Mufon ufo journal 1986 1. january


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 1986 1. january

  2. 2. MUFON UFO JOURNAL(USPS 002-970)(ISSN 0270-6822)103 Oldtowne Rd.Seguin, Texas 78155-4099 U.S.A.DENNIS W. STACYEditorWALTER H. ANDRUS, JR.International Director andAssociate EditorTHOMAS P. DEULEYArt DirectorMILDRED BIESELEContributing EditorANN DRUFFELContributing Editor.PAUL CERNYPromotion/Publicity :MARGE CHRISTENSENPublic RelationsREV. BARRY DOWNING, Religion and UFOsLUCIUS PARISHBooks/Periodicals/HistoryROSETTA HOLMESPromotion/PublicityT: SCOTT GRAINGREG LONGStaff WriterJAMES LEMINGS1MONE MENDEZStaff ArtistsTED PHILLIPSLanding Trace CasesJOHN F. SCHUESSLERMedical CasesLEONARD STRINGFIELDUFO Crash/RetrievalWALTER N. WEBBAstronomyNORMA E. SHORTDWIGHT CONNELLYDENNIS HAUCKRICHARD H. HALLROBERT V. PRATTEditor/Publishers Emeritus(Formerly SKYLOOK)The MUFON UFO JOURNAL ispublished; by the Mutual UFONetwork, -.Inc., Seguin, Texas.Membership/Subscription rates:$15.00 peryear in the U.S.A.; $16.00foreign in U.S. funds. Copyright 1986by the Mutual UFO Network. Secondclass postage paid at Seguin, Texas.POSTMASTER: Send form 3579 toadvise change of address to TheMUFON UFO JOURNAL, 103Oldtowne Rd., Seguin, Texas 78155-4099.JANUARY 1983 ISSUE #213FROMTHEEDITOR.Should a;skeptic, even a self-described sympathetic one, haveaccess to the Journals pages? Or should we carry only articles bybona fide, certified pro ufologists? In answer to the last question, Ithink not, and for several reasons. One, its too closely related tocensorship, whether applied by me, or others, to suit my owneditorial tastes. Two, it deprives the general reader of an often validviewpoint and a source of relevant information to which they nototherwise be exposed. Third, we must by the very controversialnature of the phenomenon remain partly skeptical ourselves if weever hope to lay.claim to objectivity and scientific responsibility., after all, despite the attitude of.the more vocal skeptics, debunkour "own" when necessary. An excellent example of same is aforthcoming article by Stan Gordon, Co-Director of thePennsylvania Association for the Study of the Unexplained(PASU),and a MUFON State Director, on a recent NASA rocket releaseofhigh-altitude, glowing clouds of chemicals. They are now anidentified aerial phenomena which might otherwise have spawned a ,body of spurious reports within the field. • " ..The Defense" Intelligence Agency (DIA) security poster on page11, by the way, was contributed by Larry Bryant, director of.theWashington, D.C., office of Citizens Against UFO Secrecy(CAUS). It originally appeared in January of 1984. Attempts by.Arnold, to obtain .an original of the poster under the Freedom of•Information Act have proved.fruitless: Like him, we remain baffledas to its inspiration while intrigued by its possible interpretations.In this issueUFOLOGY: SITUATION RED? by John Schuessler .3THE McDIVITT SIGHTING, by James Oberg 5NEWS N VIEWS :..; : 9DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY SECURITY POSTER 11SIGHTING REPORTS, by Various Authors : 12DELPHOS REVISITED: PART II, by Walt Andrus 14LETTERS 17THE NIGHT SKY, by Walter Webb 18CARTOON, by Golliver 19DIRECTORS MESSAGE 20COVER, courtesy of the Planetary SocietyThe Mutual UFO Network, Inc. is exempt from Federal Income Tax underSection 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. MUFON is a publiclysupported organization of the type described in Section 509(a)(2). Donorsmay deduct contributions from their Federal income tax. In addition,bequests, legacies, devises, transfers, or gifts are deductible for Federalestate and gift tax purposes if they meet the applicable provisions ofSections 2055, 2106, and 2522 of the code.The contents of the MUFON UFO JOURNAL are determined by the editor, and donot necessarily represent the official position of MUFON. Opinions of contributorsare their own, and do not necessarily reflect those of the editor, the staff, or MUFON.Articles may be forwarded directly to MUFON. Responses to published articles in a Letter to the Editor (up to about 400 words) or ina short article (up to about2,000 words). Thereafter, the "50% rule" is applied: the article author may reply but• will be albwed half the wordage used in the response; the responder may answer theauthor but will be allowed half the wordage used in the authors reply, etc. Allsubmissions are subject 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 1986 by the Mutual UFO Network, 103Oldtowne Rd., Seguin,Texas 78155" is included.
