but at what cost! Thepitiful pocket in that area of LosAngeles, caused by the unavailabil-ity of experienced observers, pluslack of cooperation by overworkedpolice, was the cause. When will UFOresearch attain a funded methodologywhich will permit prompt, adequate fol-lowup on all potential UFO reports?Twenty-four hours after J.R.ssighting of the "maneuvering lights,"what seems to be a genuine UFOwas reported in the same area. FromWest Los Angeles, Barry Taff, alocalpsychic researcher and writer,9sighted a large, brilliantly lightedobject about 11:30 p.m. on April19,1981. During the 45-second sight-ing, Taff noted rectangular "win-dows" along one side of its gray,opaque body, and the perimeter ofthe low-flying craft was outlinedwith alternating bright white andgreen-blue lights. (See Fig. 3.)10Itwas traveling from southeast tonorthwest at an estimated altitude of500-600 feet above the ground. Itwas the apparent diameter of sixmoons. As it approached withinabout 2,500 feet of Mr. Taffs loca-tion, it made a 180 degree turn andtraveled back toward the southeast,in the direction of the Long Beach-channel area.11As it turned, the"windows" were no longer visible,but Taff could still see the outline ofFigure 3. - Apr. 19,1981 UFO; West Los Angelesbright lights.That same evening, Mr. D. W.12of Huntington Beachindependentlyviewed a rectangle of bright whitelights moving erratically among thestar field, traveling in a northerlydirection. The configuration of fourlights moved as one unit, in a pecul-iar manner of stops and starts. Thetime was 11:05 p.m. Mr. W could notsay whether or not the interior wastransparent, but he saw what seem-ed to be "dull stars" within therectangle. Its apparent position wassomewhere over Long Beach whenfirst seen, Mr. W judged. Movinginland, it traveled about 45 degreesof sky in 15 minutes, then "took a180 degree turn" and went back onits original course. It disappearedover the channel waters, movingupward into the sky.Both these sightings, unfortu-nately, were received by SKYNETthe next day, after the fact. It ispossible, however, that D. W. wasactually seeing the same object asTaff, or a larger object associated in someway with Taffs smaller UFO. The twoobjects were not identical,but theytraveled the same path in the sky atthe same time. What was neededhere was immediate reaction capa-bility to receive both reports as theywere happening, or at least imme-diately afterwards, and enough avail-able, experienced observers in theline-of-sight to document these val-uable events.In a sense, then, in spite of thebest efforts of Los Angeles re-searchers during the past two dec-ades, the whole Basin area might beconsidered one huge, "pitiful poc-ket." Such is the state of the arttoday!NOTES AJVD REFERENCES1. SKYNET is not the only source whichgathers public reports in the Los AngelesBasin. At least three other MUFON investi-gators receive reports on a more or lessconsistent basis,and an unknown number ofresearchers from other organizations alsopursue these tasks.2. For information on thesetwo localities, seeMUFON UFO JOURNAL, May and June1980, Issues #147 and #148, article entitled"Magnetic Anomalies and UFO Flight," PartsI and II, by Druffel.3. See THE TUJUNGA CANYON CON-TACTS, by Ann Druffel and D. Scott Rogo,published July 1980 by Prentice-Hall, Inc.,Englewood Cliffs, N.J.4. See PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1976CUFOS CONFERENCE, published by TheCenter for UFO Studies, Evanston, III., article"Santa Catalina Island Recurring Cloud-Cigars," by Druffel, pp. 62-74.5. FLYING SAUCERS AND THE STRAIGHTLINE MYSTERY, by Aime Michel, publishedby Criterion Books, New York, givesnum-erous references for these phenomena.6. Complete report,including identifying in:formation, in MUFON and CUFOS files.7. Complete noteson cases, including identify-ing information, in SKYNET files.8. MUFON UFO JOURNAL, Nov. 1976, art-icle The SKYNET Log: Circling Ships," byAnn Druffel and Morrey Allen, describes oneof these events.9. For example, "Ghostly Apparitions andAerial Phenomena: Is There a Connection?,"from PROBE, Fall 1979 (Collectors Edition),article by Barry Taff and Kerry Gaynor.10. Complete report in MUFON and CUFOSfiles.11. For those readers who note apparentdiscrepancies in stated directions, it shouldbe pointed out that most coastal cities inSouthern California face west toward thePacific ocean, but Long Beach, being a shelter-ed cove, has the ocean to its south.12. Full report, including identifying infor-mation, in SKYNET files.14
