Mufon ufo journal 1982 9. september


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

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

No notes for slide

Mufon ufo journal 1982 9. september

  2. 2. MUFONUFO JOURNAL(USPS 002-970)10J Oldtowne Rd.Seguin, Texas 78155RICHARD HALLEditorANN DRUFFELAssociate EditorLEN STRINGFIELDAssociate EditorMILDRED BIESELEContributing EditorWALTER H. ANDRUSDirector of MUFONTED BLOECHERDAVE WEBBCo-Chairmen,Humanoid Study GroupPAUL CERNYPromotion/PublicityREV. BARRY DOWNINGReligion and UFOsLUCIUS PARISHBooks/Periodicals/HistoryROSETTA HOLMESPromotion/PublicityGREG LONGStaff WriterTED PHILLIPSLanding Trace CasesJOHN F. SCHUESSLERMedical CasesDENNIS 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 toadvisechange of address to The MUFONUFO JOURNAL, 103 OldtowneRd., Seguin, Texas 78155.FROMTHEEDITORThe NOVA "Case ofthe UFO" broadcast (see Open Letter andGuest Editorial) is a victory for the skeptical propagandists, and animportant one because of the prestige of this public broadcastingscience series.The one-sided treatment isnothing new forTVor film"documentaries" in the U.S., but severely disppointing coming fromNOVA. What will it take to get the sort of documentary outlined byDr. Hynek inhiseditorial?TVand other media producers need to beeducated to the large middle ground between the sensational andoutrageous tabloids, on the one hand, and the skeptic-debunkers onthe other, as to the nature of truly puzzlingUFO reports.Ifwe dontdo it, who will?UFO reports are not all, by any means, unexplainable inconventional terms, but neither are they all(the skeptical position)readily explainable. We have to start talking about and focusingattention on the some that are truly puzzling, and differentiatingsharply between categories. Otherwise, the skeptics will continue toget away with buryingthe serious cases among the trivial, drowningout the potential "signal" with the "noise."In this issueNOVA: DIRECTORS OPEN LETTER 3By Walt AndrusNOVA: GUEST EDITORIAL 4By J. Allen-HynekUFOs AND THE RAAF-THE INSIDE STORY: PART 1 6By Bill ChalkerUFO GENESIS 10By John PrytzCALIFORNIA REPORT .......- 15ByAnnDruffelPROPOSED FEDERATION OF UFO GROUPS 17By Rick HilbergIN OTHERS WORDS 19By Lucius ParishDIRECTORS MESSAGE : 20By Walt AndrusThe contents of the MUFON UFO JOURNAL are determined by the editor, and donot necessarily represent the official position of MUFON. Opinions of contributorsaretheir 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 articles may 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 allowedhalf the wordage used in the authorsreply, etc.All submissions aresubject 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 authorof the article isgiven credit, and thestatement "Copyright 1982 by the MUFON UFO JOURNAL, 103 Oldtowne Rd.,Seguin, Texas" is included.
  3. 3. NOVA: DIRECTORS OPEN LETTERSeptember 29, 1982To: An Open Letter to all Stateand Provincial Directors andBoard of Directors of theMutual UFO Network,Inc./MUFONFrom: Walter H. Andrus, Jr.,International DirectorSubject: Public Broadcasting SystemNOVA Program titled "TheCase of the UFOs" to beaired October 12, 1982After requesting a private showingof the program on September 20, 1982via WTTW in Chicago, Dr. J. AllenHynek called Walt Andrus to expresshis displeasure with the program and toshare a proposed editorial that willappear in the CUFOS monthlypublication. I have attached a copy ofthe publicity release to MUFON fromthe WGBH Public Information office inNew York City,whichsoundsexciting,but does not mention the names ofanyof the participants. To do so woulddisclose that the program is a"debunking effort" and wouldautomatically reduce the number ofviewers, since the general public isseeking solid information on the UFOphenomenon.The featured participants areJames E. Oberg, Philip J. Klass,Michael A. Persinger, Ph.D.(Laurentian University, Sudbury,Ontario, Canada), Dr. Brian Brady(U.S. Bureau of Mines, Denver, CO),W. "Bill"Ireland (NewZealand Dept.ofScientific and Industrial Research) withbrief edited appearances by Dr. BruceS. Maccabee and Alan Hendry. Dr.Hynek advised that four reels of filmwere made about himself and the workof the Center for UFO Studies, by thefilm crew, however none of this wasused and his name was nevermentioned in the program. Both Dr.Maccabees and Alan Hendryscontributions. were edited in such amanner that it was made to appear thatthey agreed with the aforementioneddebunkers.When John Groom was inHouston, Texas making the program,he filmed over two reels of video tapeofJohn Schuessler, discussing theCash/Landrum case at the site thatwasalso not used. During his visit, Mr.Groom spent considerable time at thehome of James Oberg in nearbyFriendswood, Texas filming sequenceswhich are featuredin the program. Thiscreated suspicion in Mr. Schuesslersmind concerning the integrity of JohnGrooms production as a legitimateUFO program. His suspicions havenow been confirmed.Dr. Hynek is submitting a guesteditorial for publicationin the MUFONUFO Journal expressing his disgustand contempt with this obvious UFOdebunking program since only thevocal minorities were featured.MUFON in Seguin was nevercontacted to provide material orsuggestions for the filming. A telephonecall, after the film was completed, fromMiss Elise Katz, WGBH in Boston,seeking publicity . photographs onAugust 10, 1982 to publicize theprogram and for their news release kitwas the first time your Director hadheard about the program. When Iquizzed her concerning who was in thefilm, she noted that it included TravisWalton, the 1978 New Zealand motionpicture films and the Deputy ValJohnson incident in Warren,Minnesota. She avoided naming theparticipants, only the cases to bediscussed.Needless to say, Dr. Hynek andyour International Director, WaltAndrus, were more than mildlyconcerned with the unfavorableimpression that the general public willreceive after viewing and hearing thedebunkers viewpoints, regardless ofhow farfetched their theories andexplanations may be when the programhas been billed as a scientific expose. Itelephoned the WGBH PublicInformation Office, 609 Fifth Avenue,New York, NY 10017, telephonenumber (212) 759-8851 and asked forthe Press Contact, Wilma Hill. In herabsence, I talked to Cindi Jessen,Promotion Assistant, who was also aparty to the News Release datedAugust 26, 1982. When I asked her ifshe had screened the program beforewriting the publicity release, she repliedin the affirmative. When Ipointed out toher that only the majordebunkers werefeatured in the program, she admittedthat the film would be objectionable toserious UFO researchers and possiblythe general public. I asked her toarrange for an advanced privateshowing, in San Antonio throughKLRN-TV, the PBS outlet, as she haddone for Dr. Hynek, but she refused.(After having eliminated Dr. Hynekfrom the finished program, they mayhave felt a. little guilty.)Upon further quizzing CindiJessen on how the participants wereselected for the filming, she said that thelist was provided by KendrickFrazier tothe producers. As most of you know,Kendrick Frazier is the Editor of "TheSkeptical Inquirer, The Zetetic"published by the Committee for theScientific Investigationof Claims of theParanormal. Whether John Mansfieldor John Groom (BBC) were fully awareof the biased backgrounds on thesemen I do not know, however theirediting of the film, leaving out thepeople who could contribute positiveinformation was very obvious andappearedintentional.When pressed further, CindiJessen said that allcomplaints must befiled in writing with the ExecutiveProducer for NOVA, John Mansfield,since "The Case.of the UFOs" is a(continued on next page)
  4. 4. Open Letter, ContinuedWGBH/BBC co-production, producedby John Groom (BBC/BritishBroadcasting Company). Since any statement that yourInternational Director could make inthe Journal or Dr. Hyneks guesteditorial could not be published andreceived by our members beforeOctober 12,1 am resorting to this openletter to key MUFON Directorsthroughout the U S.A. and Canada.I personally called Mr. HowardGutin, General Manager of KLRN-TVin San Antonio, Texas and askedpermission to do a rebuttal immediatelyafter the PBS airing on October 12th.He though it was a fine idea, butdeclined since their October programschedule has already gone to press andcould not be changed at this late date.He has invited me to do a UFO segmentfor airing in November that will presentthe positive aspects of the UFOphenomenon and investigativeactivities of MUFON. He was veryreceptive to my objections and felt thatPBS should "flag" their stations iftheyanticipated a program that wouldcreate complaints.How can the recipients of thisletter help in neutralizing the negativeopinions of the vocal debunkers in theminds of the general public and WGBHin particular?1. Please contact the generalmanager of your PBS outlet that carriesthe NOVA series and volunteertoworkwith them as I have done in SanAntonio, expressing your dissatis-faction with the October 12th program.2. Communicate the information inthis letter and WGBH news release tonot only the MUFON members inyourstate, through the State SectionDirectors or directly through your ownmailing list, but also to the news media.3. Write and file a letter ofcomplaint immediately after theprogram is aired on October 12thexpressing your displeasure with thefact that the NOVA series on PBSwould present such a biased programutilizing only the opinions andhypotheses of the members of the UFOSub-Committee of "The Committee forthe Scientific Investigationof Claimsofthe Paranormal," who have dedicatedNOVA: GUESTEDITORIALBy J. Allen Hynek, PhD.One should perhaps sympathizewith the producers of the NOVA series.They really bought a pig-in-the-pokewhen they purchased the program"The Case ofthe UFO" with whichtheyopened their new TV season on Oct.12. One can hope that they have betterluck with ensuing programs, and also,one can hope that they do not continueto produce misleading advanceadvertising.The program was advertisedwidely as "a rigorous, scientificinvestigation of the fact, fiction andhoax of unidentified flying objects," andthe press release stated, "NOVA takesa penetrating look at several famousUFO reports. . . .and proves thatthemselves to explaining away the UFOp h e n o m e n o n w i t h t h e i r ownpreconceived opinions. Please addressyour letter to:Mr. John MansfieldExecutive Producer