• Save
Mufon ufo journal   1982 3. march
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Mufon ufo journal 1982 3. march

on

  • 453 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
453
Views on SlideShare
453
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

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

Mufon ufo journal   1982 3. march Mufon ufo journal 1982 3. march Document Transcript

  • THEMUFON UFO JOURNALNUMBER 169 MARCH 1982Founded 1967OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF$1.50MUTUAL UFO NETWORK, INC.ILATE 18% ENGRAVING FROM SAN FRANCISCO CALL
  • The MUFONUFOJOURNAL(USPS 002-970)103 Oldtowne Rd.. Seguin, Texas 78155RICHARD HALLEditorANN DRUFFELAssociate EditorLEN STRINGFIELDAssociate EditorMILDRED BIESELEContributing EditorWALTER H. ANDRUSDirector of MUFONTED BLOECHERDAVE WEBBCo-Chairmen,Humanoid Study GroupPAUL CERNYPromotion/PublicityREV. BARRY DOWNINGReligion and UFOsLUCIUS FARISHBooks/Periodicals/HistoryROSETTA HOLMESPromotion/PublicityGREG LONGStaff WriterTEDPHILLIPSLanding Trace CasesJOHN F. SCHUESSLERUFO PropulsionDENNIS W. STACYStaff WriterNORMA E. SHORTDWIGHT CONNELLYDENNIS HAUCKEditor/Publishers EmeritusThe MUFON UFO JOURNAL ispublished by the Mutual UFO Net-work, Inc., Seguin, Texas. Member-ship/Subscription rates: $15.00 peryear in the U.S.A.; $16.00 foreign.Copyright 1982 by the MutualUFO Network. Second class postagepaid at Seguin, Texas. POST-MASTER: Send form 3579 to advisechange of address to The MUFONUFO JOURNAL, 103 OldtowneRd., Seguin, Texas 78155.FROMTHE EDITORThe "mysterious airships" of 1896-97 in the United States remain acontroversial aspect of UFO history. Their performance and ap-pearance did not resemble modern UFOs, yet no historical record isknown that could explain them as humanconstructions. We hope thatthe "point-counterpoint" articles in this issue will stimulate furtherdiscussion.Dr. Louis Winkler, astronomy professor, argues that contemporaryaccounts point a finger at U.S. inventors and experimental flights ofprototype airships. Don Berliner, aviation writer, questions how thiscould be so and raises a number of pertinent objections.We invite comment from researchers knowledgeable about the air-ship mystery, particularlyany information or documentation bearingon the "secret inventor" hypothesis and the state of contemporarytechnology.In this issueTHE NOT-SO-MYSTERIOUS AIRSHIPS OF 1896-97 3By Louis Winkler"MYSTERIOUS AIRSHIPS": A COMMENT 7By Don BerlinerRECENT INDIAN RESERVATION SIGHTING 8By Greg LongA VISIT TO THEPEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA 9By Paul DongSTAR MAP HYPOTHESIS STILL VIABLE 10By Louis WinklerCALIFORNIA REPORT 11By Ann DruffelUFO SECRECY UPDATE ("Mondo Retrieve") 15By Larry W. BryantWITNESS PROTECTION: A COMMENT 16By Peter RankUFO HYPOTHESES: AUTHORS COMMENT 17By Stuart Campbell1982 MUFON UFO SYMPOSIUMAND "SUMMIT CONFERENCE" 18By Walt AndrusIN OTHERS WORDS 19by Lucius ParishDIRECTORS MESSAGE 20By Walt Andrus(Cover photo courtesy of Dr. Louis Winkler)The contents of The MUFON UFO JOURNAL are determined by the editor, and donot necessarily represent the official position of MUFON. Opinions of contributors aretheir own, and do not necessarily reflect those of the editor, the staff, or MUFON. Arti-cles may be forwarded directly to MUFON. Responses to published articlesmay be inaLetter, to the Editor (up to about 400 words) or in a short article (up to about 2,000words). Thereafter, the "50% rule" is applied: the article author may reply but will beallowed half the wordage used in the response; the responder may answer the authorbut will be allowed half the wordage used in the authors reply, etc. All submissionsaresubject to editing for style, 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, and thestatement "Copyright 1982 by the MUFON UFO JOURNAL, 103 Oldtowne Rd.,Seguin, Texas" is included.. " . . . - •
  • THE NOT-SO-MYSTERIOUS AIRSHIPS OF 1896-97By Louis Winkler, PhD(MUFON Consultant in Astronomy)The mysterious airships of 1896-1897 have long fallen into the cate-gory of the unexplained or uniden-tified. But in the last decade or two, anew investigative tool has emerged inacademe which sheds an entirely dif-ferent light on the mysteriousairshipflap. The tool is a variety ofmicroforms and readers that are usedin connection with a nation-wide, in-terlibrary loan system which providesservice copies of microforms. Withthis instrument it was possible for thiswriter to make a generous samplingof daily newspapers from the majorcities of the U.S. from late 1896 to thespring of 1897, and draw new conclu-sions.The sampling provides detailedevidence of a number of real ballooncraft which were steerable orpowered (airships). The areas most in-volved show an initial progress of ac-tivity from the west coast to the eastcoast, over a 5-month period. Reportsof the flap start in the San Franciscoarea, then move to Omaha, Chicago,Nashville, and finally return to thecentral portion in Texas. News wasquickly disseminated with the tele-graph and appeared in countlessnewspapers. By the time the phenom-ena reached the Midwest, thousandsof people were having sightings. Andmany of the reports would includelanding accounts or interaction withthe pilot, inventor, or passengers. Thenation was atwitter with the idea thatAmerican inventors were close to dis-covering the "secret" of powerednavigation. These balloon aircraftwould just be the first of other majordevelopments soon to follow in thefield of transportation by air.Sightings of one or more airshipsinthe U.S. originated in the centralcoastal area of California during thelate fall of 1896. The San FranciscoThe author invites comment, c/o Dept. ofAstronomy, Pennsylvania State University,University Park, PA 16801.Chronicle published a series of articlesin late November regardingan airshipseen-in the Sacramento area with theinitial weak suggestion that it was ahoax. Some reports were to the effectthat it was cigar-shaped with a frame-work underneath for two men to siton bicycle-like structures. Otherreports were that it was oval withoutstretched wings and propellers,and in one instance the operatorscould be heard singing.By November22 the Chronicle and the OaklandTribune reported that "thousands" ofpeople saw an airship in the Sacra-mento area.With this ripple, a lawyer, GeorgeD. Collins, came to the forefront andexplained that his client, E. H."Aluminum" Benjamin, was the in-ventor and had been working on theship for 7 years. Collins also describedsome of the flights of the ship, and in-dicated that many parts of it weremanufactured in the eastern U.S. Theship apparently was dubbed the "U.S.Collins" and supposedly belonged tothe Aerial Navigation and IrrigationCo.The sensation was so great the SanFrancisco Call carried an engraving ofan elongated airship with wings, caus-ing the San Francisco Examiner onDecember 5, 1896 to publish a stiffrejection of the whole affair:Fake journalism has a good deal to answer for,but we do not recall a more discemableexploitin that line than the persistentattempt to makethe public believe that the air in this vicinity ispopulated with airships. It has been manifestfor weeks that the whole airship story is puremyth.If this amount of airship coveragebothered the publisher, Mr. Hurst,then what happened in the followingmonths must have made him furious,because by mid-April of 1897 therewas a deluge of accounts of airshipsthroughout the country.Additions to and variations of theaccounts of the first sightings inCalifornia appeared in eastern news-papers during April. The New YorkHerald of the 12th reported that thefirst cigar-shaped flying machine wasseen on November 16th in the Sacra-mento area, and Collins revealed thatthis airship was 150 feet long, hadtwo wings, and was controllable. C.A. Smith, president of the Atlanticand Pacific Aerial Navigation Co., in-dicated the airship would fly to theeast coast soon. Another story of thefirst California sighting appeared inthe April 18th issue of the PittsburghPress. The report here was that thefirst sighting was in Maryville, some75 miles northeast of San Francisco.To what extent these Californiasightings are related is not clear.Concentration AreasReports of airships died down dur-ing the winter months, but accordingto the Pittsburgh Press an airship spentseveral weeks crossing the Rockies,and passed over Kansas and Iowa.Newspaper accounts were renewedwhen the Chicago Tribune reported onApril 7, 1897 that hundreds saw anairship the night before in the Omahaarea. The St. Louis Post Dispatch ofApril 10th, however, reported thatOmaha heard of the airship 6 monthsearlier, suggesting news originated inOctober of 1896. The New YorkHerald of April 12th said that the firstsighting in the Omaha area was madeon- March 29th. Sightings in mid-April were so numerous that the St.Louis Post Dispatch of April 14th and16th indicated that hundreds had seenit in Nebraska and Oklahoma, andeven thousands around St. Louis.By mid-April the airship flap hadthe Midwest stirred into a frenzy andreports were coming from all direc-tions, but the most developed datacame from sightings in the Chicagoarea. The Chicago Tribune of April(continued on next page)3
  • Airships, Continued.10th reported that hundreds sighted.an airship in the Chicago area, manyseeing wings. On the same day, theNew York Herald gave insight into thenature of the elongated Chicago ob-ject. Max L. Harrhar, secretary of theChicago Aeronautical Association,said he was expecting the airshipsincehe received word several weeks priorthat a party of three had already leftSan Francisco.Harmer described the vessel aspowered and steerable, and it was juststopping off at Chicago in its flight toWashington D.C. Harrhar also ex-plained that Octave Chanute, presi-dent of the Chicago AeronauticalAssociation, had full information onthe ship. Chanute was reported as be-ing one of the wealthy sponsors ofthis airship venture. According to theNew York Times of June 3, Chanutewas running a secret airship farm notfar from Chicago, and the New YorkHerald-of April 13 reported the patentpapers for the airship were already onfile in Washington, D.C.The Chicago Tribune was able toprovide most of the informationregarding the inventor of the Chicagoairship. On April 12th they reportedthat the inventors name was A. C.Clinton who lived in Omaha. TheApril 26th issue, however, suggestedthat A. C. Clinton was an alias and theprobable inventor was a violin makerClinton A. Case, an anagram of thealias. According to Secretary Wake-field of the Omaha Exposition, Caserequested 87,000 sq. ft. of landingspace at the exposition. Then, thenext day the Chicago Tribune reportedthat Case lived in Chicago and he wasalready -building model airships since1892. inRock Rapids, Iowa. PerhapsOmaha was mistakenly reported asthe home of: the inventor becauseanother inventor, Alva J. -Grover, acivil engineer who resided in Omaha,is reported as having shown plans fora steerable, powered, inflatedmachine.. But to make things evenmore confused the New York Heraldof April 13th reported that Oscar B.Booth; another airship inventor fromChicago, said the Chicago airship wasCharles Clintons who lived in DoddCity, Kansas.In the technical vein, the most com-pelling evidence for the existence ofan airship seen in the Chicago areawas the two photographs taken byWalter McCann which was reportedin several of the major newspapersacross the nation. Three otherwitnesses — G. A. Overstocked W.Hoodies, and E. L. Osborne — sawthe airship as well as McCann whotook the photographs. These photo-graphic plates were subject to "an acidtest" and pronounced genuine. Thewitnesses themselves could even seethrough a telescope a man steeringthe cigar-shaped airship.Unfortunate-ly these photographs do not seem tohave survived. However, among the.more prominent sources whichdeclared the photos a fake were theChicago Tribune of April 12 andDonald B. Hanlon in 1970. - TheTribune explains that it was a fakebecause of "too much scope of lens."(?)Another area from which detailedreports issued was Nashville, Ten-nessee. On April 25th the St. LouisPost Dispatch provided a remarkablydetailed description of an airshipshaped like a shad without its headand tail that landed in the Chat-tanooga area for repairs. In additionto wings and propellers there was a9-foot passenger car beneath theballoon which carried two men. Oneof the pilots, Prof. Charles Davidson,reportedly left Sacramento a monthearlier.Interestingly enough, the May 7thissue of the Chicago Tribune gives adescription of another airship, also ina very convincing style. Prof. ArthurW. Barnard of Nashville • demon-strated take-off and control of aballoon before hundreds at the Ten-nessee Centennial Expositiongrounds. His -balloon was elongatedwith propellers and had a bicycleunderneath for the pilot to use,primarily for take-off. The New YorkTimes of May 7th specified the airshiplength as 40 feet and width as 20 feet.Since we presently live in the .agewhere humans have been landed onthe moorrrepeatedly, it is difficult forus to imagine the sensation created inthe horse and buggy days by the ap-pearance of a controlled balloon. TheTribune report indicated that in thecase of Barnards demonstration "peo-ple refused to believe their eyes."The New York Herald of April 14thexpressed exasperation with the air-ship situation and said it "seemsimpossible to get anything reliablenow about the airships." They thenproceeded to describe a steam drivenairship named "Pegasus" which hadsolved the problem of aerial naviga-tion and had spent the last month fly-ing about. This airship was supposed-ly assembled 10 miles from Lafayette,Tennessee with parts from Chicago,Pittsburgh, and St. Louis.Numerous other accounts of inven-tors at work were briefly given innewspapers that spring. According tothe Dallas Morning News of April 6thanother pioneer, G. M. Padgitt ofSpringfield, Missouri, had been mak-ing balloon ascensions in the severalweeks past. And among the inventorswith a reputation who were secretlyworking at the time was Samuel P.Langley of the Smithsonian Institute.As early as May 14, 1896 the NewYork Tribune reported that AlexanderG. Bell described Langleys inventionas a steam driven aerodrome whichlooked like a large bird. On April13th the St. Louis Post Dispatch in-dicated that Prof. Henry S. Pritchettof Washington University claimedthat Langleys invention was able tocarry a man several hundred feet.. Dubious AccountsBy no means were all the news-|paper accounts .along the lines ofpioneering efforts by inventors of air:ships, secretly or openly. A few of the!stories seemed distinctly different incharacter because of features difficultor impossible to believe. The NewYork Herald of, April 12th reportedthat John A. Hernon, electrician fromSan Jose, by December 1 had alreadybeen on a trip with the inventor of anairship. Over a 2-day period theywere supposed to have made a trip toHonolulu and back. This was a tripofover 4,000 miles which had to bemade at an average speed of 80 mph.(continued on next page)