  • 15. CARL SAGAN:A COMMUNICATIONBy W.H. Spaulding(Director, Ground SaucerWatch, Inc.)I have recently read the March1981 edition of MUFON UFO Jour-nal and as usual found it interesting,especially the article "CaliforniaRe-port"by Ann Druffel. Regarding herarticle titled "An Open Letter to Dr.Carl Sagan" I personally found itloaded with assumptions regardingthe recent highlyacclaimedTV seriesCOSMOS.Dr. Sagan, like numerous othersin the scientific community has anextreme propensity against the UFOphenomenon. All of us must agreethat much of the UFO material;docu-ments, reports, photos, etc., are atbest, pure subjective nonsense. Thenumerous sensationalized hoaxes,continuing misinterpretations, evenby reputable observers, create anaura that strongly suggests the en-tire subject is one that belongs in theparanormal category.Its no wonderthat Dr. Sagan or any other person,not involved with UFO research,would have a biased judgment to-wards the subject. It is probably un-fortunate that Dr. Sagan and otherswithin the "community" have nottaken the timetoinvestigate/evaluatethe unknown 5 to 10 percent of thesightings. Then, possibly, all of uswould obtain a better perspective onthe subject.I am not defending Carl Sagan orhis views on the UFO phenomenon,but I do wish to impart some ofGSWs opinions on Ann Druffelsextremely prejudiced letter.We knowfor a fact that the religious funda-mentalists of this country that view-ed COSMOS have the same bitteropinions that Ann Druffel is project-ing. When Dr. Sagan literally tore attheir religious foundations with hisexcellent scientific segment onevolution, he created the same "stir"with the fundamentalists as he hasdone to the ufologists. In retrospect,Sagan has become the voice of anti-religious science, because of hisfactual presentation and exposure.When the recent classic Californiacase was presented to the statesSupreme Court regarding "equaltime" for religion in the classroomcommensurate with evolution teach-ings, the media used Dr.Sagan as the"expert" in religion to represent theevolution forces.Now, by no stretch of the imagi-nation is Dr. Sagan an expert on re-ligion, but he was given that titlebecause of his pro-evolution stand.Why does anyoneconsider Dr.Saganan expert in ufology? Is it because ofhis national exposure on COSMOSand previous media appearances inwhich he took the anti-UFO stand? Ipersonally think, with the broadscope of COSMOS, that Dr. Sagancovered the subjects as well as hepossibly could, especially when youconsider his previous proclamationson the UFO subject, the amount oftime allotted, the script, etc. Onething Dr. Sagan did attempt, was theseparation of science fact from blindfaith.Lets examine some of theERRORS/FACTS presented in theMUFON article.ERROR/FACT One, Two, andThree concern indicated" state-ments by Dr. Sagan regarding theHill abduction. Is it not fact that theHills indicated certain events duringtheir regressive hypnosis sessionsupon which many researchers tendto place great credence. Regressivehypnosis is very subjectiveand closeto 22 states in this country are creat-ing laws to prohibit this type of test-ing due to its subjectiveness. I thinkwe are arguing semantics regardingspecific incidents about this "en-counter" rather than addressing thevalidity of hypnosis as a viable test-ing tool for close encounter cases.ERROR/FACT Four relates tothe term "UFO enthusiasts" and/orbuffs. The term is not only used byanti-ufologists but by everyone out-side of the UFO researcher com-munity. The term buff/enthusiastsissimilar to comparing the UFOorgan-izations as UFO clubs. Clubs tend toremove the professionalism whenused to describe UFO researchersaffiliations. Yet, the term buff is acarry-over from themilitary/intelli-gence community. GSWhas dozensof government documents whichuse the term buff. We are, onceagain, relating to semantics.ERROR/FACT Five and Six re-lates to the controversial Hill "star-map" drawn after a detailed study byMarjorie Fish. I believe Sagan was <iattempting to demonstrate the lackof significance regarding the star-map in much the same manner thatpro-saucer researchers have attempt-ed to show the validity of the map.The basic questions still must beanswered: (1) how can others drawsimilar maps by simply connectingthe dots to other star systems and (2)how was the Hill data (original map)generated? Did some of this informa-tion come from the regressive hyp-nosis? (Reference article by writerentitled, Abductions/Contacts - WhosKidding You?, to be released June 1,1981.)ERROR/FACT Seven relates tonavigational lines of the map whichBetty Hill allegedly saw aboard theUFO.The point here is,simply stated,were the Hills actually