for NOVAWGBH Educational Foundation125 Western AvenueBoston, MA 02134Be sure to identify the programdate, and the PBS station where youviewed the program. The WGBHPublic Information Office in New York,NY has recommended this as theproper procedure in which to voicecomplaints.The program should be moreappropriately titled "The Case Againstthe UFO," instead of being billed as"The Case of the UFOs."This isan opportunityfor everyoneinterested in securing answers andresolving the UFO phenomenon totake positive action by getting activelyinvolved as suggested in your owncommunities. This open letter will bepublished in a future issue of theMUFON UFO JOURNAL.Sincerely yours,Walter H. Andrus, Jr.International Directorserious study of these mysteriousphenomena isvery much alive,and mayjust now be on the verge of significantdiscoveries." A come-on if there everwas one! The actual program, however,gave the impression that anyonespending time on broad-basedinvestigations of the UFO phenomenonwas not playing with a full deck of cards.I had the opportunityof previewing"The Case of the UFO" through thecourtesy of WTTW, the PBS station inChicago, several weeks before itsairing, and was shocked at the unfairtreatment the subject was given.Having been involved, with AllanHendry, in several days of taping forthis program at the Center for UFOStudies, Iwas amazed to see how muchmaterial was edited out, making for avery biased presentation. For example:we had been asked for a "really goodcase" to re-enact for taping. Hendry,using our criteria for good cases, (aclose e n c o u n t e r , completelyindependent witnesses, and preferablya daytime occurrence) suggested acase he had carefully investigatedsomeyears ago, the Joliet case ofMay 8,1977(see UFO Handbook, p. 114) inwhicharesearch chemist and her husband, inone car, and a physician and his wife inanother car, 15 miles apart but on thesame road, saw at about 2 p.m., asilver"straw hat" as large as the moon, flysilently over the top of their cars(moving rapidly and crgamsf the localwind direction).The four witnesses were kindenough to give up a day of their lives tore-enact the event for NOVA in theinterests (they thought) of science andtruth. But NOVA never used this, Iimagine, not because they couldexplain it, but because they couldnt!Instead, theyused their time on the fakepictures from Warminster, England,UFOs which are easily shown to beSoviet space shots, and on oneastronaut (Conrad) downplayingastronaut sightings in general. (Nomention, of course, was made of(continued on next page)
  5. 5. UFOS AND THE RAAF--THE INSIDE STORY:PART IBy Bill Chalker(© 1982 - Bill Chalker)On Monday morning, January 11,1982,1 arrived at the Russell Offices ofthe Department of Defence, inCanberra, to undertake a review of theRoyal Australian Air Force (RAAF)/Department of Defence UFO files.This was the first time that a civilianresearcher had been afforded this sortof access.For almost 30years,the RAAFhasbeen the official body invested with theresponsibility of investigatingreportsofUFOs or unusual aerial sighting(UAS)reports in Australia and its territories1.No clear and unambiguous picture hasemerged about the role the RAAF playsin the UFO controversy in Australia.On one hand there are supportersof the "cover-up" scenario. That is, theRAAF is covering up its high levelinvolvement, perhaps in concert withthe alleged United States Air Forcecensorship conspiracy2. On the otherhand, we have the position thatsuggests that the RAAF isbureaucratically locked into aresponsibility it has long since decidedis a waste of time, but continues as aservice to the general public.The only public record of caseinvestigations by the RAAF has beenthe "Summaries of Unusual AerialSightings." These consist ofdata, time,location, very brief details of the event,and "possible cause." Nine of thesewere produced, covering the yearsfrom 1960 up to and in including 1977.However, the 1977 Summary was thelast to appear and it was not until 1980that the Department of Defenceadvised interested parties that:"the practice of compiling annualsummaries of UAS reports wasdiscontinued in 1978. This was in line withthe Department of Defence policy of theRAAF now investigating reports purely asa"service to the general public." Allreportsare still retained for record purposes andare available to whoever seeks access tothem.3However "access" did not meandirect access, but instead referred to6the often unpredictable and incompletecompliance to requests, with thedispatch of individual reports (inwhichthe personal details of witnesses arenormally deleted) and/or standardpublic relation replies.After signingin at the police desk, Iwas escorted from Building A toBuilding C of the Russell OfficesDefence complex in Canberra, by Mr.Noel Tanswell of Defence PublicRelations — Research Press. In theoffice of the Directorate of PublicRelations — Press Section, Mr.Tanswell showed me the files that hadbeen made available. There were 18alltogether. Four were given to me toexamine first.I was shown to a desk in a quietcorner by a window, which looked outinto the rest of the Russell Officescomplex. During that day and for thenext 3 (the latter in the office of theDirector of Public Relations, thedirector being on leave), Iconducted anexhaustive examination of the RAAFUFO files. I was given free access to aphotocopier and was allowed to makenotes, both written and with a taperecorder. In short, I was permitted acompletely open review of the 18 filesmadeavailable.Two types of files have beenmaintained by the RAAF/Departmentof Defence, namely:(1) "Unidentified Flying Objects -Reports of Sightings," and(2) "UFOs — Enquiriesfrom membersof the public and Flying Saucerorganisations."The sightings largely consist ofRAAF report forms (generallycontaining the standard 3 part forms,namely Part 1 — Report by Observer,Part 2 — Unit Report, and Part 3 —Investigating Officers Evaluation),covering memorandums, letters,telexes, and communications fromother Government bodies (e.g.Department of Transport, Meteor-ological Bureau, and police).The "Enquiries" mainly hold lettersof enquiry from the general public,civilian UFO groups, individuals, andothers, documentation searches,internal memorandums and minutepapers, draft replies to requests, andmiscellaneous documents.The files made available to meduring my January 1982 visit consistedof 7 Enquiry files covering the periodfrom April 1966 to date, and 11sightingfiles containing reports from 1975 to1981.Although the Enquiry files(through documentation searches toanswer requests) and my own researchprior to this officially sanctioned reviewprovided me with considerableinformation on RAAF investigationsprior to 1975, I was disappointed withthe lack of pre-1975 sighting files.Squadron Leader Ian Frame, theAir Force Liaison Officer responsiblefor the handling and compilation ofUFO sightings in Canberra,4gave thisexplanation of the situation, in a letterenclosed with the files given to me forreview:These are all the files readily available. Weare hampered by the fact that theDepartment changed from Melbourne toCanberra inthe early60s. Files priorto thisperiod have been very hard to locate.I hope that you appreciate that the RAAFexamines UASs primarily for their Defencecontent. If occurrences have no obviousimport we have very few resourcesavailable for checks other than initialcursory examinations.I hope that you arenot too disappointed. Im afraid that UASare only a very minorsecondary role forallpeople involved in the chain. Best of luckwith your endeavours but these files areallthat I have been able to recover from oursystem.Of particular interest was thatcopies of previously unavailableDepartment of Defence (Air ForceOffice) Unusual Aerial SightingsSummaries for reports in 1978, 1979and 1980 (Summary Nos. 10, 11 & 12respectively) were provided for me.This is despite the previously(continued on next page)
  6. 6. RAAF, ContinuedTable 1. — Breakdown of RAAF UFO InvestigationsYear196019611962196319641965196619671968196919701971197219731974197519761977197819791980Total no.of reports20142517175274951019437528719367393925118.45471258. No."Unknowns""0000121002461142446301510102% "Unknowns" 10.811.512. of informationSummary No. 1Summary No. 1Summary No. 1Summary No. 1Summary No. 1Summary No. 1Summary No. 1Summary No. 1Summary No. 1Summary No. 2Summary No. 3Summary No. 3Summary No. 4Summary No. 5Summary No. 6Summary No. 7Summary No. 8Summary No. 9Summary No. 10Summary No. 11Summary No. 128.1%*Some "unknowns" are not included due to low weight status, i.e., insufficient information or possible explanation provided was probable.mentioned policy change whichdiscontinued the summaries in 1978.These documents allow me to providean updated summary of the RAAFsinvestigation of UFOs (See Table 1).Classic Case EnquiriesIt is interesting to see what theRAAF files say about "classic" cases.The "enquiry" files containedinformation on a number of these dueto file searches undertaken to answerrequests for information from varioussources. For example, thecontroversial Drury film affair of 1953,was covered in the files with somesurprising details, and the presence ofseveral copies of frames of the film.The RAAF files described thefamous Tully incident in the followingmanner:At about 9.00 a.m. on 19th January 1966,Mr. G.A. Pedley, a banana grower of Tully,Qld, observed a light grey non reflecting dullobject, reported to be about 25 feet long:and 8 feet deep, rise vertically then climbonan angle of 45°from a height of about 30 feetabove marshland which was situated about25 yards away from his position. Therewas an associated hissing noise whichdecreased as the "object" rose. Theapparent shape was described as "twosaucers, face to face," but no structuraldetail was observed. The duration of theobservation was approximately 15secondsand it disappeared in mid air whilst recedinginto the distance (not assessed).A clearly defined near circular depressionremained in evidence in swamp grass at thepoint from whichthe object was seen rising,and measured about 32 feet longby 25 feetwide. The grass was flattened in clockwisecurves to water level within the circle andthe reeds had been uprooted from the mud.There was no scorching of grass orsurrounding trees and the observer statedthat there was no smell of combustion. . ..Although a conclusive determination couldnot be made, the most probableexplanation was that the sighting was of a"willy willy" or circular wind phenomenonwhich flattened the reeds and sucked updebris to a height of about 30 feet, thusforming what appeared to be a "flyingsaucer," before moving off and dissipating.Hissing noises are known to be associatedwith "willy willies" and the theory is alsosubstantiated by the clockwise circularconfiguration of the depression.I summarized the controversyabout the Tully incident in "Tully(Australia) saucer nests," pgs. 370-371, The Encyclopedia of UFOs5.Other documents in the Enquiryfiles were requests for information oncases, which ostensibly it seems theRAAF did not know about. Forexample, a 1967 enquiry related to analleged UFO event, thought to havetaken place over Butterworth RAAFairfield, Malaysia, back in the first weekof July 1959, would be extraordinary iftrue. The enquiry referred to two F-86fighters being scrambled to investigatea UFO, The aircraft fired on the UFO,which exploded and ash fell to theground. The ash was allegedly retrievedand sent to Canberra for analysis.Another UFO appeared the followingday, apparently looking for its "lostmate." When two F-86 fighters wereagain sent up, the planes allegedlydisintegrated within a mile of the UFO.(continued on next page)