  • Airships, Continued ,• . • • ! T , • j . . . - . • _It is difficult to see,how the westwardtrip against the prevailing winds couldbe accomplished in less than 2 dayswhen powered flight of balloons wasin its infancy. While the schedule forthe trip to Honolulu -stretches theimagination, the schedule for anotherairship reported by the. PittsburghPress is an outright.lie. Here the timingof a flight is given as Jacksonville,Florida 9:43; Havana, .Cuba 9:47 andDuluth, Iowa 9:50.The Dallas Morning News of April19th contained .a unique account in-volving a crash landing of an airshipwith retrieval of the pilots body inthe Aurora, Texas area. Part-timereporter E. E. Haydon even providedinformation that the pilot originatedfrom Mars and had on his personpapers with unknown hieroglyphics.No material evidence regarding theairship, pilot, or his papers was everrecovered and the report of the inci-dent is regarded as a hoax. While afew other hoaxes were identified inthe newspapers, their perpetrationswere relatively simple-minded andrather weakly documented.Among the more curious accountsof airships is the one provided byGeorge Dunlap via the Dallas MorningNews of May 16th. Dunlap indicatedhe inspected a 75-foot long steerable,powered airship near Lake Charles,Louisiana. The airship supposedly car-ried four passengers in its travelsthrough Texas and Mexico and hadan inventor named Wilson andengineer, Waters. Although Dunlapindicates he was invited for an ascent,he declined. Incredibly, Wilson wasreported as building a total of threeairships, the other two supposedly inArizona and Mexico. Could one ofthese airships have been the one sowidely reported by the Dallas Morn-ing News on April 16th and 17th whenit was reported that the pilot was seenworking on his craft outside theDallas area?Ballooning HistoryIn both Europe° and Americaballoonists had been making ascen-sions with passengers for more than acentury. As .early as 1783 Jean F." P.Rozierand Marquis dArlandres madea free-flight, trip at LaMuette, Franceand 10 years later the first Balloonflightin the U.S. was launched fromPhiladelphia. Jean P. .Blanchard flew15 miles across the Delaware Riverand reached more than 1 mile inaltitude. But then what happened be-tween 1793 and 1896 in Americadoes not seem to have been docu-mented in much detail. In Europe,however, there is considerabledocumentation during the period. By1880 the first powered airship wasflown in Leipzig, Germany byWolfert and Baumgarten, but it end-ed in disaster. Even up to 1897 Euro-peans were having difficulties withtheir attempts to achieve successful,controlled, powered flight. In 1884 C.Renard and A. C.. Krebs flew their170-foot-long "La France." Theballoon returned to its starting pointafter achieving a speed of 12 mph. By1897 a European dirigible had beenpowered by a Daimler engine, but un-fortunately their trip ended too indisaster as their engine emitted sparkswhich ignited the hydrogen gas in theballoon. In the same year another par-tially successful flight . ended indisaster when a Swede, Solomon A.Andree, left Danes Island in an am-bitious attempt to cross the NorthPole. Because of incidents like thesethe New York Herald wrote on April15th:In Europethere are at least a dozenwell-knownscientists working, on the problem (of apowered, steerable airship) and many half suc-cessful effects of flights have been made.. It is difficult to compare Europeanand American achievements before1897 since American reports are notas complete. Nevertheless, Americanflights also seemed to have their dif-ficulties. Numerous instances of land-ings were cited by Hanlon, JacquesVallee, and this writer, and of all.ofthese, five were reported to be forrepairs. However, only the St. LouisRepublic for April 14th reported a ma-jor crash landing, in Kalamazoo,Michigan.-Here G. W. Somers andW. Chadburn witnessed a blow-up ofthe airship which showered propellerblades, electric : wire and steelsplinters. -.-»..:.i:.n .- :•«?"!=?••, A measure pf. the ballooning activ-ity from latel896 to, trie spring of1897 is the number of sightingsandlandings .reported. Hanlon specifies150 sightings in 19. states, and thiswriter adds 1 sighting in each of 4 ad-ditional states and Cuba _andMexicofrom newspaper sources. Vallee andHanlon documented 22 landings in 12states, and this writer adds 13 addi-tional landings in 8 states: In Americathere were at least a dozen inventorsworking on the problem, however,most were not as well known as werethe European inventors. It is hardly asurprise that the state . of dirigibletechnology in the U.S. was" as ad-vanced as it was with the long arid in-volved history of ballooning inEurope and" America.Early InterpretationsTo the detriment of UFOIogy andthe history of ballooning, one of thefirst analyses of the mysterious air-ships of 1896-1897-was.made by.thedebunker Donald Menzel. In-his cus-tomary glib style the airships were:. . . created from imagination — imaginationinflated by the newspaper storiesA? in the1947 saucer scare, hoaxers and jokers ready tocapitalize.on the event, quickly entered thepic-hire." - • - ., . . . . . , :Naturally this same approach to, thephenomena of 1896-1897 was takenby another debunker, Philip K. Klass.His version is that:.When the public has been conditioned by thenews media to believe that there; are strangeflying objects in the skies many persons willreport having seen such objects — even whenthe objects do not really exist.Apparently Menzel and Klass wouldhave us believe that half of the majornewspapers in the country are notcapable of-differentiating between areal phenomenon and a psychologicalone. . - . ; : . •In keeping with their general, ap-proach .to UFOs, Menzel and Klassare not only glib, they are absurd: Inspite of the ^activity with powered,controlled,, elongated airships intheareas of -San (Francisco, .Omaha;(continued on next page)
  • Airships, ContinuedChicago, Dallas and Nashville, Klasswrites:At the time of the rash of mysterious airshipssightings there were no large powered craft inthe U.S. . . . Such things as airplanes or airshipssimply did not exist.Menzel of course has his own ex-planation of how thousands of peopleover the U.S. had erred even thoughthey saw details with and without op-tical aid:The dark, cigar-shaped gas bag in many caseswas only a lenticular cloud or mirage, whichwould have escaped notice except for thespecial significance momentarily attached to anobject of this shape.The view of the 1896-1897phenomena taken by Vallee is dif-ferent from that of Menzel and Klass,and not as glib. Vallee suggests thatthe airship was a figment of the imag-ination, and in 2 of the 21 landingcases he discusses in connection withthe airship, he shows that there aresimilar circumstances in Medieval an-nals of folklore from the British Isles.Vallee also attempts to show that 4 ofthe remaining 19 landing events arefairy-tale-like. Most of the interpreta-tions of the flap found in the generalUFO literature, however, take theview that the airships are not an ex-plained phenomenon. Hanlon closeshis Flying Saucer Review article of 1970with the statement:It is clear that the origin of the airship is stillvery much an open issue. It isalso clear that themystery surrounding its appearance at that par-ticular time in history has deepened.What is so surprising of the anal-yses mentioned above by Menzel,Klass, Vallee, and Hanlon is that noneconsidered a conventional man-madeobject explanation. Debunkers andUFOlogists are represented, but noone chose to treat the mountain ofcompelling data as just part of thehistory of ballooning.At the time of the airshipsightingsthere did not appear to be any out-spoken debunkers with the reputa-tion of Menzel and Klass. But indeed,there were a few astronomers whosimply suggested without much tech-nical defense that thousands uponthousands of people could not distin-guish between a point of light such asVenus, Mars, Alpha Orion, or Betel-geuse, and structured aircraft.Although numerous people saw de-tails of the construction of the ships,including passengers, and althoughmany reliable witnesses made obser-vations with optical aid, theastronomers failed to explain how theobservers could have so erred.Perhaps more convincing than thetechnical arguments of the man-madenature of the flap are the contem-porary opinions of reliable sources.Some of the first supportive commen-tary comes from Pritchitt in the St.Louis Post Dispatch of April 10th and14th.There is too much corroborative evidence andit comes from too many quarters to treat thematter any other way (than an airship).The newspaper also reported that thepopulace itself was convinced of thetrue nature of the phenomenon:It is general belief that an airship is floatingover the states of Missouri, Illinois, Iowa andKansas . . . The majority ridicule the idea thatanything beyond the natural has been seen.Even the French newspaper Figarocommented on the believability ofthe American reports:The news seems to be more than a canard, see-ing the details and preciseness in which arerelated in the (New York) Herald the exploitsofthis airship.Although the Philadelphia Inquirer car-ried little on the airship, in the April17th issue they comment:Airship stories of an apparently entirelyreliable character are coming in in rapid succes-sion and all seem to hang together.ConclusionsMore than 3,000 newspaper issuesfrom among three dozen titles cover-ing the period during late 1896, andbetween mid-March and mid-May of1897 were searched for this article. Itis very likely that considerably moredata remains to be uncovered on thesubject of the mysterious airshipsfrom newspapers alone. Further,Lucius Parish has informed me that hehas had for some time in his posses-sion several hundred pages of airshipmaterial. But, although there ismuchwork remaining to be done in con-structing the story of airships in theU.S. during the 19th century, thework done to this point is sufficientfor this writer to deduce the truenature of the mysterious airships of1896-1897. It seems much more rea-sonable to interpret the airshipsightings simply as airships whichwere various models in the develop-ment of the dirigible. Consequentlythese airships should no longer re-main in the realm of UFOs.BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCESPrimary SourcesChicago Tribune April 10, 12, 26 and 27 1897Dallas Morning News April 6, 16 and 17, 1897Figaro mid April 1897Flying Saucer Review 1966, v. 12 n. 5; 1969 v. 15n. 1; 1970 v. 16 n.4Knoxville Journal May 8, 1897New York Herald April 10, 12, 13, 14, anH IS,1897New York Times May 7 and June 3, 1897Oakland Tribune late November 1896Philadelphia Inquirer April 17, 1897Pittsburgh Press April 18, 1896St. Louis Post Dispatch April 1,13, 14, 16 and 25,1897St. Louis Republican April 14, 1897San Francisco Chronicle November 19, 20, 23,25, 26, 27, 1897San Francisco Examiner December 5, 1896Other SourcesClarke, Basil. History of Airships. (1961, St.Martins Press).Parish, Lucius (Private communication datedMay 30, 1979).Fort, Charles. Books of Charles Fort. (1941,Holt).Frey, Carroll. First Air Voyage in America.(1943, Penn Mutual Life Insurance Co.)Klass, Philip. UFOs Explained. (1974, RandomHouse).Menzel, Donald. Flying Saucers. (1953, Har-vard University Press)."Newspapers in Microform/United States/1948-1972" (1973, Library of Congress).Poole, Lynne. Ballooning in the Space Age.(1958, Whittlesey House).Vallee, Jacques. Passport to Magonia. (1969,Regnery).ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis writer expresses his gratitudeto the extensive, courteous gratis ser-vice provided by the interlibrary loanand microform groups at the centrallibrary of the Pennsylvania StateUniversity. Appreciation is also ex-pressed to the Flying Saucer Review forthe extensive photocopy service inconnection with this study.