aboard aUFO, or what they thought was aUFO? Until conclusive evidenceoutside ofhypnosis can be presented,how can the UFO field accept thiscase without question. Arethe "essen-tial facts" presented by Betty Hill thefinal, absolute word on this bizarreincident?ERROR/FACT Eight involvesthe deliberate "picking and choos-ing" of the stars for the Hill star map.This hints that the stars were a de-liberate selection to make the mapwork. This is a good point. How-ever, the UFO researchers whoworked on the map only workedwith data supplied by Betty Hill andit is an assumption to deduce thather information is science fact.I believe that the UFO segmenton the COSMOS series should havehad additional time to present othercases and facts concerning the UFOquestion. However, that was not thecase. I believe it is preposterous tothink that Dr. Sagan can make or(continued on next page)15
  • 16. BOOK REVIEWCasebook ofa UFOInvestigator,by Raymond E. Fowler. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.246 pages. $10.95This book provides a rare oppor-tunity to view the work of a veteraninvestigator, covering the completemodern era of ufology from 1947 tothe present. It is Raymond Fowlerspersonal memoir. The reader canfeel the emotions that consumedRay at the age of 14, locking him intoa lifetime of detailed investigations,sorting fact from fiction during atime in which the United States wasjoining the jet-age.The novice as well as the sea-soned UFO investigator can gainfrom the personalized discussionsabout the growth of the "cover-up,"the exemplary application of thescientific method to the evaluationof UFO data by Dr. James McDonald,and Rays own growth as an investi-gator. His details of the incident atExeter, N.H., point out the need forthe investigator to question all dataand not accept "answers," even fromsupposedly accurate sources. Forexample, Project Bluebook pro-vided a story about the Strategic AirCommand exercises over NewHampshire, a story accepted by somepeople as the true explanation of theExeter sightings. However, somecritical checking of the facts showedthat the alleged Air Force aircraftwere not even airborne atthe timeofthe incident.Sagan, Continuedbreak the UFO movement, regard-less of his beliefs,anymore thanany-one in the UFO field can bring thesubject to number one prominence.With public apathy the highest it hasever been towards this subject, allofus are going to have to make theeffort to place UFO research out ofthe stagnant position it is in today,with strong, absolute data.Only thenwill science ever consider it worthyof additional study. I am sure, thateven Dr. Sagan, when given irrefut-able facts will objectively look at theevidence.The chapter on experienced wit-nesses dispels the old theory thatonly unreliable individuals observeUFOs. Rayprovides the details of ananalysis of local cases he personallyinvestigated. His statistics cover theage, educational level, and profes-sion of the witnesses. The resultswere comparable to the nationalsamples in that the young to middle-age groups, with better than averageeducation, and responsible jobs werethe prime witnesses of UFO inci-dents. The chapter goes on to de-scribe how the honest, childlikedescriptions shared by children canbe valuable to the investigator andimportant to the parents of smallchildren thathave a UFOexperience.The careful questioning of a six-year-old Bingham, Maine girl re-vealed details of a humanoid closeencounter case, a case not unlikedozens of others in the archives.The book has its sections onwild goose chases and identifiableflying objects, with situations thatmost investigators will encountersooner or later. However, the chap-ter on consistent characteristics ofreal UFOs brings the whole mysteryinto focus. It begins by admitting tothe reality of the mystery. Then thedetails of hundreds of cases aredrawn together to provide a shop-ping list of important characteristics.It all startswitha classification accord-ing to physical configurations, andthen proceeds to cover maneuvers,strange effects such as radiation,electromagnetic, sound, light, smell,etc., and concludes with coverageofhumanoid and landing cases. Afterreviewing these details it is easy tounderstand why Rayremainsa dedi-cated investigator.Casebook of a UFO Investigator isunique in that it doesnt waste timealluding to the serious nature of theUFO situation. Itprovides the names,dates, and places. Anyone can goback over the materialand check thefacts. The resultis a fine book for thecasual reader, as well as the sea-soned investigator. "Where do wego from here?" is the title of the lastchapter in the book. The answer issupplied and for my money it isworth the price of the book.