  7. 7. RAAF, ContinuedAccording to the story, the aircraftand pilots were never found. The filescontain internal memorandumsbetween Butterworth RAAF base andCanberra in 1967, which appear toindicate that they were unaware of theevents. My own enquiries, ably assistedby John Prytz of Canberra, have failedto elict any further information or toconfirm whether any aircraft were lostat the time. I would certainly befascinated to hear whether anyone hasanything concrete on thisdivertingtale.Even the book Alien Honeycomb6had some references to itin the files. Aninternal memorandum dated 1 Aug80from DEFAIR CANBERRA toHQOC — SOINT regarding"Confirmation of Data in Book AlienHoneycomb," stated:The text of the book is sufficiently vague tomake tracing information from servicerecords a very tiring and difficult task. Acheck of files held at Air Force Office hasproven negative.Unfortunately, a "no comment" or "noinformation" response from the RAAF isonly going to encourage this type ofjournalism. Accordingly,it is requested thatHQOC initiate a check of records(including those at HQ AMB (Amberly -B.C.) for data which could relate to thismatter.In a telex dated 5 Sep 80 andcategorized as "unclassified/routine,"from HQOC to DEFAIR Canberra, thefollowing information was given:FURTHER TO REF A THE FOLLOWINGRETRANS OF INFO RECEIVED FROMHQ AMB. QUOTE: 1. SUMMARIES OFUNIDENTIFIED AERIAL SIGHTINGSPREPARED BY DEPT OF AIRBETWEENMID 1968 AND MID 1969 HAVE BEENCHECKED FOR MENTION OF THECASE. NO MENTION OF THATPARTICULAR SIGHTING APPEARS INTHE SUMMARIES. 2. THIS ISUNUSUALBECAUSE IT IS OUR UNDERSTAND-ING THAT THE SUMMARIES WERECOMPREHENSIVE AND NOT EDITED. LISTS OF REPORTED SIGHTINGS. 3.UNLESS REQUESTED BY COMMANDTHIS HQ DOES NOT PROPOSE TOTAKE THIS MATTER FURTHER.As it turned out it appearsnothingfurther was done. My own opinions onAlien Honeycomb are well known7.The "Enquiry"filescontain documentsrelated to what appear to be retrievalsof mundane debris, but none of themrelate to the "Alien Honeycomb" affair(e.g. "Suspect AirVehicleWreckage—Perenjori, W.A. — 1974"). More thanlikely the key to "alien honeycomb"( s u b s e q u e n t l y i d e n t i f i e d aspredominately woven fibreglass!) liesnot in a UFO (or UAS) file, but in filesrelated to aircraft accidents andinvestigations.Several surprisingfinds were madein the files, most notably documentswhich gave insights into RAAF andAustralian government policies on theUFO subject.A RESTRICTED Foreign Affairsdocument about "UNGA 33: SPECIALPOLITICAL COMMITTEE: ITEM 126- ESTABLISHMENT OF ANAGENCY OR DEPARTMENT OFTHE UNITED NATIONS FORUNDERTAKING, CO-ORDINATINGAND DISSEMINATING THERESULTS OF RESEARCH INTOUNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTSAND RELATED PHENOMENON"contained a reviewby P.A. Jackson, forthe Australian UN delegation, of theattempts by Sir Eric Gairy to obtain UN .concurrence for his idea of a UN UFOagency. The document summaries thenegotiations that took place, notingthat the result was "a much moremodest draft decision," which wassubsequently adopted by consensus ofthe Special Political Committee on 7December 1978. The documentconcludes:The outcome .was a satisfactory one fromour point of viewand from the points ofviewof those other countries who did not wantto accede to the demands of the Grenadadraft resolution but at the same timedidnotwant to offend the Government ofGrenada. The draft decision didnotcommitthe Outer Space Committee to do morethan receive and consider documents fromGrenada andpermit Grenada to present itsviews to the Committee. This is somethingwhich Grenada, or any other countrycouldhave done at anytimewithout a decisionofthe General Assembly, but Grenada wassatisfied. Most importantly, the draft,decision did not inscribe the item on theagenda for UNGA 34.In retrospect, it would have beenfar more expedient for Sir Eric Gairy tohave devoted more time to domesticmatters, for before long, he wasdeposed in a coup.8With regard to RAAFUFO policy,two 1966 documents were especiallyilluminating. These were RESTRICT-ED Department of Air (laterDepartment ofDefence)Minute Papersentitled and dated, "UFOs — RAAFHANDLING OF PROBLEM, 16 Aug66, and "UNIDENTIFIED FLYINGOBJECTS - RAAF POLICY", 12 Oct66.The first of these minute papers,arose out of a conflict between theIntelligence and Public RelationsDirectorates of the Department ofAir,over whether "the distribution ofinterested members of the public of theSummary of Unidentified AerialSightings Reported to Department ofAir From I960" was to cease. TheDirectorate of Air Force Intelligencewas "keen to spftpedal the UFObusiness" and gave "the reason forthiscessation (as) the undesirability ofwhetting the interest of the public inUFOs."The "Summary..." grew out of arequirement for certain statistical UFOinformation to provide material for aministerial reply to a parliamentaryquestion. OPR (Directorate of PublicRelations -B.C.) willingly undertook to draftan answer for the Minister (a task whichentailed folio-for-folio research throughsome four or five parts of the relevantfile),because it felt that the otherwiseburdensome task had a distinct side-benefit, namely, the collation of anunclassified and innocuous summary ofUFO "sightings" in AUSTRALIA for thepast five years.DPR envisaged the day when it would beable to reply to all publicUFO enquiries bythe mere dispatch of the "Summary..."covered, if thought necessary, by a letter inwhich we explain that we are not preparedto engage in any subsequent disputation(i.e., take our "Summary..." or leave it; wehave told you allwe know). Inorder to keepthis "Summary..." current, D/DAFI (Ops)was good enough to agree to provide DPRwith the basic information which DPRwould expect to have been security clearedfor general release before adding theinformation to the "Summary..."In this 16 Aug 66 Minute Paper,DPR directed at DAFI (Directorate ofAir Force Intelligence), "a plea toremove the present restriction on thesharing of our unclassified UFO(continued on next page)8
  8. 8. RAAF, Continuedinformation with the public, for thefollowing reasons:(a) The RAAFreally has no right to act as anarbiter of the subjects in which the publicmay or may not take an interest. Thosemembers of the public who care to concernthemselves with UFO facts and fancies allknow that the Department of Air is theofficial, governmental examiner of reportsof sightingsin this country and any attemptby us to suppress public interest (howevermisguided we may think that interest to be)only helps to support the generalimpression that we are sittingon fat files ofinformation, vital to our security. This, Isubmit, is the last thingwe want to happen.(b) The USAF isbelieved not to be adverseto making public its unclassified. UFOfindings, which it does in sheer self defenceand, while itistrue we do not have to defendourselves against the same sort of pressurefor information as that applied to theAmerican air force, it seems self evidentthat we should, in our defence, devisesome simple piece of administrativemachinery to cope with that steady flow ofUFO enquiries, anti-authority (RAAF?)press innuendos and statements vergingonpublic accusations of duplicity whichwe willnever (be able to dodge, as long as wecontinue to play our unclassified UFOcards too close to our chests.(c) DPR, which bears the brunt of thecurrent pressure by replying to most of thepublic UFO enquiries, feels that unless wecome out intothe open we alwayswill be thesubject of occasional (and unnecessary)adverse publicity.(d) The cat is already out of the bag (areference to the situation that the existenceof the "Summary..." was not widelyknown,but that a AFSRS (Australian Flying SaucerResearch Society — a civilian group)representative had written, asking for a"brief assessment of sightings," implyingthat the existence of the "Summary..." wasbecoming common knowledge - B.C.).In sum: by continuingwith the old policy ofplaying our UFO cards close to the chest,we only foster the incorrect (butnevertheless widely held) belief that wehave much vital information to hide. On theother hand, by maintaining a current"Summary..." (which OPR is prepared todo, with your continued help) we disposeinone blow, ofthe UFO enthusiasts belief that(a) he is not being taken into the RAAFsconfidence; and (b) the RAAF isdesperately determined to suppress UFOinformation to prevent national panic...The Director of PublicRelationsconcluded .his Minute Paper to theDirector of Air Force Intelligence, bystating, "while security is. not DPRsaffair, our relations with the generalpublic (cranks and all)certainly is and Ifeel strongly,from the PR point ofview,that we are handling this wholebusiness in an unnecessarily rigid andunimaginative way." .The second Minute Paper, dated12 Oct 66, continued the same theme,but confirms that uncertainty and/orconfusion were keynotes in RAAFUFO policy during 1966 — hallmarksthat would continue, albeit waxing andwaning, right up to today. It stated, inpart, that:There appears .to be some confusionconcerning Department policy overUFOs...On file...there is a ministerialstatement to the effect: "Anyone who isinterested insightings of UFOs can apply tothe Department of Airfor