  3. 3. UFOLOGY: SITUATION RED?By John SchuesslerBACKWARD LOOKIn 1984 I took a critical look atUFOLOGY and presented the resultsin a paper entitled Estimate of the UFOSituation - 1984. My chief concernswere in the areas of methodology,( human relations, and management.Some individuals were shocked by myobservations and some were angry;buta significant number of peopleexpressed similar opinions as mine.People were dropping out, leavingUFOLOGY, not because of lack ofinterest; but because they disliked thepersonal attacks and bickering theyencountered. I classify these individualsas victims of non-professionalbehavioron behalf of their attackers.Unfortunately, this situation exists in allfields of science, not just UFOLOGY.UFO organizations were alsofeeling the pinch of rising costs,confounded by the loss of valuablesupporters. Some of the groups choseto be the source of disunity andbickering, rather than cooperating. TheNorth American UFO Federation wasstruggling to unify these groups andcapitalize upon the power ofcooperation.Management, or lack ofmanagement in many of the UFOorganizations was beginning to show.Leaders had not selected and trainedtheir successors, wants and desires ofthe membership were seldom heeded,and name recognition (CUFOS,Hynek, APRO, Lorenzen, MUFON,Andrus, etc.) was the mainmanagement tool used by all.CHANGESMany of the changes occurringsince 1984 have had a negative impacton UFOLOGY. The fate of the NorthAmerican UFO Federation is a goodexample. Led by Dr. Richard Haines,the federation had a good chance ofsuccess; but two key ingredients wereJohn Schuessler-Dennis Stacyabsent. Support from manyorganizations was lacking, and chiefamong the hold-outs was the AerialPhenomena Research Organization(APRO). Without their moral andmonetary support the federation couldnot achieve its goal of representingUFOLOGY as a whole.The second problem was withinthe federation itself. Some of the boardmembers seemed to havea strongneedfor personal power at any cost.And thelanguage used in some of theircommunications would make a sailorblush. Lack of professionalism killedwhat could have been the driver forsuccess for all the memberorganizations. Dr. Haines exhibited thepatience of a saint, while trying toprevent the collapse of the federation.He did all one man could do and Iimagine he still believes strongly in theneed for unity.The Center for UFO Studies(CUFOS) isstill inoperation, but seemsto have fallen on hard times as Ipredicted. Dr. J. Allen Hynek, thedriving force behind CUFOS, left theIllinois-based group to form a researchcenter in Arizona. CUFOS had beenhis dream and his quest for fundedresearch was a valiant one. ButwithoutDr. Hynek, or another strong science-based figure, CUFOS will face acontinued struggle for survival.CUFOS has dropped publication of theCUFOS Associate Newsletter,another sign of hard times. Hopefully,the International UFO Reporter willcontinue. Some innovative manage-ment ideas on the part of JohnTimmerman and the others isnecessary at thispoint intime.This maybe difficult for him,when even the(continued next page)
  4. 4. SITUATION, Continuededitor of IUR is critical of the work ofthe founder, Dr. Hynek.Hard times continue at APRO.The failure to select and train futureleaders had significant impact. During1985 the APRO Bulletin ceasedpublication. The failing health of Coraland Jim Lorenzen is cited as the reasonfor the demise of this fine publication.We will all miss APRO as a partner inthe work ahead.MUFONAs Iwatched APRO, SBI and manyof the smaller groups fade from thescene, I .expressed concern for theMUTUAL UFO NETWORK (MU-FON). In 1984I noted the attempt by afew key members of the organization tocontrol the thoughts, words, and deedsof all MUFON members. They wantedthe power to specify the outcome ofevery action — to control theInternational Director Walter Andrusand everyone below him. This wascounter to the grass roots foundation ofthe organization and wascosting dearlyin terms of membership and workoutput. A situation similar to the oneexisting in APRO that caused theformation of MUFON in the first placecould have caused severe damage toMUFON.Walt Andrus could have takenoffense at my 1984 estimate andignored it. The opposite is true. Waltlistened to the inputs from the grassroots of MUFON, watched the failuresof other organizations, and remainedopen to suggestions for improvement.He exhibited very strong leadershipduring this period, in spite of hisdetractors, and kept MUFON inoperation.When Walt received a petitionfrom several members and non-members suggesting changes in theway business is done, cooperation isaccomplished, and funds are raised, heaccepted it as a starting point forchange. He examined every point andstarted a dialogue with the author of thepetition — Marge Christensen. Goodthings will result from this interchange.Walt always uses goodmanagement style in his approach toproblem solving. He solicits . theparticipation of the Board membersand values their input. He realizes theimportance of recognizing theaccomplishments