  • "MYSTERIOUS AIRSHIPS": A COMMENTBy Don Berliner(Aviation/Science Writer)Dr. Winklers discussion of "TheNot-So-Mysterious Airships of1896-97" raises as many questions asit answers. While the thoroughness ofhis research is commendable, his con-clusions seem to this writer to berather hard to support in light of thehistory of airship-related technology.That there could have been poweredlighter-than-air craft of unknownmanufacture in the late 19th centurycan hardly be denied. But there couldalso be vicious cocker spaniels livingin oxygen-filled caves on the far sideof the Moon! However, in theabsence of evidence, such assump-tions are highly risky. And evidenceof the actual existence of 19th cen-tury engine-driven airshipsin the U.S.simply cannot be found. Nowhere inall the vast collections of aeronauticalhistorical material is there a singlespecific detail about such a device:Not a photograph, not a measure-ment, not an artifact, and notanything else that would suggest thateven one of these things flew exceptin the imaginations of inventors andjournalists.And if such a machine had flown,why did it never become publicknowledge? The performance de-scribed by hundreds of witnessesstrongly suggests highly successfulairships: fast, maneuverable, long-ranging. Yet none was ever seen ex-cept at a distance. Where were theybuilt? Where were they based?Where did they end up? And, assum-ing such airships existed, why werethey never capitalized upon? Whywere none seen at pre-announcedpublic displays, or in showrooms?The first engine-driven airshipsknown to have flown in the U.S.were those of Stevens and Boyce,who flew at Manhattan Beach, N.Y.,in 1900. Prior to that, and dating backto 1863, the only powered airshipsinthe U.S. were driven by pedals, like abicycle, and hence capable only ofquite feeble speed and very limitedrange and duration of flight. Lets faceit: pedalling a clumsy great gas-bagagainst even a gentle breeze is veryhard work.And that really points to the majorargument against the "mysterious air-ships" having been secret U.S. craft:The state of the aeronautical arts in1896-97 was such that airships havinganything like the speed, range, andnavigational capabilities of thereported craft would have requiredenormous advances in technology.Had such advances been made, theirnon-airship applications would havebeen so great that to have kept themsecret and then let their secrets diewould have cost their developersmany millions of dollars in sales androyalties, and world-wide fame.The great barrier to the develop-ment of aviation in those days wasthe absence of efficient engines.Gasoline engines put out a fewhorsepower and weighed hundreds ofpounds; electric and steam power-plants were even worse. It wasnt un-til the Wright Brothers built a 12 hpengine that weighed around 200 Ibs.(crude, by todays standards) thataviation stood a chance.Had an efficient airship enginebeen available before the turn of thecentury, it would have found im-mediate application in airplanes, butthat never happened. Prior to 1897,only Karl Wolfert, in Germany, hadflown an airship with a gasolineengine, and his biggest that flew wasless than 6 hp. The performance ofknown 19th century airships waspathetic, at best, with none capable ofas much as 10 mph.Even if suitable engines could havebeen built in total secrecy, couldsecret airships have flown where theywere reported? Most sightings wereat night, and they covered suchwidespread areas that either therewere a large number of airships, or afew that ranged the entire country.Such flying demands some means ofnavigation, especially at night: thecrew must know where they are andthey must be able to figure out howto get where they are headed. In 1896and 1897, there was obviously no airnavigation system in the U.S. Therewere no radio beacons upon which tohome. There were no major roads tofollow. There were no networks ofwell-lit cities whose unique patternsof lights would permit identificationfrom the air.Had there been air-to-ground radioin those days, someone on the groundmight have been able to keep an air-ship pilot informed about his location.But useful radios were far in thefuture. (The first use from an airplanewas in 1910.) Had our secret inven-tors come up with miraculous im-provements in radio, they wouldhave had to have been nuts to holdback the news.And even if there had been suchamazing radios, they would have re-quired power for operation. The bat-teries of the day were huge and weak,and thus would have proven a greatdrain on the already over-taxed liftingability of any pre-historicairship. Thiswould have been true to an evengreater extent for powerful search-lights said to have emanated fromsome of the airships. Hundreds ofpounds of batteries would have beenneeded to run them, and their pur-pose is difficult to imagine.What of the reported designs of theairships? Many were said to have hadwings, oars, and even paddlewheels.Any of these appendages would havecost an airship far more than it pro-duced, hence the total absence ofanything of this sort on known air-ships. Wings built to the technologyof the day would have provided solit-tle lifting at the low speeds any possi-ble engine could have produced, andthey woulH have created so much(continued on next page)
  • RECENT INDIAN RESERVATION SIGHTINGv_. r... :•..•,-.. •;. • :•,„ .: . . • . , ..-• . •:..•:/ ;By Greg LongW. J. (Bill) Vogel, CUFOS in-vestigator, reports a recent sightingthat he investigated.During the first week of February1982 at 3:30 a.m., a police officer wason routine patrol westbound onHighway 220 on the Yakima IndianReservation in Washington Statewhen he noticed a bright light severalmiles to the south. Believing a housemay have been on fire, he proceededsouth oh Lateral C. Because the roadwas quite rough, he watched the roadand lost sight,of the light. At the in-tersection of Lateral C and theMarion Drain Road, the officerstopped and shut off his lights, think-ing that the light may have been froma brush fire along Toppenish Creek,about a mile south of his location.Suddenly two cylindrical-shapedobjects with half-moon shapes ontheir bottoms rose up from behindthe trees that lined Toppenish Creek.The objects were on either side of theLateral C road, and they were as largeas a house. The objects gave offbright, white light that illuminatedthe ground beneath them as theyrose.After rising up to 100 to 150 feet,the objects moved south toward Top-penish Ridge (about a mile south ofToppenish Creek) and went up overthe 1,500-foot-high ridge. As the ob-jects ascended the ridge, they re-mained generally side by side duringflight and described S-shaped flightpatterns.As the soundless UFOs movedacross the valley floor and up theridge, the ground beneath was bright-ly illuminated. Duration of sightingfrom the initial appearance of the ob-jects to their disappearance was about4 to 5 seconds. The night was clearand windless; the moon was notout.Vogel reports that witnesses haveobserved during January 1982 anumber of bright NLs (nocturnallights) compared, to single "head-lights" which have moved up anddown Toppenish Ridge near the loca-tion of the above sighting.Comment, Continuedweight and wind resistance, that theywould have been a serious handicapto the forward movement of the air-ship. As-for oars and paddlewheels,they would.have done"as much goodas-tying a pair of canaries to the han-dlebars of a modern racing bicycle.There is no recognizable evidencethat anyone flew an airship inAmerica prior to 1900. And even ifsomeone had, there would have beenno way for it to find its way aroundthe; country at.,night. And many ofthem were equipped with .gadgetsthat-make absolutely no sense. Ifanyone had learned how to do thesethings in 1896-97, he could have puthis.creative brilliance to work in waysthat ..would have ranked him, .withEdison: These, rumored inventorsmay have been eccentric, but couldthey have been immune to the lure offame and fortune?-;Dr. Winkler. has usedhis "new in-vestigative tool"-to come up with ad-ditional reports, of.airship, sightingsand new claims.of,mysterious inven-tors, none of which resulted in visiblehardware. But has he- shown whythese, marvellous inventors never ledto anything? .On: the-contrary, thedevelopment of •airships proceededexactly - as., it. would, have: if the"mysterious airships" of 1896-97 hadnever.been.Dr. Winkler refers to several well-known aeronautical researcherswho,he says, were somehow involvedwith the "mysterious airships."Perhaps he should have paid less at-tention to the obviously flimsy ac-counts in contemporary newspapersand more to what is now knownabout their works:(1) Prof. Arthur Barnarddefinitelyflew an airship at the St. Louis Exposi-tion in the spring of 1897. But it waspurely pedal-powered and hence littlemore than a novelty. A cross-countryflight or a night flight in such a craftwould have been quite a stunt, but nomore than a stunt.(2) Octave Chanute was one of theleaders in the effort to invent theairplane, not the airship. His work iswell known today, and contains not ahint of serious interest in suchlighter-than-air craft. As a man quite willingto share his knowledge with others,Chanute would have,been very muchout of character to have been part of alarge secret group of aerial ex-perimenters. .(3) Prof. Samuel Langley, Secretaryof the Smithsonian Institution, wasbusy in the 1890s with heavier-than-air flying machines, not airships.iThe"steam-driven aerodome whichlooked like a large bird" reported inMay 1896,was his.Aerodome #5, a25-lb., unmanned model airplanewhich is considered by historians tohave been the first engine-driven,heavier-than-air machine to haveflown successfully. On May 6,1896,it flew three-fifths of a mile. It is nowon permanent display in the NationalAir and Space Museum, which alsoowns the totally unsuccessful full-size,man-carrying descendant of the #5,which flopped into the PotomacRiver in late1903.Obviously, many of the reportswere either pure imagination or wildexaggeration. This is true of allcategories of UFO reports, as well. Ittherefore seems to boil down to acouple of basic questions:. (I) Was anything at all seen, orwere the airships nonexistent? SincePhil Klass says theres nothing tothem, the obvious answer is thatsomething peculiar must have beenflying around the U.S.A. in 1896 and1897.(2) Were the legitimatesightingsofunknown American .airships or ofUFOs? While it can be argued thatunknown airships are UFOs (beingunidentified, flying, and objects), thetotal absence of evidence of anypre-1900 airships strongly suggeststhat the great fuss was caused bywhat we now call UFOs. So what elseis new?