information onthe subject and is.welcome to a synopsisofUFO sightings which includes a very briefassessment of the probable causes." Thisstatement was made in answer toministerial representation. It would appearhowever that the policy represented by thisstatement may hot have reflected the viewof ;DAFI, despite earlier, althoughinconclusive evidence of hisxpncurrence....DAFI has proposed to DGPP who inturnreferred to DCAS that our approach toUFO reports be liberalised. It does notappear that either DGPP or DCAS wereaware of the Ministersstatement. In myopinion we must either comply with theterms of that statement or inform theminister of our "new" approach, if it is notintended to provide the synopsis ofsightings and on this Iam not at all togetherclear from reading the files.... „As it turned out, in addition to theperennial press release, the"Summary..." did become the publicfront of the RAAF involvement in theAustralian UFO controversy. By theend of the sixties, the Summarycrystallised as a .largely annual affair.No. 1 covered reports from 1960 to1968. No. 2covered the 1969 accounts,while 1970 and 1971 reports appearedin Summary No. 3. From 1972 up to1977 inclusive, the Summariesappeared somewhat erratically, butcovering each year separately (namelySummaries Nos. 9).RAAF BureaucracyThe RAAF had ostensibly becomelocked into a bureaucraticallyorchestrated formula for handling the"UFO problem." Part of a 1980 "Brieffor the Minister for Defence on RAAFpolicy for reporting of UAS...",describes the formula:- Each RAAF base in Australiahas an officerresponsible for the investigation of UAS.Under present arrangements, anyone whosees, (or thinks they have seen) an aerialobject which cannot be identified shouldcontact the nearest RAAF base, or ifthis isnot possible, the nearest Police Station.Reports received at RAAF bases arethoroughly investigated and the resultsonforwarded to Department of Defence(Air Force Office) where they are checkedand filed. The person making the originalreport isadvised by the appropriate RAAF: base of the findings of the investigationif sorequested.Alihough the UAS files are unclassified theyare not made availableto the general publicin their complete form as many of thepeople submitting reports wish to remainanonymous. However, a summary of the- findings of any particularcase can be madeavailable.Insummary, the RAAF does not concealfacts about UAS and are quite prepared torelease details of particular reportedsightings to the general public on request.This assumes that the case has beenreported and investigated by the RAAF inthe first instance.Variations upon this recentexpression of the RAAF UFO formulahas led to an amplification of theproblems noted in the 1966 MinutePapers already discussed. The RAAFinterest in UFOs vacillated around apublicly stated low priority base.While the RAAF investigationsremain the only known official study ofUFOs, with all its perhapsunderstandable bureaucratic andmilitary trappings, the scientificinvestigation of UFOs takes secondplace to the resolution of any defenceand/or political implications. Sincenearly three decades of involvementhave probably confirmedfor the RAAFthat there is a limited defence contentand that the majority of reports aremisidentifications of prosaicphenomena, such investigations have(continued on next page)
  9. 9. RAAF, Continuedtaken on a lowpriority.The aspect to suffer first is theeffort to establish whether somethingreally interesting is at the heart of thesmall residue of cases referred to as"unknown" or "unidentified." Instead,for the RAAF they remain just that —"unknown." In fact one gets theimpression from the files that the RAAFsimply does not know what to do withthe really provocative reports itreceives. The fact that these"unknowns" are few in number isprobably convincing enough evidencefor the RAAF that perhaps such casesare ultimately resolvable, but theproblem of possible nil return for effortexpended argues against their detailedinvestigation.However, the quality ofinvestigations in both prosaic andsignificant reports has drawn criticismfrom many sources, perhaps nonemore pointed than that of Dr. ClaudePoher, as expressed in a letter locatedin the RAAFUFO Enquiriesfiles.Poherled Frances first major official UFOresearch group — Group dEtude desPhenomenes Aerospatiaux NonIdentifies (GEPAN) — under theauspices of the French equivalent toNASA. In 1976 he addressed thisreponse to the RAAFs UFOinvestigation, after the Department ofDefence had sent him some of theirAnnual Summaries:May I suggest, for transmission topersonnel responsible for this work, thatsome of the "possible causes" mentioned inthese summaries are not acceptable....Dr. Poher gave an example of aninnocuous observation at Wickham,NSW, on 4th April, 1975, of a "silverobject about the size of a cricket ball,"which the "Summary" listsas Venusforthe "possible cause."Poher concluded:....for the 4th April, 75,theplanet wasunderthe horizon so the cause Venus isridiculous. There are many otherimpossibilities like this in the papers yousent me. I think one should avoidpublication of these documents without acareful check by specialists of the differentscientific disciplines involved, so as not tohave, one day a journalist or a scientistholding the Services of the AustralianUFO GENESISBy John PrytzThe modern UFO phenomenaflowered, indeed exploded, into publicawareness, world-wide, in the late1940s. Whats new you ask? Nothing,But what Iwant to know is why?Was itan almost inevitablefad (a "fad"whichjust will not go away, which in itself tellsus something about the nature of thephenomena) given the climate of thetimes, which needed only the smallestof triggering mechanisms to set thetrain of events in motion, or, was thisultra-flap (of world-wide,decades -longduration) something which nohistorian, sociologist, or psychologistwould or could have predicted inadvance, even in their wildest dreams,nor can retrospectively find a solid anddefinable cause for?To answer this questionwouldgoalong way toward defining whether thebulk of the hard-core, bona fide, UFOcase histories, at least at that time (thelate 1940s), were the products ofinternal or external intelligence. I say"at that time" because in order to findsocially, historically, culturally, andpsychologically unpollutedUFO cases,an environment where UFOs were notpart and parcel of the publicconsciousness, one has to go back tothat beginning.(In addition, the earliercases are valuable in weeding outvarious physical explanations such assatellites, etc.1) Its too easy today tosay that people have UFOs/spaceflight/ETI, etc. on the brain,hence statethat X% of todays UFOs are internallygenerated by the mind. But was that,could that have been, true in the late1940s?Of course, there was the airshipmystery near the turn of the centurybut:Disappointing as it may seem, there is littledoubt that the airship waves of 1896-97were a product of hoaxes, wishful thinking,and downright fake journalism.2And of course the foo-fightermystery of WWII and the "ghost-rocket" phenomena of 1946 predatedthe "modern" UFO era, not to mentionan every now and again isolated UFOsighting scattered throughout the firsthalf of the 20th Century. None of these(continued on next page)Department of Defence up to ridicule.. Such "impossibilities" are all toofamiliar to observers of RAAF UFOinvestigations, e.g. Cressy (1961) —"Astronomical"; near Moe (1963) —"Tornado like meteorologicalmanifestations"; and Vaucluse Beach,Sydney (1965) — "tornado." (UFOsightings from RAAF files will beincluded in PartII.)REFERENCES & NOTES1. Chalker, W.C., "The Royal Australian AirForce (RAAF) Investigation of UFOs,"A.C.O.S.Bulletin (now the Journal of the AustralianCentre for UFO Studies) No. 20., August, 1979,pgs. 3-8, and MUFON UFO Journal, No. 143,January, 1980, pgs. 3-6.2. See for example the books of Donald Keyhoeand The UFO Controversy in America by DavidM. Jacobs, Signet, 1976.3. Letter to B.C. from L.A. Lavers, Director ofPublic Relations, Department of Defence (AirForce Office), dated 6 August 1980.4. Sqd. Ldr. Frame explained to me that his "UFOduties" were only a part of his duties. He had 3basic duties, one of them being co-ordinatingUFO sighting (handling& compilation),and thiswas the most minor of these. His UFO duties infact were fill-in activities during other duties. Theposition, normally in the domain of Air ForceIntelligence, is assigned generally on a more orless 3 year duty.5. Story, Ronald D. The Encyclopedia of UFOs,Doubleday, 1980 & New English Library, 1980.6. Pinkney, John & Ryzman, Leonard, AlienHoneycomb - the First Sold Evidence of UFOs,Pan Books, 1980.7. See "The Great UFO Debate (on "AlienHoneycomb") "The Case Against" by BillChalker and "The Case For" by John Pinkney &Leonard Ryzman, People Magazine, January 21& 28, 1981. See also "Not so AlienHoneycomb?" by Bill Chalker (including StopPress), UFO Research Australia Newsletter(UFORAN), Vol. 2, No. l,Jan.-Feb. 1981, pgs.12-15.8. See for example: Bowen, Charles, "UFOsDebated at United Nations", Hying SaucerReuieu;, pgs. 5-11, Vol. 24, No. 6, 1979.10