of all the membersand he works diligently to know andunderstand their needs and feelings. Hereadily shares the limelight with all theother hard workers in MUFON,clearlyemphasizing the importance of the-team and each individual on the team.This teamwork extends beyondMUFON, as Walt has been the chiefsupporter of cooperation betweenMUFON and CUFOS and in thecreation of the North American UFOFederation. And when the detractorsattack MUFON, Walt is not afraid tofight back.Recognizing the need for publiceducation and the importance of themedia, Walt Andrus has supported thework of Marge Christensen, theNational Public Relations Director forMUFON. Marge has become asignificant figure in UFOLOGYthrough her efforts in the publicrelations arena. She has been pushingeach ofthe MUFON leaders at the statelevel to organize and to communicatewith members and the media alike. Ona larger scale Marge has beeninstrumental in organizing a UFOInformation Week on behalf ofMUFON and CUFOS and has workedwith the other active members of theMass. MUFON group to sponsor anannual UFO Forum, that rivals mostsymposia. Strangely enough, this efforthas also been attacked by the CUFOSeditor. Maybe Marge should adopt aslogan saying "become a part of thesolution, not a part of the problem."MEDIAThe media is a problem forUFOLOGY today. The tabloid presscontinues to print questionable, evenridiculous UFO stories, while the majorbook publishers shy away from UFOrelated manuscripts. Magazines fail tocarry UFO stories, journals avoid UFOresearch, and the specialtypublicationshave ceased to exist. The onlyworthwhile source of UFO informationis the few journals produced by theremaining UFO organizations. It willtake a major flap to change thedirection of this trend and move awayfrom a complete elimination of UFOs inthe major media.As we begin 1986,it appears thatMUFON will survive and prosper.CUFOS is at a turning point, but hassome good talent which will carry itthrough the rough spots. Many of theother organizations in the UnitedStates will become history. Theircontributions will be missed.PRESCRIPTIONAll of the current UFOorganizations depend upon volunteersto survive. These volunteers do thework and pay the bills. Therefore,something must be done to assure acontinued stable, even growingvolunteer workforce.UFO organizations must competefor the services of these people. Neverin history has there been such ademand for volunteers. This means thetask of volunteer management musttake on new dimensions. The managerof volunteers must recognize theimportance of being participative.When people participate in a venturethey will support it. The day of "Im theboss, you are the worker" is gone.The manager must feel the needsof the volunteers and become an expertin human relations. At the same timethe need for planning, long and shortrange, ismandatory. People need to seewhere the organization is headed andbecome a part of taking it there. Andlast but not least, ethical behavior onthe part of every individual is necessary.The result will be a successful andrespected organization. This simpleprescription for success is based uponwhat many profit-making companiesare doing to meet the challenges ofthisage. Volunteer organizations must dothe same thing or fail.Consider why people do notvolunteer. It is not enough to offermembership in the organization. Whilean individual may be interested inUFOs, he or she may be held back byany one of a number of things.Someofthe blockades to volunteerism are asfollows:• Fear of getting in "over their(continued on page 18)
  5. 5. THE McDIVITT SIGHTINGBy James ObergOf the dozens of reportsassociating astronauts with UFOencounters and photographs,undoubtedly the best was the June 4,1965 sighting reported by Major JamesMcDivitt, command pilot of the two-man Gemini-4. His testimony baffledeven the super-skeptical CondonCommittee in 1969; a photograph fromhis flight has been widelypublished andhailed as one of the "best UFO photosever made."Yet McDivitt himself has nevermade much of his sighting, howeveroften he has politely retold the tale tofascinated audiences and interviewers.He remains of the mind that he sawsome unidentified but still man-madepiece of orbital debris. There is noevidence anybody in US governmentagencies took the slightest officialnotice, nor is there any record that theastronaut ever filed a UFO report withProject Blue Book — which he, as anactive duty Air Force officer, wasobligated to do if he really thought hehad seen a "true UFO."NASA has always insisted —and this viewhas since been supportedby my research — that there wasnothing at all mysterious about theencounter and that the object wasclearly terrestrial in origin (Soviet orAmerican). McDivitts own boosterrocket has been tagged as the culprit insome studies. The famous photograph,meanwhile, has been dismissed byMcDivitt himself and by otherinvestigators as having no connectionwith the actual sighting,but as showinginstead only one ofmany miscellaneousblobs of light which abounded in theactual flight film (the