  • A VISIT TO THE PEOPtES^RiEPUlBLICby Paul Dong(MUFON Envoy to China and FieldInvestigator) . •In the summer of 1981, I visitedChina at the request of the ]ourhal ofUFO Research editorial board and theChina UFO Research Organization(CURO). It was a very successful trip.To describe its glamour would seemlike boasting, therefore I only hopethat the readers will not get this im-pression, and instead think in terms ofhow China is paying attention toUFOs. This is my purpose for writingthis article.On the day after my -arrival in Pe-king, I had an interview with all theeditors from the journal of UFOResmmh, President and Vice-presidentof Kansu Peoples Publishing Com-pany, -CURO chief executive ChaLeping, chief officials from the PekingChapter (main office is in Wuhan),representatives from Peking Obser-vatory, editors and reporters fromseven magazines and newspapers inPeking, and all those "UFO fans" whoheard about my visit. For the wholeday my dwelling in "FriendshipHotel" was swarmed with peoplewho asked questions of all kinds..On the next day, I was invited bythe Peking Ching Hua UniversityStu-dent Union to give a lecture onUFOs. The hall was fully packed.They wanted to know about the U.S.work on UFOs in the past and I toldthem all that I knew:The third day .was arranged for meto deliver a talk on UFOs in the Pe-king Planetarium. The Planetariumhas 600 seats. Before 1:30 p.m. theywere all occupied. Latecomers had tostand in the aisles and at the back ofthe hall. My. friend estimated thatthere were 750 people present... On the .- fourth day I attended • adiscussion session on.UFOs with theeditorial board of "AstronomyLovers," "Aeronautics," and staffmembers of "The Third-EngineeringDepartment." More than thirty peo-ple participated in this session.Paul Dong, center, after UFO talk at Canton ^Science Museum :I am a native of Canton. On thefirst day of my visit to Canton, theCURO Canton Chapter-requestedmeto give a seminar on UFOs. On thenext day they arranged for me to givelectures in Canton Jinan University.The morning session was attended byall the staff members, while the after-noon session was attended by all ofthe students. On the following day Iwas invited by the Canton ScienceMuseum to give a talk onUFOs.During- my one month • stay inChina, I visited six cities — Peking,Canton, Shanghai, Hangchow, Guilin,"and Suzhou. In every place that-Ivisited, I was invited to talk aboutUFOs. Because of limited time, I toldthem that I would do so on my nextvisit and those who did not have thechance to come to my talks on UFOscould find them in the coming issuesof the journal of UFO Research. • - In the one month tour of China, Igathered information on several hun-dred UFO cases within the period1978-1981:1During these 4 years;-itseems that-UFOs have-created greatdisturbances in China,andthus-givethe peoplea clearer picture of-UFOs.The majority-believe that UFOs exist,as can be reflected by the fact that thefirst edition of:the •Journal• of •-UFOResearch- immediately sold 300,000copies.- At present, we have sub-scribers from Hong Kong, Maccau,Japan, Malaysia, Indonesia, France,the Soviet Union, England, West Ger-many, Yugoslavia, Mexico/- Spain;Italy, and the U.S.A. , - : -Someone said that Iwas a bridgebetween U.S. and Chinas1research onUFOs. During my stay in China, I-in-troduced the-four main UFO researchorganizations-in-theU.S.A.-and theirrespective leaders. They.are Centerfor UFO Studies, MUFON. APRO;NICAP and several other research in-stitutes/including the1Fund-for UFOResearch, Lhope-in-the future that I(continued on next page)
  • STAR MAP HYPOTHESIS STILL VIABLEby Louis Winkler, PhD(Department of Astronomy,Pennsylvania State Univ.)Many UFOlogists, including Fried-man (1973) and Dickinson (1974,1980), have considered MarjorieFishs interpretationof Betty Hills starmap as a working hypothesis, that thestars Zeta 1 and 2 Reticuli might be ahome base for extraterrestrials. Butmany skeptics, including Menzel(1977) and Sagan (1980) consider thereported CE-III of Barney and BettyHill a psychological event and evenreject the similarity between the Fishand the Hill map.Statistical computations made byeach side regarding the degree towhich the two maps agree in ap-pearance is dramatically different.Unfortunately this difference can notbe resolved because the size of thestatistical cells about the starsemployed in the underlying Bernoullimathematics can not be agreed upon.The protagonists insist on small cellsmaking it highly improbable that ran-dom patterns can duplicate the Hillmap, while antagonists insist on largecells making it easy for randompat-terns to duplicate the Hill map.Recently, however, new rejectionsof the Fish hypothesis have appearedin Frontiers of Science (1981) and instatements by Dickinson (1981), Hen-dry (1981, 1982)and Grain (1981).These reactions are based on observa-tions of Zeta 1 and 2 by Bonneau etalChina, Continuedcan still be the bridge between U.S.and China, facilitating communica-tions between the two countries.Chinese "UFO fans" have asked meto deliver this message — they hopethat the U.S.UFO experts will visitChina at some future date to sharetheir knowledge and UFO investiga-tions.(Paul Dong is the United States Editorof the Chinese-language newsstandmagazine the journal of UFO Research.)(1981) and DaSilva and Foy (1980).Arguments here are to the effect thatZeta 1 and/or Zeta 2 are binary innature and therefore violate Fishscriteria for selection. She only con-sidered those single stars which havesolar-like designations. Lower massstars and double stars were rejectedbecause it didnt seem likely thatthese objects could evolve life as weknow it. The argument against theFish map further proceeds that if Zeta1 or 2 were binary, Betty Hill wouldhave drawn it that way, and since shedidnt it doesnt represent theReticulum portion of the sky. Theabove grounds for rejection of theFish hypothesis isboth premature andtoo severe.The double nature of Zeta 2 asdetermined by Bonneau is only amarginal result with the relativelynew technique of speckle interfer-ometry. Although the EuropeanSouthern Observatorys 3.6 metertelescope was used the separation forthe supposed companions of Zeta 2was measured as O."046 which is justslightly above the limiting diffractionresolution of the telescope whichBonneau indicates is O."038. Thatthese results are at the limit of thecapabilities of the instrumentation canbe seen from the fact that Bonneauexperienced seeing of l."5 to 5",which is two orders of magnitudegreater than his results. There is nodoubt about the validity of Bonneausmeasurements in general because heduplicates results established by othermeans, but it just happens that Zeta 2is a marginal, limiting case. The casefor Zeta 1 being double is evenweaker because Bonneau could notresolve it. with speckle . interfer-ometry, and DaSilva and Foy only.suspected it being double from highdispersion spectra.The observations of Zeta 1 and 2by Bonneau, and DaSilva and Foy arenot unique in their preliminarychar-acter. In fact this is often the casebecause the stars are a good numberof light years away and the provi-sional nature of the parameters ofmany nearby stars is evident when avariety of star catalogs are examined.When Fish first started to matchcatalog stars with the Hill map shewas unable to find a criterion for asatisfactory match. But when theGliese (1969) catalog was later pub-lished more stars were included and amatch was found. Another exampleof the provisional nature of fun-damental parameters pertaining toZeta 1 and 2 is found in their paral-laxes. If three catalogs are chosen atrandom we see about a 30% variationin their distances as shown in the ac-companying table.A third example of uncertaintiesconcerns the double nature of Zeta 2.Although Bonneau resolved Zeta 2one year, he found that he could notrepeat the measurement the follow-ing year. While it is remotely possiblethat these differences in resolutioncould be caused by a highly eccentricorbit, the double nature of Zeta 2probably would have been discov-ered during astrometric programsbecause the separation of thecom-ponents is at least 50 % of itsparallaxvalue.Because Betty only drew her maptwo years after the reported en-counter, inaccuracies should be ex-pected in relative positions and innumbers of stars where close binariesare involved. If inaccuracies are ac-ceptable in Bettys representation ofpositions, then it should be acceptablein the representations of binariestoo.The fact that Fishs final criterion isviolated is immaterial since resem-blances of the two maps are based onthe positions of single and binary(continued on next page)10
  • By Ann DruffelUnidentified Occurrence in the Greenhorn Mountainsby Howard Ford(Note: Guest columnist Howard Ford is apsychotherapist in Thousand Oaks, Calif.,who employs hypnotic techniques in his pro-fessional work.)Tuesday, December 11,1979 was anormal day for Melvin and Naomi, atleast until about 2:00 in the after-noon. Then, the strangest thing thatthey had ever experienced occurred.They lost all awareness of time forover two days and had only partialawareness of a third day.Melvin, a retired aerospace engi-neer who had received honors in theApollo program, was clearing brushon the back part of his small acreage.It was a beautiful warm sunny daywith a gentle breeze and clear sky, ex-cept for an occasional small whitepuf-fy cloud. He and his wife Naomi hadretired to this resort area near LakeIsabella, Calif. Their large, neatmobile home is located at the base ofthe Greenhorn Mountains, which isthe southern end of the Sequoia Na-tional Forest, about 35 miles fromBakersfield and about 50 miles fromChina Lake. Their property slopesdown toward the back where theirgarage is built. The terrain is ruggedwith steep mountians surroundingthem.Melvin was a very healthy 64-year-old, who had never been hospitalizedand had been to a doctor only once inhis life when he was given a clean billof health. He served as a volunteerwith the Sheriffs Search and RescueTeam. He is a rather reserved personwho prefers a quiet life away fromthe city.Naomi was a 62-year-old house-wife whose health was reasonablygood except for a history of asthma.She had always been very stable emo-tionally with . a positive attitude(continued on next page)Star Map, Continuedstars. So if Zeta 2 or 1 or any numberof the stars of the Fish map are merelyproven to be double it still is notnecessarily a reason to reject the Fishhypothesis. In fact it will nqt be possi-ble to make well-founded -claims foror against the existence of regions ofstability or habitability for any atten-dant planets of the binaries until someprecision is achieved in determiningmasses, orbital parameters, spectraltypes, and parallaxes.In any event, the profoundly im-portant question as to whether wehave been visited by extraterrestrialsdeserves more care in answering thanhas been exhibited with the Reticu-lum region of the sky. This is especial-ly the case with Hendrys articlessince they are so poorly thought out.In addition to Friedmans (1981)criticisms, Hendry also makes otherfundamental errors. . He seems tothink he knows how long it takes forthe evolution of advanced in-telligence to take place and evenunder what chemical circumstances.To say the least, modern science is along way from understanding the-Zeta 1Zeta 2Gliese(l957)O."0790.074Jenkins(1963)0.1060.097. Gliese(1969)0.0890.089geophysical circumstances underwhich this biochemical sequence pro-ceeds.In conclusion, either full acceptanceor rejection of the Fish hypothesis ispremature. While it is difficult to do,we must be patient and view the dataonly as a working hypothesis untilmuch more definitive data are ac-cumulated.REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHYBonneau, D.; A. Blazit; R. Foy; A. LaBeyrie1980. Astronomy and Astrophysics SupplementSeries 42, Nov.Grain, T. S. 1981. Letter to L. Winkler datedDec. 6Dickinson, T. 1974. Astronomy, "Zeta ReticuliIncident"1980. "Zeta Reticuli Update," pub-lished by UFORI1981. Letter to S.T. Friedmandated Apr. 14Friedman, S.T. and B. A. Slate 1973. Saga. July,"UFO Star Base Discovered"Various Private Comunications toL. WinklerFrontiers of Science 1981, Jan.-Feb.Fuller, J.G. 1961. Interrupted Journey (Dial Press,New York)Gliese, W. 1957. "Katalog der Stern naher als20 Parsek fur 1950.0," (AstronomischesRechen-lnstitut, Heidelberg)1969. "Catalog of Nearby Stars"(Astronomishcen R e c h e n - l n s t i t u t ,Heidelberg)Harrington, R.S. and B.J. Harrington 1978.Mercury, March-AprilHendry, A. 1981. Omni, Nov.1982. Fate, Feb.Jenkins, L.F. 1963. "General Catalog ofTrigonometric Stellar Parallaxes," (YaleUniv., New Haven)Menzel, D. 1977. UFO Enigma (Doubleday,Garden City)Sagan,.C. 1980. PBS-TV presentation on Dec.14, "Cosmos"11