  10. 10. UFO Genesis, Continuedtriggered the exponential upswing inUFO sightings around the worldstarting mid-year or psychologicalconditons to internally generate UFOs,or for ETI to invade and undertakereconnaissance of Earth on a largescale, depending upon your point ofview.Something very special happenedin the mid-year of 1947 ingeneral and toKenneth Arnold on 24 June inparticular, a particular case whichneutral researchers still list as a bonafide unidentified. The Arnold UFO....was an excitingstory in 1947 and the onethat triggered public interest and officialU.S. Air Force involvement in the UFOcontroversy. It is also a sighting that mustremain perhaps forever in the category ofUFO reports that have never beensatisfactorily explained.3It is satisfying that the UFOsighting which triggered off the modernera is still an unknown, but whattriggered off that sighting (and untilsuch time as UFOs became a part ofour image of the world, those UFOcases immediatelyfollowing the Arnoldone)?Was that happening due to somephysical environmental quirk whichresulted in the rapid production ofsome unknown and unknowable inadvance naturalphenomenon? There isno evidence for this. The only newenvironmental factor at that time wasthe introduction of nuclear weaponstesting inthe atmosphere, but hardlyona large enough scale to alter thephysical and chemicalproperties of theatmosphere to a degree largeenough toproduce the then "flying saucers." No,•atmospheric testing of N-bombsdoesnt seem a likely physical, henceenvironmental, candidate for massiveUFO production. But perhaps anatmospheric physicist would like tocomment on what, ifany, changes ouratmosphere underwent in the latter1940s.Was that happening due to a rapidstep up in Extraterrestrial Intelligence(ETI) surveillance of Earth andEarthlings, perhaps due to that veryquantum leap in terrestrial technology— the atomic bomb as so many beforeme have suggested — but possibly foranother unknownreason(s) which onlythe ETI are privilegedto know? This Ipersonally hold as the most likely. It atleast fits the facts as we know andunderstand them, and no credibleobjection which is ironclad andunassailable has yet been lodgedagainst it.The final alternative, the social,cultural, psychological climate of thetimes being ripe to produce animaginary (internal intelligence)phenomena does not hold muchcredibility as we shall soon see.Unfortunately, there are veryfew(if any)UFOlogists who have extensivequalifications and/or experience insociology, psychology, etc. and whoarestudents of history (including theindepth knowledge of the scientific,science fictional, and astronomicalaspects), knowledgeable about massmedia influences, and who themselveslived through the late .1940s as matureadults.Was the overall publicconsciousness saturated with thoughtsof and exposure to the concepts ofspace travel and ETI in the latter1940s? Based on what data Iveuncovered, Id conclude it mostunlikely.But first of all, it would be mostinstructive and enlightening to go backto the press ofthattime,justto get a feelfor the times. Time and space dontpermit an exhaustive reading of everynewspaper for every day in the 2 or 3years prior to June 1947, but, as arandom example 24 June 1947? Ichecked the microfilm. I didnt expectto find any stories about mysteriousatmospheric objects, space flights, tripsto the moon, NASA, satellites, bug-eyed monsters sending radio waves inour direction, and SETI programsawaiting the arrival of same. And guesswhat? I didnt! Those sorts of storieswere not to be for another entiredecade! The major stories were:4BILL CURBINGLABOR BECOMESLAWAS SENATE OVERRIDES VETO, 68-25;UNIONS TO FIGHT FOR QUICKREPEALMARSHALL AND PATERSON APPEALFOR SPEEDY ARMS AID TO AMERICASASCAP SUED BY U.S. AS A WORLDTRUSTU.S. IS ENCOURAGED OVER PARISMEETINGTENEMENT CRASHES AS BOYSWARNING SAVES OCCUPANTS20,000 HALT WORK IN SHIPYARDSHEREHIGH COURT CURBS PETRILLOPOWERSSOVIET WELCOMED TO PARLEY ONAID BY FRANCE, BRITAINANALYSIS OF THE LABOR ACTSHOWS CHANGED ERA AT HAND FORINDUSTRY .NAM ASKS INDUSTRY TO HELPLABOR LAW WORK SMOOTHLYIn a word, "boring" as this was tobe the day which saw the ultimatereason for you readers reading thisnow! We shall return to this issue of theNew York Times shortly for moreinsights, but thus far things dont looktoo hopeful to those looking towardsinternalintelligence.What about space/ETI orientedscience fiction films? Alas, not a singlemotion picture with any sciencefictional theme was playing in the NewYork City cinemas on 24 June 1947according to the amusements sectionof the Times. Now of course by thatperiod motion pictures, including thosewith space/ETI content, were allestablished. An analysisdoes show thatthere was an exponential increaseexperienced in space/ETI sciencefiction films over time.In fact, according to the essayfromwhich I took this data5the space/ETIsci-fi film closest in time to, yetpreceding the genesis of the modernUFO era, was the 1945 film The PurpleMonster Strikes! Isomehow doubt thatthis was the internalintelligence trigger!That essay also states:After (my emphasis) the Kenneth Arnoldsighting in the State of Washington andsubsequent flying saucer wave of 1947,saucers shared the stage with rocketships(in motion pictures)6Thus, prior to June 1947, with one1930s Flash Gordon exception, spaceflight/ETI was associated withtraditional rocketships and not oval,cigar-shaped (with no fins), saucer-like,etc. objects. Therefore, UFOs, ifinternally generated yetassociated withspace travel/ETI, should have reflected(continued on next page)11
  11. 11. UFO Genesis, Continued Table1. — Space/ETI Motion Pictures as a Function of Timethe popular and traditional concept. Itdidnt! . -Perhaps based on the data inTable1, one could make a stronger case forUFOs being the trigger for the increasein space/ETI sci-fi films; vis:a-vis whatpro-Imagery advocates would desire!What about science fiction ontelevision? Television did exist (barely)in 1947, and a brief history of this majorinfluence upon our lives is in order.Many scientists contributedto thedevelopment of television,and no oneperson can be called its inventor.However, Vladimir K. Zworykinprobably made the most importantcontribution to televisionas we knowit1today and he first demonstrated thefirst completely electronic,, practicaltelevision system in". 1929.;Manyexperimental telecasts took place in thelate 1920s and early 1930 s, of whichthe BBC in London and CBS and NBCin New York were the leaders. The firstAmerican telecasts on anything like"aregular basis began in July 1936following the installation -of. 150 TVreceivers in homes in ..-N,,Y. City.However, WWII quickly killed off TVexperiments and broadcasting in-bothBritain and New York in America.Following the Wars end in 1945,the American national networks, allbased in N.Y. City, resumedbroadcasting. At first, their telecastsreached only the area between Bostonand Washington, D.C.; but .by 1951,this was extended coast-to-coast. Atthe time of the Arnold UFO sighting,then, there was no television in thatarea or anywhere in the American westwhere the first UFO flap wasexperienced. In 1945, there.were fewerthan 10,000 TV sets in the UnitedStates, which soared to about 6 millionby about 1950, and to almost 60 millionby 1960. Thus, at the time of the UFOgenesis, there were only about 2 to 3million TV sets in the country, whichmay seem like a lot, but not relative toAmericas population, and the TV setdensity of today. Thus, if TV did havean influence in triggering off the UFO.phenomena, it would have been quiteminor — too minor in fact to be able toexplain itall.But what could have been on the125-Year Time Periods1900-1905-1910-1915-1920-1925-1920-. . 1935-1940-1945-1950-1955-1960-1904 .190919141919192419291934193919441949195419591964No. ofSpace/ETI Sci-Fi Films2822211625345331box at that time (June 1947) to evencontribute in a minor way? Accordingto the New York Times for the 24thofJune 1947, N.Y. City had only 3 TVstations (as compared to todays 9 ormore) and (as an aside) over 20 AMradio stations and 9 FM stations. Onthe day two TV stations had "noprograms scheduled" and the thirdstarted to broadcast at 6:15 p.m. with"News from Washington," "Movies forSmall Fry," "Cash and Carry," "Film:Serving Through Science," "SportsNames to Remember," and finally at8:40 p.m. "Baseball: Yankees vsCleveland at Yankee Standium." Endofbroadcast.7Needless to say, Arnold did notwatch any TV in the period prior to thatflight as there was no TV to view in hisgeographical location. But even if therehad been, would or could there havebeen anything of a nature that wouldhave triggered off visions of "flyingsaucers" zipping through the air? Inshort, was there any sci-fi on the box in1947? The first sf series to appear on AmericanTV, Captain Video....began in 1948 (myemphasis)8So, there were no Little GreenMen, rocketships, Space Shuttlelaunches being broadcast live at.anytime prior to the genesis of the UFOmystery, via what today must be themeans for shaping the publicconsciousness. Scratch television tooas a possible trigger!From the 1920s through the early1950s, radio was the major mass mediainfluence for shaping the publics imageof the world; And from the 1930s on, inboth the U.S. and Britain, sci-fi, andthrillers incorporating sci-fi andsupernatural elements were • fairlycommon on the radio (the best knownexample probably being the OrsonWelles broadcast of the H.G. Wellsclassic War of the Worlds on 30October1938). Thus, it could be said that radiowas what finally triggered off the UFOfad. Although this would be a theoryworthy of intense (but difficult)research, a final proof of cause andeffect (radio: UFOs) an interestingresult, my immediate reaction andobjection would be the time lag ofnearly two decades between the startofthe cause (radio) and the start of theeffect (UFOs). Anyway, Ill leave thisball for someone else to kick around.Having (to my satisfaction at least)eliminated 2 of 3 mass mediainfluences(motion pictures and television) astriggers for the genesis of the UFOphenomena, let me turn briefly to theprint media. Firstly, non-fiction.As with sci-fi motion pictures,articles, and books about ETI andspace flight existed well before themodern UFO. era, and as with sci-fifilms, thesa articles and booksunderwent an explosion by thenumbers. However, and also paralleltosci-fi motion pictures, this explosion orexponential increase, happened afterand not before UFOs appeared on thescene (and screen).Perhaps the UFO phenomenahelped to stimulate interest in space(continued on next page)