—John F. SchuesslerLettersBailey CaseEditor,My colleagues letter (No. 158,April 1981) needs clarification.Semantical ploystherein throw falselight on the Bailey case.No time spent on the Bailey hyp-nosis was unproductive. The casewas an early, heretofore unexploredCE-III. Lawson was not an investi-gator on the case. He only witnessedthe hypnosis. He cannot considerhis 5 hours time "unproductive."Recently, R. Leo Sprinkle andBerthold E. Schwarz added inputinto the Bailey hypnosis contro-versy. In their broad views, BillMcCalls hypnosis techniques wereproper, resulting in recall compar-able to any other acceptable "abduc-tion" case. Their comments will bepublished shortly.McCalls opinion that Rev.Baileysrecall was unreliable was expressedas an individual opinion. The con-certed opinions of researchers world-wide is that there seems to be someelement(s) of objective or alteredreality in abduction recall, and thatthe UFO phenomenon possibly in-dicates actualinteractionof unknownintelligences with members of thehuman race. Lawson and McCallfavor the hypothesis that the "UFOphenomenon" is produced by thehuman mind.That, in itself, is enoughto explain their opinion that Baileysabduction memories were unreli-able.The "will to believe" mentionedin the letter seems to indicate thatmost UFO researchers are victims ofblind, mindless faith. This semanti-cal ploy gives no credit to seriousresearchers who accumulate corre-lated evidence through objective,laborious study.I was advised recently by BillMcCall not to bother answering theletter, since it was likea tiger chasingits tail. His comment, "Were all inthis together" bespeaks of much(continued on next page)16
  • 17. Letters, Continuedneeded cooperation and camaraderie.With researchers working togetherwithout rancor or resentment, thepuzzle of UFOs might eventually besolved.— Ann DruffelPasadena, Calif.Archetypal "Yarn"Editor,Your success in procuring intel-lectual articles on the various aspectsof ufology is to be commended. Ihave read with interest the thought-provoking contributions of AnnDruffel, Mark Moravec, WayneLaPorte, Barry Downing, Bill Chalker,et al. including yourself, RichardHall. May I congratulate you for ele-vating the Journal another echelonof professional-intellectual altitude.The yarn spun by Hilary Evans(No. 158, Apr. 1981), however, deck-ed me! In his "Abducted by anArchetype," Mr. Evans drove mearound Robin Hoods barn of logicjust to zap me with this zinger of aUFO beam: "For whether or notthere is any reality underlying theabductees stories, their characteris-ticfeatures derive from some widelyif not universally diffused scenario,which in its turn is made up of ele-ments deeply imbedded in all oursubconsciouses."For cats sake! Hasnt Mr. Evansread of the many abductions sub-stantiated by real, material, physicalevidence? Surely he has been in-formed of the kidnapping and mul-tiple injuries to the three Liberty,Kentucky, ladies; the burns on theirnecks; the malfunctioning of theirtimepieces; the damage to the painton their car? In what cloistered cell isMr. Evans sequestered that he knowsnaught of the numerous abductionsin which physical proof was de-posited?Is Hilary Evans metaphysical?No,he is pulling our leg. He spun hisyarn with tongue in cheek, as do thejokers on this side of the Atlantic.—William D. LeetMUFON Arkansas State DirectorMUFON1030LDTOWNE RD.SEGUIN.TX 78155Roswell, from page 11feet talJ, dressed in metallic cloth of avery fine texture. Each body was ban-daged in a manner similar to the blackoutsuits used by speed flyers and test pilots.According to Mr. xxxxxxx, informant,the saucers were found in New Mexicodue to the fact that the Government has avery high-powered radar set-up in thatarea and it is believed the radar interfereswith the controlling mechanism of thesaucers.No further evaluation was attempted bySA xxxxxxx concerning the above.The above document was dulyrecorded and filed away with hundredsof other documents related to flyingsaucer sightings. The FBI has releasedwell over 1,000 pages from its file on"flying discs," and some of the pagesprovide very interesting informationon the flying saucer "situation" in thelate forties and early fifties. However,to this authors knowledge, the abovedocument is the most bizarre. Couldan Air Force investigator really havetold the FBI about a crashed disc. . .or three such discs?Other documents in the FBI filerefer to FBI attempts to find out fromthe Air Force just what the officialposition was on the reality of