  • California Report, Continuedtoward:life. She had never beenafearful person; except for normalanx-ietiesabout her family. • •• • About12-00 oclock that afternoon,Melvin joined Naomi for lunch.Theysat down on a naughahyde couch inthe den with their backs .to the out-side wall,• looking across the room atthe television.1They snacked oncrackers and cheese with a glass ofwine-—-.-their customary lunch. In-stantaneously and simultaneouslythey lost all consciousness: Neitherhas any recall- of seeing anything ir-regular-occurring1to eacrrother or inthe house;- On Thursday; DecemberT3th :sometime after sunset bothbegin- to remember- slightly. Naomiremembers it was gettingdark, thenalso -a memory of early morning; Fri-day theT4th.- • ••-• •••" - "••"• •••>•Several eventswhich they havebeen able to remember occurred fromThursdaynight to-Friday night. Theyfall:into three • categories: 1. -eventsthey both"experienced which weresimilarto-eaciv other -but"not yetsubstantiated as-reality; 2.:eventswhic-htheyboth remember; 3. Naomirecallshumerous feelings, visionsandhappeningsthat "seem to be-her ownexperiences, which she refers to ashallucinations, dreams, or "pictures."• ~ First; a discussion of the things theybothexperiencedbut have not yetsubstantiated as reality. There seemsto •••be a:-uniqueness about these,because they do not place them in thetime period" after consciousnessstarted-returhing, but during the un-conscious period. Naomi recalls beingin an unfamiliar room, the memoryofwhich she-:refers to-as a "mental pic-ture." The room- was white; "almostlike an operatingroom." Sheiwas ly-ing unclothed • oh atable for a longtime with-legsand arms spread apart.The rooirTwas absolutely empty ex-cept for;the gurney-like table, andmeasured-about -5 rby 8- feet withwhite panelledwalls. She felt she wasbeing tilted in different directionsandwas fighting- hard to move but wasunable to do-so. On one end oftheroom the top half of the wall panelwas open. Her husband came to theopen area and started to climb over.The wall- panel moved upward,: aridshe screamed and cried, "Dont comein ... stay away!" According toNaomi he responded "No, I want tobe with you," to which she replied,"Oh, dont . . . youll die, too!" Shesensed she was being elevated orlevitated upward and feared being"squashed." The panel closed him out.Melvin has no recollection of this en-counter. .- • • He remembers clearly, however,being in a "cubicle" with four walls,which he estimated to be 5 feet to 8feet square. Everything was black orrwhite or varying tones in between.He states, There was a" girl in therewith me. He-indicated she had "nofeatures" and "everything was gray.She had no color so as to tell if shewas black or white or Indian." Heestimated the "girl" .to be his height orabove, about 510" or 6. Melvin•repeatedly stated she was featurelessand everything was •gray. • He wasuncertain about what she was wear-ing, except that the top and bottomwere the same color or tone. He couldnot understand all of her speech andreferred to it as a foreign language;however, when she communicatedwith him he could understand herclearly.She also spoke with "her brotherand mother who were down belowthem." Melvin kept demanding thatthe girl let him out of the room andshe told him to rap on the floor or"wall a certain way so a panel wouldopen and he could "go free. He says•her attitude was"very determined."He states he crawled around on thefloor knocking on the floor and wallstrying to get out. His memories of theroom are vivid. He stated "It is just asvivid today as it was when it hap-pened," when the writer interviewedhim many months after the event andadded, "I dont know how I got out."Both Melvin and Naomi were veryimpressed with the fact they heard a•continuous sound. They -never iden-tified the time of the sound but didhot place it in the time period afterconsciousness started returning. Herefers to -the sound as a helicopter.She said;she thought it was a largetruck or tractor idling. However, afterthey had been rescued and were atthe hospital, a helicopter "landed tobring a patient to the hospital, and sheimmediately said it was the samenoise.Naomi felt that Melvins feet mighthave been injured because during theordeal she had seen him walking on"ice or glass." After hospitalizationshe tried to find justification for theexperiences and thereforedecided theplastic runner down the hall mayhave caused her to think he was walk-ing on ice. She had never heard thatothers have reported that peopfe arelevitated in connection with light insome UFO reports.In summarizing the whole occur-rence Naomi adds, "I had a feeling wewere out of the house at one time."She also felt she was trying to get outof something. She repeatedly usedthe word "they."At the hospital, after rescue,Melvin was understood to say he felthis home had been invaded by a"lady" who had a powerful influenceover him, which had caused him to goout of his house and had left a curseor spell on both of them. He felt thata powerful "force" had controlledhim. He also said "a man and awoman entered his house." Later, hedid not recall making either state-ment.Next we consider the things theyboth remember consciously eventhough some of the behavior seemsvery irregular and confused. Theyboth remember being in the bedroomwhen they started regaining con-sciousness.and being unable to movewith full strength. They rememberbeing cold and unable to get enoughclothing to keep warm because theycould not walk. Melvin remembershaving on only one work boot andlooking for the other one. Naomirecalls her leg musclespaining ter-ribly, which she attributed to herstruggling in the white: room. Sheremembers getting a pistol and throw-ing it to Melvin and also being in thebathroom with the door locked andMelvin trying to get in and planningto chop down the door if necessary:- (continued on next page)12
  • California Report, ContinuedThey both remember her aunt com-ing to their home twice and thesheriff coming once.In the third category of eventsthere are fragments of confusedthinking which Naomi experienced.She thought a whip came in the win-dow in the bedroom and, with a^ crack, knocked things off the dresser,including her jewelry case whose con-j tents scattered across the floor. Thisevent added to her fear that "they"were going to kill her. She saw a handwith a saw cutting the floor outaround the night stand. She removeda gun from the night stand and threwit to her husband. He concurs that shethrew the gun but does not knowanything about the floor being sawed.He recalls her saying when she threwthe gun, "We are going to get some ofthem before they kill us." She wassurprised to return to her home abouttwo months later and find the floorand carpet undamaged.During the ordeal Naomi saw ob-jects as black, such as items on theshelves in the hall, the TV, and evenher medicine. She recalls telling aneighbor man who came by theirhouse not to give the dog foodbecause "they" had "put holes in itand it was black." Thinking "they"were using the radio near the bed as acommunication device, she grabbed itand threw it to Melvin.She experienced all mirrors likewindows or two-way glass andthought people were looking at her.She thought her brother was peekingin the window at her. She was con-"N. vinced her husbands friend was sit-ting in the bath tub with all his, clothes. She locked the bathroomdoor to keep "them" out and Melvinthought she was hollering to get out.He envisioned the door knob as hav-ing been moved over about 4 inches,so close to the door facing that hecould not open it. His neighbor hadcome ,by. to-play with their dog soMelvin sent him to -the garage to getthe ax so he.could chop the doordown. When she heard .what he said,she unlocked the door and stayed inthe den..She saw faces everywhere of.people they knew..Even .the afghanhad a face on every.little square aboutone-half inch in size. She saw a "per-son" in their home and.objects flyingaround her. Most of the hallucina-tions Naomi experienced occurredThursday night, during the day-onFriday, and Friday evening. ••Some time on Friday, Naomis auntcame to their house. She found themdressed inappropriately in thin nightclothes, the bedroom in disarray witha chair on its side, a table lying overwith a leg broken off, and a brokenglass container with contents spilled.She tried to assist them but could notmake sense of their behavior, becauseNaomi told her everything was"fine." Naomi finally told her aunt toleave; she did, her feelings hurt. Afriend of this aunt advised her to goback because something was evident-ly very wrong. She returned and triedagain but with little success. She thenreported the condition to the sheriffwho came to the house. Since theywere friends, he "hollered" to Melvin,who told him that "everything wasOK." The sheriff called to Naomiwho also responded that everythingwas fine. The sheriff left. Finally, onFriday evening, the aunt called thevictims son, who is a businessman inThousand Oaks, approximately 170miles away.The son immediately responded,bringing a friend with him. Upon ar-riving, he found his father dressed inpajama bottoms, his mother in a thinnight gown..The outside.temperaturewas 28 degrees and there was no heatin the house. Neither parent wouldtalk to him. He.checked the furnaceand discovered the outside •furnacedoor was open, the heater cover off,and the thermocouple pulled out.This last item would take con-siderable strength. He also discoveredboth parents had injuries. Accordingto the son, his mother was so cold thatwhen he touched her:it felt like.hishand would stick to her. She also hadwhat has been called a "burn" on herleft hip and thigh area. Melvin wasseriously, injured with a bad "b(urn" onhis left hip. which indented the.boneabout the length and diameter of apencil. There was a hole and a "burn"about 1% inches frbrri the^topofhishead toward thefback of his ;head, ap-proximately-the. size,of a.-half dollar.There was also a-"burn. on the put-side of both heels at least the size of-ahalf dollar. The most.severe injurywas on his lower back. It. startedbelow the waist line and reacheddown about 4 inches, covering,.awidth of about 10 inches across hisback.Naomi told the investigator laterthat "his-: back looked Jike a. hugegrizzly bear took a bite-out of it . :.you could see the white.muscles." It isnot clear if this view was with fullconsciousness or was part of herhallucinatory state. Their son said theinjury was black, swollen, and .rawwhen he .arrived. .Pictures .were takenof the lower back by a physicianabout one month after the injury andby the investigator about 11 monthsafter. . .. The son took.Melvin to the localhospital. Since he was. in need .ofmore sophisticated treatment, theyleft the small local hospital; and wentby to pick up Naomi. She was mostresistive to going. Her son rolled .herin a blanket and put her. in .the car,and drove both parents to-the West-lake . Community < Hospital., .in West-lake .Village adjoining--ThousandOaks. The couple were.-hospitalizedseveral,days with extensive-tests ;andtreatment. , .-_• , ;.. .Naomi was admitted as depressivereaction- and ,dehydration.. Melvinwas admitted as •psychotic reaction-,dehydration, and renal ..failure. .BySunday, December 16th,. they wereboth fully rationaland have remainedso .ever since. They mentioned ,thatthey were told by a-doctor that theyhad-approximately. 8 hours_of life leftwhen they arrived at.the,hospital.. .. As of.Noyember 1980, when inter/viewed 11 months after the.inc-ident;Melvin had a massive scar on his backabout.3_inches by-7 inches, with.onearea not completely. healed...There .isan indentation, and scar-on his skulland a scar, as well as-a dent, in the hipbone. The burns on ,the heels are;.nolonger visible: According-tq-Melvin,• . • r (continued on next page)13