  12. 12. UFO Genesis, Continued Table 2. — Space/ETI Non-Fiction References as a Function of Time9flight and ETI. That would be a morelogical conclusion from the data abovethan to suggest the reverse!Moving along to sci-fi and the printmedia doesnt give the Imageryadvocates much room to maneuvereither. All throughout the "golden ageof science fiction" (which parallelled thegolden age of sci-fi on radio),the meansof delivery to what readers there werewere via the pulp magazines. Thecirculation of these werent high;display on the newstands was notprominent; writers werent paid verywell (in those days not even IsaacAsimov could make a living by writingsci-fi); the slick journalswouldnttouchthe subject with a 10-meter pole; whatbooks were published were usuallypublished by smallspeciality publishinghouses and never made the top 10bestseller lists. To the masses, sciencefiction was not the "inthing" to read andno bookstore ever had a separatesection devoted to the subject.Bui all of this is well-known andwell-worn history to todays sci-fi buffs.It is hard to contrast this era just beforeand during the 1940s with todaysintense interest in, and the marketingand packaging of, science fiction —now an "in thing." But again, thattransition took place after UFOs werean established facet of our society, notbefore.The sf magazineworldreached a publishingpeak in 1953 when 34 different magazineswere being issued in the United Statesalone....By the mid-1950s however, thedeath-knell was sounding for manymagazines, especially the pulps. Acombination of causes such as television,the slick magazines and a blossomingpaperback field, made the pulp magazineseem outdated, and, almost as one, theydied....Alas, allgood things come to anend,and by the early 1960s paperbacks weremaking their presence felt on themagazinemarket.10Another point of view:By the early 1920s, however, a number ofestablished publishers had become awareof the comrnercia/ (my emphasis)potentialof sf....Where paperback sf remained, withcertain exceptions, largely worthlessephemera in Britain until-the late 1950s,inthe USA it more quickly became anestablished part of publishersTime Periods1900 - 19191920-19291930 - 19391940 - 19451945 - 19491950 - 19541955 - 19591960 - 1964No. of References3.511-lS111563174539(5-year average)lists....Through the 1960s and 1970s sfcontinued to grow in strength as apublished category. The last of theimportant specialist sf publishers, GnomePress, died in the early 1960s....11The point is this. It wasnt untilafter the era which saw the genesis ofthe UFO had come and gone, thatscience fiction in any sort oflarge-scalecommercial and profitable formemerged. The hardcore, but small innumber, readers of sci-fi prior to 1947could not have been of high enoughquantity with massive enough influenceto trigger off the UFO phenomena,even if that sci-fi had reflected what wenow view UFOs to be. As a form ofprophesy, pre-1947, sci-fi did notoverallview many, indeed most, of themodern-day UFO facets, with anydegree of accuracy — and why shouldthey have reflected what UFOcharacteristics have been documentedtoday, way back then, given that UFOsare a product of externalintelligence?But a problem exists if UFOs areinternally generated and yet their traitsdo not (with rare exceptions12) parallelthe internally -generated fictionalconcepts which existed prior to theUFO era.In short, with respect to itemsrelating to space flight, ETI, etc. asexpressed through fiction or nonfiction,there is no evidence on whichto base aconclusion that these sorts of conceptswere common enough in pre-1947 daysto be day-in, day-out part and parcelimages for the public.But thats not quite the end of thestory. Some further observations onthis issue are in order.The UFOs as ETImanifestations,ifinternally generated, should have beenapparent immediately — that is,including occupant sightings andabduction cases by the end of 1947,accompanied by massive publicity.That wasnt to be. The initial theory, gutreaction, was the UFOs were no doubta logical extension of weaponsdevelopment following WWII — the"secret weapons" theory — and manypopular articles followed that line in theearly years13 14. It wasnt until January1950 that the idea that "UFOs=ETI"was given prominent public exposure,starting with Donald Keyhoes Truearticle, quickly followed by his book ofthe same title, The Flying Saucers AreReal, and a host of other articles andbooks by other authors which followedthe initial Keyhoe theory.From about that time, the "what"of UFOs was polluted as far as anysubsequent reports and investigationswere concerned. From that pointmaybe allUFO reports, as equated withETI, were internally generated. Butbefore? From mid-1947 through 1949,UFOs did not equal ETI for allpracticalpurposes, but secret weapons. As therewere no secret weapons, and no likelyinternally generated ETI UFOs duringthat period, what were the mysteriousobjects sighted? Internally generatedsecret weapons? Or, perhapsexternally generated ETI UFOs!What was so special, in a cultural,social, and/or psychological sense inthe years and months leading up toJune 1947? Nothing! What was sospecial about the latter 1940s that all ofa sudden the citizens of the UnitedStates (and Canada, Europe, Australia,etc.) would by the hundreds emulatethe experience of one man (Arnold)who nobody had ever heard of before?It wasnt as if the President of theUnited States had reported the veryfirst "flying saucer"! The entire genesisof the UFO "fad," given the climate of(continued on next page)13
  13. 13. UFO Genesis, Continuedthose times, I suggest was thereforeexternally generated. And, as acomplement to. that, I further suggestthat if there ever was an ideal time toimagine alien spaceships, one wouldmake a more convincing case for oneoftwo non-1940s historical periods.If there was an ideal time for. thepublic to have mass, hallucinationsabout extraterrestrial spaceships, itwould have been in the late 1950s andearly 1960s. That 5-year period of 1957through 1961 saw the birth of NASA,the start of the space race, Sputnik,Ranger, Project Mercury, theannouncement of Project Apollo,Mariner 2 launched to Venus, andProject Ozma (the first attempt atSETI). The press, journals, electronicmedia, and books were full of spacenews, a n n o u n c e m e n t s , . a n dachievements. The "canals" of Marswere stillviable as Mariner 4 had yet tobe launched. Science and scienceeducation exploded upon the Americanscene mainly out of fear of the Russianspace achievements. The introductionof the mass market paperback book,not only in science fiction but inpresenting science for the masses, wasoff and running. None of the above(with the exception of the Martian"canals") was true on and shortlybefore "flying saucers" entered ourculture: But of course the flowering ofspace, ETI, even science iri 1957-1961could not have produced ETIUFOs asthey were already ingrained in ourminds. So, thats all just academic!. But that wasnt so ifwe go back tothe first decade or two of this century,in my opinion another ideal period forUFOs to have been produced by thecollective human mind.Some have suggested that it wasthe emotional conditions shortlyfollowing WWII which contributed,. indeed was responsible for, the bloomof internally generated UFOs. But whydidnt it happen following WWI, whichIwould have thought to have been moreof an emotional shock to the worldthanround two, twodecades away? WWII atleast had a precedent! •Above and beyond that, the earlyyears of this century witnessed the birthof manned powered flight. It was when14the concept of intelligent life on Marspeaked; when Percival Lowellpopularized the . "canals" of Marsthrough numerous books and populararticles; when Marconi was searchingfor Martian radio broadcasts; when areward was offered for the first proofofthe existence of intelligent alien life —excepting Mars as that wastoo obviousand easy! Further, it was the era whenthe H.G. Wells novels such as War ofthe Worlds and First Men in the Moonwere all therage, whether in hardbackfor the elite, or the pulp magazinereprints for the others. But where werethe innate, instinctive, internallygenerated UFOs? These are factswhich advocates of internal intelligencejust cannot ignore or gloss over.In summary then, wesee that therewas nothing overly special about theera which saw the genesis of UFOs andin fact other time periods would havebeen better placed to produceimaginary alien spaceships; there werefew, if any, influencing factors of thesort that would mirror the UFOcharacteristics before the fact, and infact a strong case could be made for theUFO genesis having dowith the growth and interest in sci-fi,ETI, and space travel instead of thereverse.The timing of the genesis of themodern UFO phenomena, whichcannot be logically accounted for,isyetanother forceful argument for theexternal nature of, an externalintelligence behind, the UFO, and yetanother nail in the coffin of the prointernal intelligence advocates.REFERENCES1. Prytz, John. "Significance of early sightings,". ACUFOS Journal, Feb. 1980, p. 9-10.2. Story, R.D. UFOs and the Limits of Science(William Morrow, N.Y., 1981, p. 42).3. Ibid. p. 52-53.4. New York Times, 24 June 1947, p. 1.5. Simon, A. "Zeitgeist of the UFO Phenomenon"in Haines, R.F. (editor), UFO Phenomena andthe Behauorial Scientist (Scarecrow Press,Metuchen, N.J., 1979, p. 52-56.)6. Ibid, p. 47.7. New York Times, 24 June 1947, p. 46.8. Nicholls, P. (editor) Encyclopedia oj ScienceFiction (Granada, London, 1979, P. 595).9. NASA Scientific and Technical InformationFacility - Extraterrestrial Life: A Bibliography:Part II: Published Literature: 1900-1964, NASA(SP-7015), Washington, D.C., Dec. 1965, 335 p.10. Holdstock, R. (editor) - Encyclopedia ofScience Fiction (Octopus, London, 1978, p. 61,•65).NEBRASKA FORTEANCONFERENCERay W. Boeche, a MUFON StateSection Director in Nebraska, hasprovided the following informationabout a conference on unexplainedphenomena (including UFOs and otherFortean phenomena as reported byCharles Fort, chronicler of borderline•science events) in Lincoln, Nebraska,on November 13-14, 1982.Spreakers include Dr. J. AllenHynek, director of the Center for UFOStudies; Dr. Roy P. Mackal on"cryptozoology". (unidentifiedbiological creatures); Linda Howe oncattle mutilations, includingher award-winning documentary "StrangeHarvest"; and Ray Boeche.Sessions will be Saturday,November 13, 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,and Sunday, November 14,1:00 to 5:00p.m.Registration (including Saturdayluncheon and refreshments) is $30 perperson, $50 per couple, $25 each forgroups of three or more, and $20 forstudents and senior citizens.Registration: Terry Mahlman,University of Nebraska-Lincoln,Division of Continuing Studies,Department of Conferences andInstitutes, 33rd and Holdredge Sts,,Lincoln, NE 68583;. phone: 402-472-2844 between 8-5 Monday throughFriday, Central time.FUND FOR U.FO RESEARCH• .K. •The Fund for-UFO Research (Box277, Mt. Rainier,MD 20712) is mountinga Fall fund-raising campaign featuringsales of more than 200 governmentagency documents on UFOs for aminimum contribution of $30 ($15 ofwhich is tax deductible). Straightcontributions without document salesare 100% tax deductible by Americancitizens. The Fund has supportedresearch on "abduction" reports,crash/retrieval cases, the 1896-97"airship mystery," and educationalprojects.11. Nicholls, P. op. cif., p. 484.12. Simon, A. op. cif., p. 47.13. Morehouse, F.G. "Case of the FlyingSaucers," - Argosy, July 1949, p. 22-24, 92.14. Taylor, H.J. "Flying saucer is good news,"Readers Digest (U.S. ed), July 1950, p. 14-16.