flyingsaucers. The response to such querieswas almost always that the Air Forcehad no evidence that flying saucersexisted. Moreover, the public state-ments by the Air Force, also echoed inthe FBI documents, implied that theAir Force considered the UFO prob-lem to be quite unimportant. Andyet, the Air Force circulated severaltop level memos requesting informa-tion about flying disc reports. Onesuch memo entitled "UnconventionalAircraft" was sent out from the Head-quarters of the USAF, Directorate ofIntelligence, and dated 15 February,1949. That memo specified reportingprocedures and was sufficiently de-tailed as to be, in effect, a sightingreport form.Documents released by the CIAand other government intelligenceagencies indicate a considerable in-terest in the early 1950s. . . .an in-terest which was not made public.Therefore the newly released docu-ments provide information whichwas only known to intelligence agen-cies at the time... .information which,although old, is "new" in the sensethat it is in the public domain for thefirst time. But what about the othertypes of "new" information. . . .thatwhich comes from the witnesses them-selves? Leonard Stringfield has recent-ly published short monographs on hiscollection of CDSstories. But the bigproblem with his research is that noone has been willing to allow his nameto be publicized. And herein lies theimportance of the book by Berlitz andMoore: the major witnesses of a "re-trieval" of unusual material have beenwilling to speak up after more than 30years and to allow their names to beused along with the information theyhave provided.The most important parts of theRoswell book are based upon informa-tion obtained through extensive inter-views of the original witnesses byWilliam Moore and Stanton Friedman.These are the parts of the book whichrelate to the recovery of a mysteriousfoil-like material from a farm in NewMexico near Roswell. Other parts ofthe book tend more to speculationand even provide incorrect informa-tion related to other aspects of ufo-logy. For example, there is a list ofhighly questionable "UFO reports"by astronauts in orbit. To this writersknowledge only one astronaut caseremains unresolved (Gemini 11photos) out of the eleven sightingslisted.One section of the book discussesthe possibility (presented as "fact")that President Eisenhower was, in1954, "spirited" to Muroc Air Forcebase to view one or more crasheddiscs. Of somewhat more factual in-terest, however, is the transcript ofan official Canadian document byWilbert B. Smith who ascertained in(continued on next page)17
  • 18. Roswell, Continued1950 through the Canadian Embassythat the matter of UFOs "is the mosthighly classified subject in the U. S.government, rating higher than the H-bomb."Since the heart of the book isthecollection of eyewitness accounts ofthe retrieval of a strange material andthe subsequent Air Force reaction, Isuggest the following "readers guide"to the Roswell Incident: skip immedi-ately to Chapter 3 and read straightthrough Chapter 4. Then read Chapter8 and note that the FBI file containsa teletype message about the Roswellretrieval. (Also note: the statementthat a copy of the teletype was sentto the Strategic Air Command iswrong: SAC stands for Special Agentin Charge, not Strategic Air Command.Mr. Berlitz take note. The Air Forceofficer whose name was crossed offthe partially transcribed FBI docu-ment was Major Curtan.) Having readthis much, jump back to Chapter 2and read through 2, 3, and 4 again.By this time you should have the,definite impression that an Air Forcecover-up actually did occur, and thatwithout the forthright attitude of(then) Major Jesse Marcel the publicat large would still be in the darkabout what happened in Roswellin July 1947.Major (now Colonel, retired)Marcel supervised the retrieval of amaterial that was like thin metallicfoil, with thicker "structural mem-bers" and strange markings. Thematerial was found covering a ratherlarge area of pastureland several daysafter an unusual explosion was heardduring a thunderstorm, and duringa period of time when flying saucerswere first being seen around theUnited States (1947 flap). The ma-terial was collected and loaded on aplane bound for Wright Field (Wright-Patterson Air Force Base) by MajorMarcel and members of the 509thBomb Group of the Eighth ArmyAir Force at Roswell. The news ofthe retrieval made immediate head-lines when the public informationofficer at Roswell Army Air Base re-leased an unqualified statement to thepress that "the many rumors regard-ing the flying disc became a realityyesterday when the intelligence officeof