  • California Report, Continuedhe was told at the hospital he had"third degree high radiation burns."There were different opinions givenby the various doctors as to the causeof injuries. This investigator (Ford) isin possession of the couples medicalrecords, and they verify substantiallythe couples statements as to the ex-tent of their injuries and mental stateswhen admitted.This Unidentified Occurrence hasbeen speculated on by the medicalstaff, the victims, and various othersas lightning, drug reaction, foul play,fumes, poison, microwaves,radiofre-quency waves from an airplane, eddycurrent (airto ground and ground toground), spontaneous human combus-tion, or a CE-III (or IV). Lightningseems ruled out as it was a clear dayand no burned spots were found onor in their mobile home. The drugand poison theories were resolved byblood tests at the hospital. Analysisofall food and drink in the home re-vealed nothing irregular. The foulplay and robbery theories werenegated by the fact that nothing wasmissing. The injuries were not thekind an intruder might inflict.There were no marks found on orinside the mobile home, therefore itmay or may not rule out the eddycurrent, microwave, and radio wavetheories. However, there was soot insome areas of the house, which sug-gests a combustion or electrical arc ofsome kind. The spontaneous humancombustion theory has a similarparallel in various literature and morerecently on the "Thats Incredible"TV program. This series reported aspontaneous combustion which oc-curred to a man who lived through it.Two of the similarities are that bothevents occurred in an enclosed areasurrounded by metal, one location be-ing a mobile home, the other a motorhome (camper) and that both victimshad similar injuries and both lived. Isit possible that spontaneous humancombustion is less intense when it oc-curs in a metal enclosure?The Close Encounter of the ThirdKind theory has a limited amount ofevidence pointing to it in this par-ticular case. Both Melvin and Naomiheard a "noise," experienced being ina "room," were aware of thepresences of strange persons and hadother perceptions similar to thosereported by CE-III (and CE-IV)witnesses. Naomis hallucinations,however, were not of a type com-monly reported in CE-IIIs andCE-IVs.2The sons friend who accompaniedhim to their rescue reported he hadnever seen anything like the "spell"they were under. He served as a pilotin the Vietnam war and now hisflights are sometimes routed over theLake Isabella area. He said he was notgoing to fly over that area again.Their son continually stated, "It is theweirdest thing I have ever seen." Heencouraged them to have the mobilehome moved and never go backthere. Melvin and Naomi did return,however, after two months. Upon be-ing released from the hospital, theystayed in the area near the hospital forrequired treatment of the "burn" onhis back. When they returned home,Naomi was surprised to find every-thing had color instead of being black.However, the windows and TVscreen did have a black, sooty film onthem. A macrame owl in the kitchen/hall area was almost black from soot.Nothing else in the den was damagedexcept some of the drapes. On thesewere found patches of soot 3 or 4inches from the ceiling.Their dog was kept at anotherhome for two months. After return-ing and for a year afterward, the doghas shown extreme fear when shesees a kite or a vapor trail left by a jet.She panicks and comes to Melvintrembling and hides. The dog hasalways been an outside dog and hasnever acted in this manner before.There have been changes inNaomis personal life. She returnedhome physically healthy and shortlyafterward shoveled 12 tons of gravelover the driveway and parkingareabecause Melvin was unable to do it.She experienced some apprehensionat first but has now reconciled herselfwith only a limited amount of fear.She feels she has aged a lot in the wayshe looks, she tires more easily andher neck, back, and shoulder musclesache. However, she still feels she is arelaxed person. After returning homeshe had no asthma for 5 months, butafter that time the asthma returned.Melvin feels most of his changesare physical. All of the injuries havehealed and are basically trouble-freeexcept his back, which showed onesmall area that still has not healedwhen photographed in November1980. He is limited in the amount ofpressure he can tolerate on his back;even lying down ispainful. He has ex-tensive nerve damage in one legwhich still limits his mobility.On the afternoon of December 10,1979, the day before the ordealstarted, their dog dug into a hill abouttwo feet and came out with a meer-schaum pipe, which had been ap-parently washed up by recent rains.The pipe has some burned material inthe bowl which smelled like oldtobacco. After the inexplicable hap-pening of December 11, Melvin andNaomi began to think that there wasperhaps something from the pipe thatcaused the problem. They have nological basis for their assumption,however. The pipe is intricatelycarved. Their son referred to it aslooking "evil."At the present time this case istrulyan Unidentified Occurrence. Any in-formation that could relate to thiscase would be greatly appreciated.Please send the information toHoward Ford, MUFON Investigator,4087 W. Elkwood St., NewburyPark, CA 91320, (805) 498-8489.NOTES1. Most spontaneous combustion cases occur inpersons of advanced age who live alone. Boththe "Thats Incredible" case and Melvin andNaomi were in their 60s, comparativelyyoung. (Editorial comment, AD)2. Could these hallucinations have been due toNaomis dehydration, rather than a direct resultof the incident itself? (Editorial comment, AD)MUFON1030LDTOWNE RD.SEGUIN, TX 7815514
  • UFOISECRECYIUPDATE MONDO RETRIEVO by Larry W. BryantTime was when •! used to offer thisrejoinder to a superskeptic of UFOreality: "All you need to have is forjust one of the reported unknownsto be confirmed as an alienspacecraft;the rest, no matter how strange orhow mundane by comparison, mere-ly provide some icing on the cake."Now, in these days of escalatedclaims of "close encounters," thegame has improved and the playershave acquired new roles. Oh, its stillthe old game of hide-and-seek,the ob-ject being certain artifacts of UFOvisitation in years past. Only now theseeker no longer is the Governmentbut the citizenry of the Government;the concealer being not the forcebehind the visitations but the UFOpolicymakers in the ExecutiveBranch. Against that turn of events, Inow should confront the superskepticwith: "If just one of these accounts ofalien spacecraft/creatures being keptin custody of U.S. militaryauthoritieshappens to be true, then it certainlymakes sense for the Air Force to haveterminated its obsolete Project BlueBook."The pursuit of crashed UFOs/retrieved UFOnauts, now institution-alized by publication of Leonard H.Stringfields findingsand speculations,has injected new life into the statusquo of modern UFOlogy. Until thismatter is put to rest, all other presentand future efforts at objective UFOresearch will, in the publics mind atleast, amount to so much windowdressing. Fed by rumor upon rumor,this Secret of Secrets may be the mostfertile ground for organized UFOlogysince the day Edward U. Condondeclared the UFO subject unworthyof attention by orthodox science.After all, the National Aeronauticsand Space Administration ostensiblyis holding its UFOlogical breath indown-played hopes that someone,somewhere, someday will present itsscientists a bonafide piece of UFOhardware for analysis. What irony ifthat piece, along with dozens moreakin to it, has been gathering cob-webs for three decades in this or thatAir Force storage hangar! Irony, ofcourse, knows no bounds in thesteady march of UFOlogy toward im-mortal folklore.Whats paramount now is perspective.And thats just what Stringfieldsevolving "retrievals" research is pro-viding us. His is the perspective of thecareful, methodical, persevering,seasoned analyst who knows both hisown limitations and the limitations ofhis subject matter. The result — amodel for future investigativereporters in the field of UFOlogy —recently was brought up-to-date andpublished by MUFON as a 38-pagemonograph entitled The UFO Crash/Retrieval Syndrome — Status Report II:New Sources, New Data.Documentation UpdateFor readers acquainted with theearlier version of this in-depthchronology of "retrievals" casehistories and personalities, the currentoffering will help fill in blanks, cor-rect errors of omission/commission,and promote wider review/debate/ac-ceptance of the findings to date. In-deed, its not hard to project the suc-cess of this body of documentation tobe on a par with the classic NICAPstudy The UFO Evidence. Even as thiscolumn goes to press, the "StringfieldReport" (as its bound to becomeknown) probably is finding its way in-to numerous in-baskets on CapitolHill.If Congress is on its post-Watergatetoes, the Stringfield Report mightserve as a catalyst for long-overduepublic hearings on the FederalGovernments UFO news-manage-ment program. Until then, perhapsthe document will serve as the con-science of the Executive Branch,fostering and/or supporting internaldissension over the secrecy policy.Whatever its immediate impact in of-ficial circles, the Stringfield Reportcertainly will open the door to a newera of UFOlogy, one that will con-tinue to challenge Stringfields in-vestigative prowess and personalstamina.As a not-too-detached observer ofthis coming of age of "retrievals"research, I have a few suggestions onhow Stringfield and his associatesmight add further substance to theirpursuit:• Press on with the gathering of af-fidavits of first-hand testimony; per-suade all such witnesses to go on pub-lic record with their accounts so as toencourage other to do likewise. In thisaspect of the politics of UFOlogy,there is safety in numbers.• In instances where there islimited concern about official reprisalfor public revelations, enlist the aid ofthe U.S. Freedom of Information Actto compel government sources torelease the documentation pertinentto the witnesses accounts.• Consult with individual mem-bers and appropriate committee staffsof the Congress so as to establish aclimate of immunity for thosewitnesses (declared and undeclared)who might wish to come forward in asecure forum to air their accounts.• Institute negotiations with highofficials of the Executive Branch tohave the government issue a blanket"declaration of immunity from pros-ecution" for all participants in the"retrievals" program and subsequentcoverup, with emphasis on the totalfreedom of each participant to engagein publicdiscussion of his/her involve-ment.Once these steps are taken, theprogress made to date might bedoubled in a few years time; and —who knows — maybe by then therellbe no longer a need for this column inthe pages of this or any other UFO-research periodical.Citizens Against UFO Secrecy(P.O. Box 4743, Arlington, VA22204) has begun publication ofUFOrmant, "... a bulletinof news andviews on the freedom of UFO infor-mation." Single copy price: $3.00,with checks made payable to CAUS.15