photo has,because of its tailed oval form, beendubbed the "tadpole").GEMINI-4The facts are plain. On June 3,1985, Gemini-4was launched intoorbitone hundred fifty miles above theEarths surface. Rookie astronautsMcDivitt and White were headed forthe USAs first long-duration flight, thefirst to attempt extensive visualobservations and photography. On thesecond day, over Hawaii, the 35-yearold McDivitt reported seeing an object— "like a beercan with an arm stickingout" — which NASA offisials laterannounced had been identified by AirForce space radars as the thousand-mile-distant Pegasus-2 (but that rangewas too great, it turned out, forMcDivitts object to have been thewinged Pegasus satellite). Twice later,other lights were seen in the sky.Together with a mysterious "tadpole"photo, the McDivitt report hasachieved UFO superstardom and hasbeen firmly enshrined in UFO literatureand lore.A poll of active UFO enthusiastsattending a convention in 1983demonstrated that the McDivitt casestill held great authority. A clearmajority deemed it a "true UFO."McDivitt himself described hisencounter many times. He summarizedit in the following way on the DickCavett Show in November 1973 (asreported in FATE magazine, June1974): "I was flying with Ed White. Hewas sleeping at the time so Idont haveanybody to verify my story. We weredrifting in space with the controlengines shut down and all theinstrumentation off (when) suddenly(an object) appeared in the window. Ithad a very definite shape —a cylindricalobject — it was white — it had a longarm that stuck out on the side. I dontknow whether itwas a verysmallobjectup close or a very large object a longways away. There was nothingto judgeby. I really dont know how big it was.We had two cameras that were justfloating inthe spacecraft at the time, soI grabbed one and took a pictureof(theobject) and grabbed the other and tooka picture. Then I turned on the rocketcontrol systems because Iwas afraid wemight hit it. At the time we were drifting— without checking I have no ideawhich way we were going" — but as wedrifted up a little farther, the sun shownon the window of the spacecraft. Thewindshield was dirty — just like anautomobile, you cant see through it.SoI had the rocket control engines goingagain and moved the spacecraft so thatthe window was in darkness again —the object was gone. Icalled down laterand told them what had happened andthey went back and checked theirrecords of other space debris that wasflying around but we were never able toidentify what it could have been. Thefilm was sent back to NASA andreviewed by some NASA filmtechnicians. One of them selected whathe thought was what we talked about,at least before I had a chance to reviewit. It was not the picture — it was apicture of the sun reflection on thewindow."CONDON REPORTA good place to start a careful re-examination of the case is with the"professional skeptics" who werethemselves stumped by the report —and had the honesty to say so. In 1968,the Air Force seemed anxious to washits hands of the UFO business and findjustification for closing down ProjectBlue Book, its widely-criticized small-scale investigative effort. TheUniversity of Colorado was contractedto make a study of the whole UFOphenomenon under the direction ofProfessor Edward U. Condon. MostUFOlogists regard the Condon Reportas a whitewash of the Air Forces roleand as a deliberate attempt to slantevidence to fit a preconceivedconclusion. Yet the CondonCommittee endorsed the mystery ofthe McDivitt UFO sighting!Space scientist Dr. Franklin Roach(continued next page)
  6. 6. McDIVITT, Continuedwas the committees specialist on theastronaut cases. He found "visualsightings made by the astronauts whilein orbit which, in the judgment of thewriter (Roach), have not beenadequately explained.... Unexplainedsightings whichhave been gleaned froma great mass of reports are a challengeto the analyst. Especially puzzling is(McDivitts sighting) of an objectshowing details such as armsprotruding from a body having anoticeable angular extension. If theNORAD (Air Force) listing of objectsnear the GT-4 spacecraft at the time ofthe sighting is complete, as itpresumably is, we shall have to find arational explanation or, alternatively,keep it on our list of unidentifieds."Those were his words: "a challengetothe analyst."This conclusion is typical of thepower of astronaut UFO sightings.Here is one such UFO case certified bythe "anti-UFO" Condon Committee,supposedly commissioned by the U.S.Air Force to do all it could to debunkthe UFO phenomenon. Needless tosay, this endorsement was receivedwith tremendous enthusiasm and littlecriticism or further research on thepartof UFOlogists.But since 1969, when the Condonreport was published, some newresources have become availableconcerning McDivitts UFO.Furthermore, Dr. Roach himself hadput his finger on the key to his logicallycompelled endorsement of theMcDivitt case, with the statedassumption: "i/ the NORAD listing...iscomplete."MANEUVERSOne ofthe primary earlyobjectivesof the Gemini-4 flight was to