the 509th Bomb Group of theEighth Air Force, Roswell Army AirField, was fortunate enough to gainpossession of a disc through the co-operation of one of the local ranchersand the sheriffs office of ChavesCounty." The book provides copiesof the original news stories and pic-tures of the principals involved.Immediately after the press re-lease the Air Force tried to cover itstracks by claiming that what was ac-tually retrieved was a weather balloonwith an attached radar target device.However, by presenting the well-researched statements by Marcel andby the son and daughter of the rancher(the rancher is now dead), witnesseswho actually handled the material,the book provides convincing evidencethat strange material did not comefrom a balloon/radar target combina-tion. There is also evidence that thematerial, whatever it was, was sent toWright Field for further study. . . .strange if the material simply camefrom a common weather device.The direct intervention of Bri-gadier General Roger Ramey in tryingto arrange the cover-up, apparently onorders from the Deputy Chief of theAir Force, Lieutenant General HoytVandenburg, also points to an eventthat is more important than the re-trieval of a weather balloon. Apparent-ly the orders to fly the material toWright Field came from Vandenburgvia Ramey. The astute student ofUFOlogical History will rememberthat General Vandenburg was the manwho, as Chief of Staff of the Air Forcein 1948, refused to "buy" the inter-planetary theory expressed in thefamous Estimate of the Situationwritten by ATIC (Air Technical In-telligence Center) investigators in thesummer of 1948 (according to Rup-pelt, The Report on Flying Saucers,Chapter 3).A less well researched incidentrelated to the Roswell retrieval is theretrieval of the main body of a crasheddisc with occupants. Unfortunately,only "second-hand" witnesses to thismore spectacular event were still alive(continued on next page)Directors Message, Continuedmember of MUFON as a condition ofmembership.4. Many people are very interestedin Ufology and desire to read theJournal, however, due to age orphysical limitations, they prefer notto be involved in active UFO in-vestigations or research. These peoplemay become members of MUFON as"Contributing Subscribers."5. All members should publicizethe Journal in their radio, TV andnews media appearances as recom-mended reading and how subscrip-tions may be obtained.UFO sighting reports received viathe "National UFO Reporting Center"24-hour telephone hotline number of1-206-722-3000, through the coopera-tion of Robert J. Gribble, Director ofPhenomena Research and MUFONState Director for Washington, andhis associates in Seattle, Washington,have been instrumental in revitalizingMUFONs field investigative net-work. Cases are assigned to State Sec-tion Directors and Field Investigatorsliving nearby and reported sightingfor interviews and investigations.This not only provides the inves-tigator an opportunity to exercise hisor her interviewing techniques, butgives them a feeling that their talentand services are being utilized and ap-preciated.We all must recognize that at leasteight out of ten of these reports willbe classified as an IFO (identified fly-ing object) after a thorough investiga-tion has been completed. The sameamount of time could be devoted toan IFO as compared to an acutal UFOsighting before the distinction ismade. This fact should not discouragean investigator, since he or she hasbeen sharpening his or her investiga-tive procedures in either case. It isonly in this manner that we will beable to obtain the raw facts associatedwith the remaining 10 to 20 percentof the sighting reports that constitutethe authentic UFOs.18
  • 19. Lucius Parishin Others wordsThe July 7 issue of National Enquirercontains the first of a series of articlesby Henry Gris on UFO activity in theSoviet Union. This initial report tellsof.a large "mothership" and smaller"probes" seen over Moscow in June1980.James Obergs "UFO Update" col-umn in the July issue of Omni dealswith UFO hoaxes. Oberg recountssome of the better-known hoax casesfrom 1897 to the present. For whatits worth, he describes MUFON as"awell-organized private research groupwith a good reputation."Dr. Harley D. Rutledge has learneda lot about UFOs since 1973. Whenthe town of Piedmont, Missouribecame a focal point for UFO activityin early 1973, Dr. Rutledges im-mediate reaction was that he"wouldnt touch the subject with aten-foot pole!" However, in a shortperiod of time, his scientific curiosityovercame his skepticism. As the headof the Physics Department at South-east Missouri