  14. 14. I"By Ann DruffelResolving the Issue of Hypnosis(Note: The experiments with hypnosisinvolving imaginary abductees arewidely referred to as theLawson/McCall study. Those who arefamiliar with the study know that JohnDe Herrera, a researcher-writer, wasalso involved with these experiments—in fact, he made the initial proposal.Somehow he has not been given propercredit. Hopefully, this article willcorrect this situation and reveal whathe feels about the use of hypnosis. -A.D.)The CaliforniaSupreme Court hashanded down a monumental decisioninMarch of this year. This court decisioninvolves the use of hypnosis by policeinvestigators. No longer will anyonewho has been questioned underhypnosis be allowed to testify in aCalifornia court-of-law."Hypnosis-induced testimonyfailed to meet a long-established legalstandard requiring that scientificevidence be based on techniquesgenerally accepted in the scientificcommunity in which they weredeveloped," said the justices.(Arizonaand Minnesota Supreme courts alsohave barred hypnosis-inducedtestimony and in Maryland areevaluation of the practice has beenordered.)Statewide, the ruling isexpected toweaken or destroy 59 criminalprosecutions! This situation isconsidered by manyto be a disaster. Inthe act of exonerating some who mayhave been falsely accused, manybrutalmurderers could be freed. Prosecutorshad relied heavily on the use ofhypnosis and felt that it was reliable,especially in rape cases where thevictim is the only witness to the crime.They felt that the experience could beso traumatic that details or entireBy John DcHerrera(© 1982, John DeHerrera)events are "repressed" from consciousmemory.Defense lawyers and researchers,rejecting the claim that hypnosis isreliable, either testified before theSupreme Court or filed Friend of theCourt depositions documenting theirviews. They succeeded in proving, tothe satisfaction of the court, thathypnosis is inherently unreliable andthat police investigators are unaware ofthis.Proponents of the use of hypnosiscan point to specific cases where thistool helped solve some very difficultcriminal cases. Without it, these wouldnever have been solved, they say.Opponents also cite cases where anindividual lied or "recalled" events thatlater were proven false. Too oftenhypnosis results in memory distortionsor hallucinations, they say.For over 20 years, policehypnotists had waged a battle to havehypnosis accepted in courts-of-law.They claimed a very high success ratewith hypnosis. "The mind is like avideotape, recording everything yousee," said Dr. Reiser of the LosAngelesPolice Department, who has trainedpolice from almost every state on thetechniques of hypnosis. "We arerealizing that hypnosis is just a clinicalway of interviewing, a deeper way ofgetting at the truth," Dr. PatrickMullany, psychologist at the FBIAcademy, was quoted as saying.Researchers now know that ourmind does not record everything,as avideorecorder would do. Memory ishighly selective and we only recordthings that are important to us.Hypnosis isheld up by many as a magiccure for getting at deeply buriedmemories. This isnt necessarily thecase. Hypnosis simply encourages aperson to relax and focus intensly onthe event.At this point itisappropriate to askthe question; is there anything thatUFOlogists can learn from theevaluation of hypnosis by varioussupreme courts? Is our use of hypnosisbased on sound knowledge and skillsofthis controversial tool? These and otherquestions must be addressed soon.Otherwise, the credibility of UFOresearch will sink even further than it istoday.In 1977, I was invited to observesome hypnosis regressions conductedby Dr. W.A. McCall and ProfessorAlvin H. Lawson. As a researcher ofUFO phenomenon and hypnosis, I wasinterested in their hypnosisregressions. After observing someregressions that revealed a great dealofinformation on possible UFOabductions, there were still manyquestions remaining. "How reliable ishypnosis," I asked. "What wouldhappen ifwe hypnotized someone whohad never seen a UFO? Could they beencouraged to describe a UFOabduction also?"Dr. McCall decided that this was agood idea and passed the suggestion onthe Professor Lawson. Together, thethree of us planned and conducted our"imaginary encounters study." Wewere enthusiastic but we didnot expectmuch would come of this effort. Ourvolunteers would need a great deal ofhelp in describing a UFOencounter/abduction we thought.Our first volunteer, after beinghypnotized, was told that he was takenaboard a UFO. Then we asked him todescribe how he wastaken aboard andwhat he could see inside? To ouramazement, the volunteer gave a(continued on next page)15
  15. 15. PROPOSED FEDERATION OF UFO^ROCJPSBy Rick Hilberg •• ^o/^^imJ- JFirst off, I sincerely believe that thevarious organizations that participatedin the MUFON-sponsored "UFOSummit Meeting" in Toronto havecome to realize the need for betterrelations and communication within theUFO movement. Although similarproposals made throughout the yearsunfortunately died aborning, theintellectual and, however distasteful wemay find it, the political climate withinthe field have shifted considerably inrecent years to the point where theproposed federation may indeedbecome reality.Perhaps Dr. Hyneks talk abouthow we should all plan for the nextmajor media-reported flap hit home formany, because in past instances ofmassive media attention to the subjectwe lost much in the way ofworthwhilereports and public support becausethere is no one coordinated voice thatspeaks for the UFO movement.While itis only human nature to desire our ownlittle place in the sun when it comes toradio, television, and newspaperinterviews, the conflicting andconfusing statements made in past flapshave only served to turn off potentialsources of financial (as well as personal)support, but given the skeptics amplereason to loudly proclaimthat the UFOmovement is not worthyof attentionbyestablished scientific disciplines.Not to mentionour losses throughpoor public relations methods, wesuffer from a lack of establishedstandards regarding our basicinvestigation and data gathering. Asmany brought up during the Mondayafternoon "rap session" inToronto, weneed such basic things as a uniformterminology for the field, a standardmethod of training field investigators,coordination regarding data processingprocedures and software; the list couldgo on from here to probably fill severalpages! In other words we aresquandering our collective time andresources because of poorcommunication within the field (justimagine all the money wasted whenseveral UFO groups each send aninvestigator to a well publicized UFOsighting!).These are but a few examples ofwhy I feel we should have some sort ofcoordinating body for the field. Iwouldthink that some sort of organizationCalifornia Report, Continuedsaying that "the imagery and events inabduction reports are nearly identicalto those in revivified birth traumanarratives." I have found, and otherresearchers agree, that "fetal-statememories" and "birth-traumamemories" are no more reliable thanother information revealed throughhypnosis.How can we fesf an abductionaccount revealed under hypnosis? Thisis a good question and there may be areasonable answer. In the firstregression of a possible witness, get asmuch detailed information as possible.Then later on, days or weeks later, goback and question the witness againunder hypnosis. This is a standardpolice interrogation technique andworks very well. I have observed thatthe subject cannot repeat the accountin the same order of events. Somereveal an entirely new and differentabduction event for the time period!Finally we must say thatreseachers confirm that hypnosis, as atool for interrogation, is unreliable. Wehave not found a safe way to use it.There are other ways of improvingmemory recall, though. Skillful use ofm n e m o n i c s , f r e e - a s s o c i a t i o ntechniques, or memory enhancementdrugs (coline, vasopressin, etc.) can beuseful. And let us remember that someabduction accounts (e.g., Hickson andParker) were revealed without the useof hypnosis. Is it possible that therereally are UFO abductions?patterned after a trade or professionalgroup would suit our needs. TheAmerican Medical Association isprobably the foremost example of anorganization that promotes standardsfor its members, as well as speaks asone voice for the huge and diversemedical profession. In this way noorganization would have to give up itsbasic autonomy, but would subscribeto the basic goals and standards of thecoordinating organization, and allowthat organization to handle publicaffairs on a national scale.I realize that our task of actuallyorganizing the proposed federation,whatever its basic structure and •function, will be a difficult task. That iswhy I feel that it is essential that we allphysically meet at a central locationsometime in the not too distant futureto begin the "give and take" processthat will be required to complete ourgoals and desires. Iam confident that byreasoning together, asL.B.J. wasfoundof saying, we will not fail in our task.Many have questioned how such afederation could be financed,and let usface facts, that will be a difficult detail towork out. However, since those of us onthe steering committee are donatingour time and expenses to this project, Idont see why the proposed federationcouldnt operate on a similar basis.Expenses to cover telephone,stationery, postage, and printing couldbe met by a nominal yearly fee to bepaid by participating organizations. In asense, with all of the waste andduplication going on in the field todaywe can hardly afford not to have suchan organization.MUFON1030LDTOWNERD.SEGUIN,TX 78155•••^•••••ri17
  16. 16. MUFON STAMP PROGRAM UFO TEACHING MATERIALS EDITORIAL NOTESContributions of cancelled foreignstamps, in any quantity, are "sold" to acollector and the proceeds used tofinance internationalexchange of UFOinformation. We thank the followinginternational colleagues for recentcontributions:Keith Basterfield, Wynn Vale, S.Australia.Larry Fenwick, Willowdale, Ont.,Canada.Michael Sinclair (our InternationalDirector), presentlyresiding in London,England.g . Close encounters.•1 of| ^theflipperedkind*• •.J £5 A Bavarian man who claims to*> have had a dose encounter with alien*N space beings may have just been suffer-M * ing from an overdose of television,p *~ After being hypnotized to aid his recall*-* _* of the exact details of the extraterrestri-als appearance, the man described av creature identical in every way to ... Kermit the Frog, the flippered host ofTVs "Muppet Show." Investigatorshave concluded the incident was"hallucinatory," but •what do theyknow?Marge Christensen (a MUFONMassachusetts State Section Director)and Linda Seal (field investigator) havesuccessfully taught courses on theUFO phenomenon to adults and giftedand talented youngsters. They nowoffer copies of the syllabus for eachcourse for $7.50 each to other teachersor lecturers who maywish to make useof them.Adult Course: "The UFOPhenomenon." Introduction, lessonsfor 8 meetings (2 hours each),activitiesand projects, and reading list.Childrens Course: "SpaceInvaders." Lessons for 15sessions (1hrand 45 min each), activities andprojects, worksheets, answer sheets,and suggested reading list.The authors are, respectively, aformer and a present English teacher.The material includes information oninvestigation techniques, field work,analyzing data, hoaxes, and researchmethods.Make checks or money orderspayable to either author and addressDue to the inclusion of informationon the NOVA program, space did notpermit publishing the Critics Cornercolumn in this issue. It will resume nextmonth.In order to expedite editing andtypesetting of articles for the Journal,authors are requested to submit typed,d o u b l e - s p a c e d m a n u s c r i p t s .Newsnotes and photographs on theacitivties of MUFON State chapters,including personal biographiesofactivemembers, would be welcome. Pleaseshare your projects and insights withother MUFON members across thecountry and around the world.Short articles in the form of"Comments" or "Notes" (up to about2,000 words) and letters to the editor(up to about 400 words) are invitedfrom the readers. The Journal is yourforum for exchange of information,ideas, and critical discussion.them to 2 Cherry Road, Beverly, MA01915.Directors