  • WITNESS PROTECTION: A COMMENTBy Peter Rank, M.D.(MUFON Consultant in Radiology)• I would like to comment on" thereliability of information and methodof presentation surrounding the UFOCrash/Retrieval Syndrome made pub-lic "by Leonard Stringfield severalyearsago.There Has been some con-troversy about- the reliability ofStringfields "data with specialreference to his reluctance to gopublic with the namesofhis witnessesarid informants.His failure to identifythesources ofinformation;has beenused tocaist some "doubt upon thefeliabilitybf his data. This seems to beunfair."Perhaps the following explana-tion will,help.. ::•* For a generation now UFOlogistshave been unconsciously assumingthat"the Journalistic Model -of report-ing" is the one1which demands themost credence.1Information publishedinthe media demand that such storiesreveal thewhd what, where, when,and why of the incidentrepbrted. It isaSsUmed" that such complete disclo-sure lends authenticityto the story in-volyecPanc! indeed is a requirementfor"believability. Most UFOlogistshave adhered to this principle when-ever possible. Such full disclosure ac-cording to the JournalisticModel hasbeen counter-productive. In manycases,.. foreknowledge that .theirnames would be published in thepopular media has driven away UFOwitnesses • and certainly has drivenaway any-ihforrhants who cared tocomment anonymously about theCrash/Retrieval-Syndrome:7• " •" It should now • be clear to- alldedicated- UFOlogists more than ageneration after Kenneth Arnoldssighting, that a different manner ofreporting UFO information than-theJournalistic-Model- "is -required.Perhapsariother alternative should beadopted, Specifically the MedicalModel of reporting scientific informa-tion, and do so in,accordance withcase history technique. Medicalliterature ^frequently -has need ofdescribing objective and very per-sonal information about patients. Theliterature is replete with such casehistories. In all cases the patientsanonymity is respected and the pa-tient identified only by initials. Thesecase histories are never challenged onthe grounds that the patients fullname is not disclosed, and the under:lying integrity of reporting is assumedas a matter of fact.Might it not be useful for us toadopt a similar approach? Bothwitnesses and informants wouldthereby be protected. Witnessescould then report all their data toserious researchers" with the clearknowledge that they and theirfamilies would never be identified inany publication which might provokethe popular media to descend uponthem like locusts at a feast. Infor-mants, many of whom are discussinginformation that is highly classified,perhaps several levels above the wellknown Top Secret category, maythen feel free to "go public" with theirinformation" without fear of retribu-tion. This would encourage others .tocome out of the closet, and allow con-siderably more information to devel-op about the Crash/Retrieval Syn-drome. . . .„ There is obvious journalistic prece-dent for this practice. Journalists are,and always have been, very protec-tive of their sources and have insistedin courts of law that their sources re-main anonymous. Legal attempts toforce journalists to reveal sources oftheir information have failed. Thisguaranteed anonymity has served as amighty bulwark of a free journalism.It could also serve as a mightybulwark for a more • liberated in-vestigative UFOIogy. • • • •I do not think1that the criticisms of•Stanton Friedmanand William Moorehave merit: Their criticisms of String-fields desire to protect the anonymityand safety of his sources stands out-side the bounds of all reasonablenessfor a variety of reasons. Let me beclear that I respect their work. Still,Ihave personally talked to a UFOwitness, a CE-III subject, and severalmilitary types, and most seek toguard their privacy. It is, quite clearthat our first responsibility is to con-sider these people as "patients" whofirst of all need our assistance and sup-port, and who need our guaranteethat their privacyand good faith willnot be abused. (Note: Dr. Rank is Director, Dipt, ofRadiology, Methodist Hospital, Madison,Wise.)UtterResponse to StevensEditor,Your MUFON UFO Journal (Oct.1981, No. 164, pp. 3-5) published anarticle "Kal, Korff and the MeierHoax: A Response - Pt. l".written byWendelle C. Stevens. This article onp. 5, col. 2, 1st .par. stated about myinvestigation on the ."Billy" EduardMeier hoax the following:Korffs facetious references to Meier havingmet Jesus Christ stem from a misstatement byColman VonKeviczky, whose distorted viewswere acquired during hisvery limited (one day)"investigation" of the Meier case . . .To eliminate any kind of misunder-standing about my and ICUFONsanalytic research, which has alwaysbeen based on factual and hard-coreevidence,we ask you to publish thefollowing corrections: ... I.. ICUFON Inc. started to in-vestigate and analyze "Billy" EduardMeiers alleged close.encounter with"Pleiadean" spacecrafts, 2 females ofcosmic origin, his 40.first generationcolor photographs, movie film peri-odicals, media and periodical.issues,in September 1976.. -We filed athorough.analysis with the,Germanmilitary-authorities in Dec. 1976. In• • - • (continued on next page)16
  • UFO HYPOTHESES: AUTHORS RESPONSEby Stuart,Campbell(Note: Mr. Campbells article, which hasstimulated a number of letters to the editorand a longer critique by Virgil Staff, ap-peared in No. 156, Feb. 1981.)Virgil Staff (No. 161, July 1981) hasno way of knowing my motive forwriting, although that has notprevented him from condemning it.He thinks that I intended to remindUFOlogists that they do not under-stand the source or meaning of theUFO phenomenon. This is quitewrong. My purpose was to remindUFOlogists of the number of assump-tions involved in the many popularhypotheses, and in particular to showthat the extraterrestrial hypothesis(ETH) involves so many assumptionsthat it stands apart from other mun-dane hypotheses. The ETH involvesnot only a leap of imagination, it in-volves a leap in the number ofassumptions.Staff thinks that I do not believe inthe existence of ILE (Intelligent LifeElsewhere). On the contrary. I do notsay that aliens do not exist, or thatthey cannot reach Earth. Indeed, I donot say that no alien craft are cruisingour skies. I merely pointed out thatbelief in all these things involvesassumptions and that the likelihood ofthe belief being correct is inverselyproportional to the number ofassumptions. It is hardly arrogant topoint out the obvious fact that wehave not yet determined that ILE ex-ists.If, as Staff claims, my chart is inade-quate, then he is free to produce hisown. What "possible phenomena"does he think my chart excludes?What "other factors" may require in-clusion? I make no "attempt to locatepresent day sighting within the chartsLevel 3." Staff attributes to me anunreasonable motive and then attacksthat motive. All I say is that the place-ment of unknowns in Level 4 shouldnot be undertaken until it has beenestablished that the unknown doesnot fall into Level 3. It is hardly myfault if there are many more mundaneexplanations for UFOs than areknown to UFOlogists.Staff thinks that there is no reasonto believe that aliens think like us. Onthe contrary, beings in control of anadvanced technology are bound tothink scientifically, as we do. Theymust use mathematics, as we do. Justas the laws of nature are the samefrom one end of the universe to theother, so the thinking process of in-telligent beings is bound to follow asimilar pattern. To have begun spaceexploration they would be,.as we are,an energetic, expansionist, race, deter-mined to survive and be survived. Inshort, -they would be more like usthan we would care to admit. Alienswho did not think Jike us are unlikelyever to have developed a technolog-ical civilization, or have..left theirhome planet.Staffs understanding of OckhamsRazor is rather odd. Certainly theRazor does not claim that hypothesesbased on many assumptions are alwaysless likely to be correct thanhypotheses based on few .assump-tions. But it does issue a.warning thatthe assumptions should not be multi-plied beyond necessity. Skill, is re-quired in judging when it.is necessaryto add further assumptions. However,the Razor has nothing to., do with"facts that are not, available" (if theyare not available, how .could they befacts?). Indeed, .the Razor., deals notwith facts, but with hypotheses andassumptions. •, My article also dealt with .the scien-tificity of. UFO hypotheses, a matterwhich Staff has ignored.D.. :Letter, Continuedthis time Mr. W. C. Stevens had not^x the slightest idea about the existenceof Mr. Meier upon the earthplane.Here in the U.S.A. I duly presentedmy first, analyzed photographicevidences of the hoax to.my researchcolleagues, to Stanton T..Friedmanand Jim Lprenzen in 1977/78.Regard-ing these proven facts my ihvestiga,-tion of the Meier hoax extends over 5years, and not "one day." . . .2. It is true that in my analysis Icalled Mr. Meier the "4th discipleofJesus Christ" because according to the,enclosed excerpts of1his pamphlet(and more circulars) he declares un:imistakably his missionary assignmentfrom the Embassy of the Talmud Jm-manuel alias Jesus Christ to declare tohumanity the original teachings ofJesus Christ. (Receipt of Swissdocuments relating to Meier acknow-ledged. — Editor)•3. It is also a matter of fact that onMarch 18, 1980, near- Wetzikon,Switzerland, I investigated with Mr.Hans Jacob the famous location ofthat pine tree, which was circled bySemjases spacecraft . and photo-graphed by Meier in variouspositionsarnongr the. .twigs (the photos .werewidely publicized). But when Iverified that no-neighbors of the loca-tion ever remembered that any pinetree was planted or standing on thatfield, and Mr. Jacob imitated for; mehow Billy pointed ,out to hjm a .spotand shouted out. "Here- -— here thetree was, annihilated, by, .Semjase." Isaid, "That is.enough for today. Let usgo Hans, : and rather locate yourwienerschnitzel than feeding me withfurther Pleiadean jugglery.".,.Colman S. VonKeviczky (Majv Ret;)Director, Intercontinental UFO:Galac-,tic .Spacecraft Research and Analytic.. - . . - - . . . i ;. Network, Inc.-17
  • 1982 MUFON UFO SYMPOSIUM AND "SUMMITCONFERENCE"by Walt AndrusThe United Friends of Ontario isextending an invitation to everyoneto attend the Thirteenth AnnualMUFON UFO Symposium to be heldJuly 2,3, and 4, 1982 at LoewsWestbury Hotel, 457 Yonge St.,Toronto, Ontario M4Y 1X7, Canada.Sponsored by the Mutual UFO Net-work, Inc./MUFON, Mr. Henry H.McKay, Canadian Regional Director,is Chairman of the host organization.The theme for this years interna-tional symposium is "UFOs —CANADA: A Global Perspective."The featured speakers scheduledand their topics are Dr. ]. AllenHynek, Scientific Director of theCenter for UFO Studies (speech titlenot available); Dr. George and IrisOwen, "Parapsychology as It Relatesto UFOs"; David A. Haisell, "Interna-tional Committee for UFO Research";Arthur Bray, "Professionalism inUFOlogy"; Stanton T. Friedman,"Present Policy, Stated or Otherwiseof Canadian Government Agencieson UFOs"; Michael A. Persinger,PhD, "Predicting UFO Events and Ex-periences"; and William L. Moore,tentative title "New Roswell CrashDisclosures."Significant specialized workshopswill be interspersed between featuredspeakers along with videotaped filmssuch as "Strange Harvest" on cattlemutilations and "UFOs are Real," adocumentary, on Saturday and Sun-day. Friday evening, July 2, will bedevoted to registration and a get-acquainted session. Admission pricesfor each session have not beenestablished, but will be announced inthe near future.Sixty rooms have been reserved atLoews Westbury Hotel at the specialgroup rates of $58.00 per room, perday, single occupancy and $68.00 perroom, per day, for double occupancy.Each participant must make his ownreservation directly with the hotel.Please advise the hotel that you are at-tending the 1982 International UFOSymposium, so that you obtain thegroup rate and are assigned to one ofthe 60 rooms blocked for this pur-pose. More information will be pro-vided in the April issue of the Journal.Start planning your vacation now toattend this excitingand inspiring sym-posium.The Annual MUFON CorporateMeeting is planned for Sunday, July4, from 9 a.m. to 12 noon.For further information pleasewrite to United Friends of Ontario, atP.O. Box 54, Agincourt, OntarioMIS 3B4 Canada or MUFON, 103Oldtowne Road, Seguin, Texas78155, U.S.A.1982 UFO SUMMITCONFERENCEInterest in attending the 1982 UFOSummit Conference being held inToronto, Ontario, Canada in conjunc-tion with the 1982 InternationalMUFON UFO Symposium has beenoverwhelming, necessitating a revi-sion in our planning. Many region-alized UFO study groups and organ-izations have expressed a seriousinterest in sending representatives, ac-cepting the invitationextended in theDecember 1981 issue of the MUFONUFO Journal. It is gratifying to knowthat so many people are anxious todiscuss subjects that will lead togreater cooperation in UFOlogy andthe application of their individualtalent to help resolve the phenom-enon..It is the consensus of the key peo-ple, representing the cooperatingUFO agencies, that a Sunday after-noon session of 4 hours would be in-adequate to properly address theimportant issues and allow each repre-sentative to share his or her ideas andsuggestions. It had also producedsome conflicts in the Sunday after-noon speaking program at the Sym-posium. Based upon the above condi-tions and the sincere desire to takesome major steps for North Americain UFOlogy, the entire day of Mon-day, July 5th (9 a.m. to 5 p.m.) will bedevoted to this meeting.Loews Westbury Hotel,Toronto, Ont, CanadaIn the United States, July 5th is be-ing observed as Independence Dayand is thus a holiday. July 1st isCanada Day for our Canadian friendsand hosts. Representatives desiring toattend the 1982 UFO Summit Con-ference should arrange their transpor-tation and housing plans to includethis additional day. In order that eachrepresentative will have a copy of theproposed agenda prior to the UFOSummit, please write to Walt Andrussignifying your intentions of attend-ing. We are also soliciting subjectswhich the different UFO agencies feelshould be part of the agenda so as tomaximize our efforts. From all indica-tions, this could be the most signifi-cant UFO Conference ever conductedin North America.Each representative should comeprepared to forget past personalityand group differences, or pet hypoth-eses, and devote their attention tofresh approaches that breed coopera-tion in UFOlogy. The success of thisimportant conference hinges uponthese conditions and how our vasttalent can be harnessed in a positiveeffort.18