State University inCape Girardeau, he felt that UFOscould — and should — be studiedwith scientific recording instrumentsby a well-qualified team of observers.Thus, Project Identification was born.During the seven-year period,1973-80, Project members had a totalof 157 sightings of 178 UFOs.Numerous photographs were taken,with other data being obtained via in-strumentation. In his book, Project Iden-tification, Dr. Rutledge presents his ac-count of the investigations, as well ashis conclusions about the nature ofthe UFO phenomenon. The bookcontains a wealth of information onthe various types of UFOs observed,their colors, speeds, maneuvers, evi-dent interactions with the observers,etc. The photo section gives examplesof the many anomalous lights seen insoutheastern Missouri while Projectmembers were on watch.It is Rutledges conclusion that anadvanced technology is involved inthe UFO performances and, in someof the more bizarre reports, he finds itdifficult "to .accept the objects as acreation of man." Further, he believesthe intelligences behind the UFOs arecapable of mimicking man and histechnology for their own subtle pur-pose^. To my way of thinking, thereare relatively few books (probablyless than 30) which make substantialand needed contributions to ourknowledge of the UFO subject. ProjectIdentification is definitely one of thosebooks.Rutledge has conducted the type ofscientific study which should havebeen done 20 or more years earlier bysome of those scientists whose namesand faces figure so prominently in theUFO literature today. Had they doneso, they might have established somegenuine credibility, not to mentionadding immeasurably to publicawareness of the UFO mystery. ProjectIdentification carries my highest recom-mendation. It is available fromPrentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs,NJ 07632. The price is $10.95 for thehardcover; $6.95 for the softcover.Roswell, Continuedto be interviewed. However, they re-called that they were told by the mainwitness to the second event, that alarge disc-shaped object had crashedin the desert. There were dead bodiesin the machine. The witness did nothave a good look at the device,how-ever, because a military patrol escortedhim away from the area. The authorshave conjectured that a flying dischad passed over the ranch near Ros-well during a thunderstorm and hadexploded, dropping a considerableamount of material (outer skin?) onthe pastureland. It had then continuedits flight for several more miles beforefinally crashing.UFO NEWSCLIPPINGSERVICEThe UFO NEWSCLIPPING SERVICEwill keep you informed of all the latestUnited States and World-Wide UFOactivity, as it happens! Our servicewasstarted in 1969, at, which time wecontracted with, a reputableinternational newspaper-clippingbureau to obtain for us, those hard tofind UFO reports (i.e., little knownphotographic cases, close encounterand landing reports, occupant cases)and all other UFO reports, many ofwhich are carried only in small town orforeign newspapers."Our UFO Newsclipping Serviceissues are 20-page monthly reports,reproduced by p h o t o - o f f s e t ,containing the latest United States andCanadian UFO newsclippings, withour foreign section carrying the latestBritish, Australian, New Zealand andother foreign press reports. Alsoincluded is a 3-5 page section of"Fortean" clippings (i.e. Bigfoot andother "monster" reports). Let us keepyou informed of the latest happeningsin the UFO and Fortean fields."For subscription information andsample pages from our service, writetoday to:UFO NEWSCLIPPING SERVICERoute 1 — Box 220Plumerville, Arkansas 72127The Roswell Incident is easy toread and reasonably straightforwardin its presentation of the evidence. Al-though it will require some effort onthe part of the reader to connectthreads and to ignore some uselesspadding of the book, it is well worthreading. And, if you read it, dont besurprised if you come down with asudden "case" of the CDS.—Bruce S. Maccabee