Message, from p. 20Mother Lode Country (Sonora)seeking historical lore, the NationalGeographic crew interviewed MarvinTaylor and photographed his UFOexhibit for an upcoming issue of theirprestigious magazine. Mr. Taylorsexhibit has already been featured inarticles and photographs . in theSacramento Union newspaper and theSonora Union Democrat. Ifany of ourreaders think that the UFO issue isdead, they should try following thefootprints of Tom Gates, MarvinTaylor, and Paul Cerny. These threegentlemen are to be heartilycommended for their fantastic work inhelping to educate the public to theUFO phenomenon, which simply willnot go away in spite of government-backed attempts to eradicate this so-called "fad."Mr. Walter Mensching, StateSection Director for Fond du LacCounty in Wisconsin and a veteran inUFOlogy, has been the first member torespond to your Directors invitation toperpetuate their personal UFO files bybequeathing it to MUFON in their will.Mr. Mensching has instructed hisattorney to revise his will to donate hisentire collectionofbooksand articlestoMUFON upon his death. His file nowincludes 39 hardcover books, 47paperback books, and 145 file foldersclassified by subject. Please adviseMUFON if you have made thisprovision in your will, so thatwe may beprepared to pack the file and assumethe shippingcharges. We are grateful toMr. Mensching for his generous gift.The Steering Committee for theproposed North American UFOFederation promised to communicatetheir progress to all interested people.The MUFONUFO Journalisone of themedia devices selected for thispurpose. In this issue of the Journal, Ihave taken the liberty of publishing theproposals and recommendationssubmitted by Rick Hilberg,representing the Northern Ohio UFOGroups on the Steering Committee inan article titled "The ProposedFederation of UFO Groups." Rick said"he hoped that some of the othergroups and individuals who were notpresent in Toronto (for the SummitMeeting) will take notice and offer theirsupport." Your. Diector definitely feelsthat Mr. Hilbergs message should beshared with all interested parties.When we are speaking ofcooperation in UFOlogy in the UnitedStates, the name of Robert J. Gribbleautomatically comes to your Directorsmind. Bobs dedicated service to theoperation and communicatinghis UFOHotline telephone number l-(206)-722-3000 of the National UFO ReportingCenter, P.O. Box 1807, Seattle, WA98111 to airports and police agenciesisgrowing in giant strides. This isnow ourmost vital source of UFO reports fromthe public, since the Center for UFOStudies has discontinued their24-hourhotline service.A recent example of theexpediency of this service wasdemonstrated when a potentialabduction case, witness fromWoodridge, III., called the National(continuea on next page)18
  17. 17. Lucius FarishIn Others WordsA black, saucer-shaped UFO wasseen over Brindisi, Italy, by an airlinercrew and two passengers, according tothe August 17 issue of NATIONALENQUIRER. The object was visible forabout one minute before shooting off ata veryhigh rate ofspeed.The August31ENQUIRER reports the case of anArizona couple who claim to be aliensfrom another world, reincarnated onEarth.THE STAR for August31 featuresa report on a 4-year period of UFOactivity inthe Hudson Highlandsarea ofupstate New York. The incidentsinclude sightings of various types ofobjects, as well as car chases and oneapparent landing, with large footprintsfound in the area.The "Anti-Matter/UFO Update"section inSeptember OMNI has a goodsummary of December 1981 sightingsin the vicinity of Reserve, New Mexico.This issue also has an interesting articleon what the late Ivan T. Sandersoncalled "OOPARTS" (Out Of PlaceARTfacts.) There is little here whichhas not already been covered in themany writings on the "ancientastronauts" subject, but it is refreshingto see OMNI devote space to suchtopics.An article by Hilary Evans andMichel Piccin in the October issue ofFATE examines the UFO abductionclaim of Frank Fontaine, whichallegedly took place in France onNovember 26, 1979. Evans and Piccinconclude that the episode began as apractical joke on the part of Jean-PierrePrevost, a friend of Fontaines, but gotout of hand following extinsiveout of hand following extensivepublicity.A series of booklets compiled bymembers of the Australian Centre forUFO Studies has now been reprintedby Robert Girard of Arcturus BookService. The six volumes are: AREFERENCE CATALOG OFINTERESTING CASES REPORTEDTO THE CENTRE IN1978 compiled byKeith Basterfield, $2.00. A REPORTON OBSERVATIONS OF UFOsFROM AIRCRAFTCREWMEMBERSIN AUSTRALIA compiled by KeithBasterfield, $3.00. AN IN-DEPTHREVIEW OF AUSTRALIAN UFO-RELATED ENTITY REPORTS byKeith Basterfield, $12.50. AREFERENCE CATALOGUE OFINTERESTING CASES REPORTEDTO THE CENTRE IN 1979 & ANANALYSIS OFAUSTRALIAN-WIDEREPORTS 1979 by Keith Basterfield &David Seargent, $3.50. THE UFO-ANTHROPOID CATALOGUE byMark Moravec, $4.50. ABSTRACTSOF PAPERS PRESENTED ATACUFOS UFO CONFERENCE 5compiled by Keith Basterfield & HarryGriesberg, $2.50. Additional postageand handling fees are 85<f for the firstitem and 35<F for each additional item.Nine additional ACUFOSpublicationswill be reprinted by Arcturus inthe nearfuture. The address for Arcturus BookService is: 263 North Ballston Avenue,Scotia, NY 12302.Those who have followed LeonardStringfields pioneering efforts ingathering evidence ofUFO crashes andretrievals by government agencies willbe pleased to know that this latest workis now available. UFO CRASH/RETRIEVALS: AMASSING THEEVIDENCE (Status Report III) is a 53-page softcover booklet (8l/2" x 11"format), presenting 12 new first-personreports and 15 new "intermediary"reports, as well as several of whatStringfield calls "interminable" cases(i.e. "friend of a friend ofa friend"). Alsoincluded are updateson two previously-discussed cases and commentaries onvarious aspects of the Crash/Retrievalsubject.This is a fascinatingand importantdocument by a researcher who has, insome instances, been maligned andridiculed by those who should knowbetter. Stringfield deserves the fullsupport of anyone who dares toconsider himself open-minded andobjective. I highly recommend thisbooklet, as well as the other writings byStringfield, some of which are stillavailable from him.The price for StatusReport IIIis$10.00 plus$1.00 postage &handling. For overseas orders, thecharge for airmail postage is $5.50;surface mail, $1.50. All foreign ordersshould be in U.S. funds, checks drawnon U.S. banks or InternationalMoneyOrders. Leonard Stringfields addressis 4412 Grove Avenue, Cincinnati, OH45227.Directors Message, from p. 18UFO Reporting Center to report hisexperience. Bob Gribble immediatelycalled MUFON in Seguin, Texas. Along-distance call to our MUFON StateSection Director in Woodridge (wholived only seven blocks from thewitness) resulted in an interview in lessthan 30 minutes from the time of theinitial report. Needless to say, thewitness was impressed with ourpromptness. After a thoroughinvestigation, we hope that this casemay be published in the Journal."The Catalogue of UFOPeriodicals" by Tom Lind, a SAID OFSAUCERS Research Publication, isnow available directly from the authorfor $12.50 plus 75C postage andhandling. For orders outside of theU.S.A. and Canada please add $2.00.Tom calls the 280-page book the firstextensive English languagebibliography of UFO periodicals. Thebook may be ordered from: Tom Lind,P.O. Box 711, Hobe Sound, FL 33455U.S.A.Plans are now being formulated tohold a UFO meeting in Corpus Christi,Texas, for MUFON members andfriends during the Thanksgivingweekend. Friday November 26, 1982 isa tentative date, however, the locationwill be announced later after thearrangements have been formalized.Everyone who contacted MUFONafter last yearspublic appealwill receiveletters of invitation.19
  18. 18. DIRECTORSMESSAGE byWaltAndnuMichael Sinclair, InternationalCoordinator now residing in London,England, has jointly announced theappointment of Dr. Roberto Pinotti asMUFON Representative for Italy. Dr.Pinotti is the President of CentroUfologico Nazionale and one of theforemost UFO researchers in Italy. Hismailing address is Via Odorico DaPordenone 36, 50127 Firenze(Florence), ITALY and telephone367718. This appointment culminatesnegotiations initiated during theCUFOS UFO Conference in Chicagoin September 1981 when your Directormet with Roberto.James E. Miller has accepted theposition of State Section Director forthe southwestern Ohio counties ofButler, Hamilton, Warren, andClermon, replacingCharles J. Wilhelm.Jim and his wife live at 6916 MillikinRoad, Middletown.OH 45042,telephone (513) 777-3555. Mr. Millerhas worked with Leonard Stringfield formany years and ranks CEIII cases highon his interest priorities.Mrs. Dorothy I. Lewis has beenappointed Provincial Section Directorfor Lambton County in Ontario byHenry H. McKay.Mrs. Lewis, aformersection head for UFO InvestigationsCanada, may be contacted at 1064Brenchley St., Apt. 210, Sarnia,Ontario N7S 1R5, Canada; telephone(519) 344-8248. Dorothy comes highlyrecommended to MUFON by DanWright, State Director for Michigan,and Joseph C. Stewart, State SectionDirector. Mr. McKay, ProvincialDirector for Ontario, plans to appointother Provincial Section Directorsutilizing the talent in present UFOgroups throughout Ontario thatresponded so enthusiastically at therecent 1982 MUFON UFO Symposiumin Toronto. i."UFOs: A Scientific Challenge" isthe theme selected for the 1983MUFON UFO Symposium at theHuntington-Sheraton Hotel inWalt Andrus with Dr. RobertoPinotti, MUFON representativefor ItalyPasadena, California on July 1,2, and3,hosted by MUFON of SouthernCalifornia. Tom Gates will handle thespeaker introductions as Master ofCeremonies. Bill Hassel, Chairman forthe symposium, and his programcommittee are preparing a list ofpotential featured speakers and will beextending invitations in the near future.Based upon the success of theprogram on Sunday in Toronto, wheremost of the speakers had volunteeredtheir expertise, Mr. Hassel and hisprogram committee are herebyextending invitations to interestedpeople in the UFO field who would liketo share their specialized research withthe symposium attendees. Pleasesubmit an abstract of your proposedpaper and contents to William F.Hassel, Jr., 4217 Minnecota Drive,Thousand Oaks, CA91360 with a copyto MUFON at 103 Oldtowne Road,Seguin TX 78155 if you are seriouslyinterested inspeaking or desire to haveyour paper published in the, proceedings. Your abstract or papermust be received by December 1,1982so that it may be evaluated within ourpublication time frame and programplanning schedule.The outstanding ongoing publiceducation program by members ofMUFON of Northern California mayspark ideas forother groups around theUnited States if they are shared withour members. Key people in thisvaluable public relations program arePaul C. Cerny, Western RegionalDirector; Tom Gates, AstronomyConsultant; and Marvin E. Taylor,Assistant State Director for NorthernCalifornia. The following chronologicalevents are typical of their continuedactivities: August21—Tom Gates, 1 —hour program on KGO-FM SanFrancisco; August 23 through August29 — Tom Gates, Paul Cerny, andMarvin Taylor were speakers andinstalled UFO exhibit at ReddingsSpace Fair 1982 with the theme "Fact,Fantasy and Future"; September 10,8:00 p.m. —KPK-TV Channel 5 in SanFrancisco aired their TV Documentaryon UFOs featuring MUFONrepresentatives and including theCash/Landrum Case near Huffman,Texas. September 7 — Tom Gates,Marvin Taylor, and Paul Cerny wereguests on a 1-hour TV program fromChannel 13 in Stockton-Sacramentotitled "Good Morning California."Paul Cerny has been asked tonegotiate the inclusion of a MUFONUFO Exhibit and display with a largeNASA and Confederate Air Forcetraveling exhibit to be part of fourupcoming County Fairs in Idaho,Washington, and California bya privateproduction firm. Tom Gates and Dr.Richard Haines were recentlyinterviewed by a Los Angeles TV crewthat are producing a TV documentaryto be titled "ETI-The Search" to beshown in the Los Angeles area.Marvin Taylors recently acquiredand MUFON expanded UFOExhibit/Display, now installed on thesecond floor of his real estate office forthe public, got a real boost when theNational Geographic magazine teamheard about it. Touring the California(continued on page 18)