  • Lucius Parishin Others wordsThe National Inquirer for January 26told of a 1980 incident in Senegal inwhich a UFO allegedly destroyednumerous buildings in the tiny villageof Baridiame.A report on November1981 sightings in Vermont is the sub-ject of an article in the February 2issue. Australian air traffic controllerssightings of square, silvery UFOs arefeatured in the February 9 issue. TheFebruary 16 issue details the case oftwo Brazilian truck drivers who claimto have spent 5 hours aboard a UFO.Researchers Dave Webb and Dr. R.Leo Sprinkle are quoted regardingtheir investigationsof UFO abductioncases in the February 23 issue. Areport in the March 2 issue tells of re-cent UFO sightings in the area ofGalveston, Texas.The UFO Annual 1982 from thepublishers of UFO Report has severalreprinted articles, plus new contribu-tions by various writers.The "UFO Update" segment in theMarch issue of OMNI is a good ex-ample of the anti-UFO material whichthis publication seems to prefer. JeffWells, apparently a former reporterfor National Inquirer, gives his versionof that papers involvement with theTravis Walton case.Robert Girard of Arcturus BookService has brought out his 1982UFO Literature Reference Guide &Catalog. This is an excellent publica-tion for UFO bibliographers, as wellas being a good source for in-print(and some out-of-print) UFOliterature. The 45-page catalog is$2.50 per copy from A.B.S. at 263North Ballston Avenue, Scotia, NY12302. The price outside the U.S.,Canada, and Mexico is$3.50, sent byairmail.Two previously-announced books,James Obergs UFOs and SpaceMysteries (The Donning Co.) and OttoBilligs Flying Saucers: Magic in the Skies(Schenkman), apparently will bepublished in March or April, 1982.Directors Message, Continuedhis work in the MUFON UFO Journalor in one of our future annualMUFON UFO Proceedings.After being published as a sectionin a series of newsstand magazines —Probe, Second Look (now Frontiers ofScience) — the International UFO Reporterof the Center for UFO Studies(CUFOS) has now returned as an in-dependent publication under itsoriginal format in the January 1982Vol. 7, No. 1 issue. I.U.R. will bepublished bimonthly alternating withthe CUFOS Associate Newsletter, bothemanating from P.O. Box 1621,Lima, OH 45802. The Editor-in-Chiefis J. Allen Hynek; ProductionManager, John P. Timmerman; andgraphics by Martin R. Timmerman.R. Leo Sprinkle, PhD, has an-nounced that the 1982 Rocky Moun-tain Conference on UFO Investiga-tion (3rd Annual Contactee Con-ference) co-sponsored by PRO UFOS(Paranormal Research Organizationfor UFO Studies) will be held Thurs-day, Friday, and Saturday, June 17,18, 19, 1982 at the University ofWyoming in Laramie. For further in-formation please contact Mrs. SallyNoble, School of Extended Studies,University of Wyoming, Laramie,WY 82071, telephone (307) 766-2149. More detailed information willbe provided in the April issue of theMUFON UFO Journal.The Fund for UFO Research, Inc.quarterly report, October-December1981, not only updated their financialstatus, but included the successful ac-complishments during the period.The UFO Research Poll attached is anexcellent method of determiningwhich categories of research pro-grams should be stressed and whereavailable funds should be used tomaximize their efforts. The MutualUFO Network as an organization hasbeen unable to provide financial sup-port to the fund, however, many ofour individual members have doneso. MUFON will continue to lendsupport through publicity in the Jour-nal, as our contribution for the pres-ent.It would be appropriate at this timeto restate MUFONs policy on adver-tising in the MUFON UFO Journaland the use of the Journals mailinglist by others. We do not accept paidadvertisements, since many wouldhave to be declined, creating embar-rassment for both the Journal staffand the advertiser. To some readers,publishing of advertisements impliesan endorsement of the product. Eventhough a source of monetary incomecould be realized with purchasedadvertising, the poor relations createdovershadow the benefits. The Journalstaff and the Mutual UFO Networkprefer to* treat items that might havebeen advertising as current news ar-ticles, thus we may be selective inediting-published material.Both APRO and NICAP have suf-fered embarrassment, requiring writ-ten apologies, when their subscribersmailing lists were sold to unscru-pulous people for advertising pur-poses. MUFON has never allowedour mailing list to be used by anyonefor any purpose. As an example,when the Fund for UFO Researchasked to use it, we declined on the"basis of policy consistency. However,we offered to publish submittedmaterial that would promote theirfine work, which has been donethrough Journal Editor Richard H.Hall.Your director would like to thankall of the people who have con-tributed foreign postage stamps at therequest of Richard Hall. The sale ofthese stamps to a collector is beingused to pay for Air Mail postage ofthe Journal to some of our activeleaders in the far corners of the world,which in turn stimulates informationexchange internationally.19
  • DIRECTORS MESSAGE byWalt AndrusMany UFOlogists will be delightedto hear that Tom Benson willcon-tinue as MUFONs State Director forNew Jersey and remain active in thefuture. Tom may be contacted atP.O.Box 1174, Trenton, NJ 08606 andtelephone (609) 890-8591. He willalso continue to publish The SixthQuark Journal on an issue-by-issuebasis.In order to maintain a strongMUFON organization in Massachu-setts, Joe Santangelo, State Director,has announced new appointments tofill vacancies or resignations. Barry J.Greenwood, 6 West Hancock St.,Stoneham, MA 02180 is the newState Section Director for MiddlesexCounty replacing Fred Youngren.Barry has specialized his interest togovernment document research andthe history of the UFO phenomenon.He is not only the historian forMUFON of Massachusetts, but alsowas recently appointed to the boardof directors of Citizens Against UFOSecrecy. After serving MUFON ad-rnirably as the State Section Directorfor Norfolk County since June 1975,Mrs. Merlyn Sheehan has asked totake a less active role. Paul A.Smythe, P.O. Box 529, Boston, MA02117, telephone (617) 267-5559 hasbeen selected to replace Mrs. Sheehanas State Section Director. Joe San-tangelo must be commended for theprofessional manner in which he hasdirected MUFON of Massachusetts,Inc. and as the Director of theMUFON Amateur RadioNet.Leland Bechtel; Associate Professorof Psychology and Educationat BatesCollege in Lewiston, Maine, hasagreed to become the State Directorfor Maine. He resides at 173 WoodSt., Lewiston, ME 04240, telephone(207) 782-3860. Mr. Bechtel attendedthe 1981 MUFON UFO Symposiumat M.I.T. and was impressed with thescientific credibilityof MUFON as anorganization.When an unusual number of UFOsightings recently occurred in Maine,Brent Raynes, former State Directorrecommended two active investiga-tors who could assist. Both have sincejoined MUFON and have been ap-pointed State Section Directors.Mrs.Shirley C. Fickett, Infant Street RFD4,Box 417-A, Ellsworth, ME 04605,telephone (207) 667-4596 is coveringHancock County. Miss Mary C. Kim-ball, 60 East Main St.,Apt. 2, Dover-Foxcroft, ME 04426, telephone (207)564-3021 has the responsibility forPiscataquis County. Both womenhave been active in UFOlogy formany years, therefore we welcometheir experience.Mr. John E. Zeller, 9475 S.E.Maloney Place, Portland, OR 97266,telephone (503) 771-4813 has beenpromoted to the position of State Sec-tion Director for Multnomah,Washington, and Clackamas countiesin Oregon. He and his wife havevigorously investigated several UFOsighting reports assigned to them inthe Portland, Oregon, area. Theformer State Director for Oregon,Terry A. Hartman, is now living inNew Zealand and is operatingIUFORA from P.O. Box 2240, Well-ington, New Zealand. Many of ourmembers met Terry at the 1979MUFON UFO Symposium in SanFrancisco where he was a speaker.As a result of your directors TVappearances and a newspaper story inCorpus Christi, Texas, seeking teamsof investigators for each county,Robert W. Lake, P.O.Box310, ThreeRivers, TX 78071, telephone (512)786-3034 volunteered to serve asState Section Director for Live OakCounty. Bob has a B.S.E.E. fromU.C.L.A. and was a USAF photoreconnaissance pilot during theKorean Conflict. Mr. Robert L.Mahlbacher,.. Route 1, Box 39EE,Amissville, VA. 22002, telephone(703) 937-4501, has been invited, tobe the State Section Director for Rap-pahannock, Culpeper, Madison, andWarren counties in Virginia, adjoin-ing the counties headed ^by FrederickWhiting in Alexandria,. Va: Retiredfrom the Central Intelligence Agencyas a Communications Security Of-ficer, Mr. Mahlbacher is a formerMarine Corps Master Sergeant.MUFON is extremely proud to an-nounce that the following individualshave volunteered their expertise asConsultants on MUFONs Board ofAdvisors: David M. Jacobs, PhD, 110Rex Ave., Philadelphia, PA 19118,telephone (215) 247-7725 is a Consul-tant in History. A professor of historyat Temple University, David attendedour first UFO symposium at BradleyUniversity in Peoria, 111. In 1970,when your director first met him andhis wife. He was a featuredspeaker atthe 1975 MUFON UFO Symposiumin Des Moines, Iowa. David is bestknown in the UFO field as the authorof the book The UFO Controversy inAmerica, published in 1975by IndianaUniversity Press.Maria E. Pietrzyk,M.D., 401 South43rd St., #204, Renton, WA 98055,telephone (206) 255-0920 becomes aConsultant in Psychiatry. Dr. Pietrzykis part of the network organized by R.Leo Sprinkle, PhD, of people utilizinghypnotic time regression proceduresin order to assist UFO witnesses torecall more about their UFO en-counters. Richard L. Clark, PhD,44821/2 Bond Street, San Diego, CA92109, telephone (714) 274-0196,was appointed a Consultant inMathematical Engineering and FieldInvestigator. He also holds an M.S. inPsychology and is professionallyemployed as a Consultant-SystemsEngineer.New Research Specialists joiningMUFON this month are Paul A.Stowe, 63 Van Cedar St., Brentwood,NY in Nuclear Technology; GarnerM. Petrie, Jr., 7595 New BurlingtonRoad, Waynesville, OH 45068 inPublic Education; and James R. Lem-ing, 9474 Tramwood Court, Cincin-nati, OH 45242 in.Artistic Render-ings. Jim has volunteered to do artisticrenderings of UFO sighting reports,therefore we hope that our readerswill have an opportunity of viewing(continued on page 19)