  • 20. DIRECTORS MESSAGEDr. J. Allen Hynek, keynotespeaker at the recent MUFON UFOSymposium at the Massachusetts In-stitute of Technology, set the stagefor future goals and objectives inUfology in his paper titled "Ufologyas a Profession: A Manifesto." Thischallenge is being met by the Interna-tional Committee on UFO Research,an independent organization dedi-cated to establishing the study of theUFO phenomenon on a professionallevel worldwide. MUFON was repre-sented at their meeting, held incon-junction with the Second London In-ternational UFO Congress on May 24and 25, 1981 in London, England, byDennis W. Stacy, Director of Publica-tions. MUFON, as a respected UFOorganization on the internationalscene, has pledged its support to thepositive endeavors of this prestigiouscommittee.Michael Sinclair, InternationalCoordinator, and your Director aredelighted to announce the appoint-ment of Dr. Nachman Ben-Yehuda asour Representative for Israel. Dr. Ben-Yehuda is a lecturer in sociology atthe Hebrew University. His mailingaddress is Dept. of Sociology,Hebrew University, Jerusalem91905,Israel. He has been very active in theUFO field in his country and. is plan-ning a symposium for 1982.Speaking for MUFON, your Direc-tor has invited the expanded Board ofDirectors of APRO to drop theirisolationist policy and to cooperatewith the other major UFO organiza-tions in the United States, MUFONand CUFOS. This proposal in recent.issues of the Journal has struck aresponsive note with new memberson the APRO Board and manyAPRO members, who have repliedby letter and telephone calls.However, it must be pointed out thatMUFON has not received any officialreaction or statement from the APROBoard of Directors to our invitation,only from individualsexpressing theirpersonal confirmations. Eliminationof petty jealousies is essential if theUFO community in the U.S.A. is topresent a united front in resolving theUFO phenomenon and combatingthe vocal negative minority.The Third Edition of the MUFONField Investigators Manual edited byRaymond E. Fowler, Director of In-vestigations, is now in the formationstage. New investigative techniquesand processes in scientific research arebeing actively solicited from Con-sultants and members at this time sothat the new manual may be pub-lished early in 1982.The 1981 MUFON UFO Sym-posium Proceedings titled "UFOs:The Hidden Evidence" (153 pages) isnow available from MUFON for$10.00 in U.S. funds plus $1.50 forpostage and handling. The book willbe mailed Fourth Class Special BookRate unless otherwise requested bythe inclusion of additional postagecosts. Philatelists are reminded thatMUFON still has fourteen sets of fourof the Grenada UFO postage stampsissued by the former prime minsterofGrenada, Sir Eric Gairy, to com-memorate "Research Into U.F.O.s."The four mint stamps have a facevalue-of $5.40 and are being sold byMUFON for $4.00 postpaid until thesmall supply is depleted.The MUFON Amateur Radio Netshave met with various degrees of suc-cess throughout their existencedepending upon the leadership andthe frequencies involved. The 75meter net is recommended for stategroups or groups of adjoining states.The 2 meter, 6 meter, or 10 meternets are very effective for StateSec-tion communications, where a limitedrange is adequate. The 40 meter nethas been very successful for daytimecommunications from the east coastto the Mississippi River. The 10, 15,20 meter bands are ideal for interna-tional communications and should beselected to conform to the "skipdistance" prevailing at the schedulednet time. Citizen Band radio has beenutilized effectively for local or fieldinvestigative work. We need volun-teers to organize and act as netcon-trol stations for each MUFON netunder the direction of Joe Santangelo,NlJS. If you are interested, pleasewrite to the International Director inSeguin, Texas, and we will forwardthis information to Mr. Santangelo.Due to the deterioration in qualityof the UFO magazines on the news-stands and the sensationalist approachused by the weekly tabloids, the onlycreditable, authentic, and authorita-tive UFO publications are publishedby selected reputable UFO organiza-tions. In the United States andCanada, the MUFON UFO Journal isthe only monthly publication of thisstature. Since the MUFON UFO Jour-nal is a subscription/membershippublication, it is obviously notavailable on the newsstands. Forpeo-ple interested in keeping abreast ofthe UFOSituation and status world-wide, the Journal is the only currentmonthly scientific publicationavailable. In order that this informa-tion may be shared with everyone in-terested in Ufology, a program hasbeen launched to expand thesubscrip-tion distribution of the Journal andMUFON membership in the follow-ing manner:1. Give an annual Journalsubscrip-tion to a friend or relative as a Birth-day or Christmas gift. (MUFON willacknowledge your gift to the reci-pient with a card.)2. Local UFO groups could pur-chase annual subscriptions to the Jour-nal for their public, school, or univer-sity libraries in their name as acon-tribution to the library.3. Participation in a State, State Sec-tion, or local UFO group affiliatedwith MUFON should require thateach member also be a current(continued on page 18)1-I1

×