practiceorbital rendezvous operations with thecast-off Titan-II second stage. TheGemini thrusted forward off thebooster as soon as they reached orbit,but the astronauts quickly turned theircapsule around and attempted to nullout the velocity differences and make areturn to the spent rocket stage.This attempt was soon terminatedafter the crew had used up a largefraction of their capsulesmaneuveringfuel. However, the two objects (thespacecraft and the booster), were bythat time in close parallel orbits,swinging first apart and then backtogether again in the course of each 90-minute revolutionaround the Earth.The attempt to rendezvous withthe 27-foot-long, ten-foot-diameter,6,000-pound stage highlighteddifficulties injudging distances in space.McDivitt complained about not havingproper equipmentforjudging range andrange rate to a target;he was unabletodo so by eyeball alone:"I think that youcant tell distances from a single light,"he concluded, proposing additionalrunning lights for rendezvous targetson subsequent flights. NASA expertsconcurred; they later estimated thatMcDivitt was consistenly reporting hewas five times closer to the stage thanhe really was — possibly because of hisexcellent eyesight and hisinexperiencewith visual targets of that shape andsize. But that was one of the mainpurposes of the flight: determine anastronauts ability to eyeball otherobjects in space, and specify the kindsof equipment to be needed to do the jobright.The booster did not fall out of orbitand burn up for at least 50 hours,according to tracking data laterreleased by NORAD via the GoddardSpace Flight Center. During that time,it was close to the Gemini and thengradually pulled ahead of it on itsdecaying orbit. Now, this put it wellwithin the thousand-mile rangespecified by NORAD for nearbysatellites at the time for the UFOsighting, yet it was not on that listreleased by NORAD. Why not?A reasonable hypothesis is thatNASA had only asked about all otherspace objects, not specifying any debrisassociated with Gemini itself. TheNORAD computers would producereports for only satellites launchedbefore Gemini-4, ignoring any objectslaunched along with it. Alternately,NORAD might not even have hadaccurate data on the booster, sincemost of its radars were in northernregions optimal for spotting Sovietspace vehicles but beyond the rangeofAmerican manned spacecraft. In 1965,NORAD had only one radar site whichcould have tracked satellites in theGemini orbit. As a policy, NORADwassometimes under instructions not to"paint" manned spacecraft with high-powered radar beams, so as not to riskinterference with on-board electronicequipment.An inquiry to the NORADDirectorate of Public Affairs did notproduce a definitive solution. "Yourcomments on the NORADrole relatedto (Gemini-4) appear to be logical,"replied NORAD Public InformationOfficer Del W. Kindschi. "But ourspace people tell me they no longerhave copies of the messages that weresent to NASA Houston on thesightings," Kindschi added.EYEWITNESSMcDivitts testimony has driftedsomewhat from the precise facts of thisaspect of the case. The falseimpressionhas been given by some writers that theGemini-4 was being tracked on radar atthe time of the sighting, and nothingshowed up on the radarscopes at thatvery moment. McDivitts own wordsonthis, during an interview broadcast onthe 1977 UFO documentary "MysteriesFrom Beyond Earth," are as follows:"We were....never able to identify whatit was and all of our ground radartracking data indicated that thereshouldnt have been another objectanywhere near us at the time." Theencounter occurred out of range ofground tracking sites, and onlycomputerized extrapolationsofknownorbiting objects were able to provideany insight into what might have beenclose - as long as all candidate orbitswould have been considered, and wehave seen thatallsuch objects were notconsidered.How did McDivitt describe theUFO? His first brief report came in atMission Elapsed Time (MET)29 hours52 minutes 17 seconds. Five minuteslater he described it better. "It had bigarms stickingout of it, it looked like. Ionly had it for a minute..."On June 6- while theflight wasstillin progress - ABC television scienceeditor Jules Bergman reported that theUFO was really a secret U.S. military(confirmed next page)
  7. 7. McDIVITT, Continuedreconnaissance satellite. Bergmancontinued that space officials had beenunable to identify it because the DODrefused to admit the existence ofsuch asatellite — and presumably thus drawattention to it. But that story isimplausible at best and — to myknowledge —has never been repeated.And it is just not consistent with whatcan be deduced about the UFOsmotion relative to the Gemini — itwould have flown past much tooquickly.At a news conference on June 11,McDivitt gave more details about theobject: "Near Hawaii...I saw a whiteobject and it looked like it wascylindrical and it looked to me like therewas a white arm sticking out of it...Itlooked a lot like an upper stage of abooster." The astronaut gave fewadditional details when interviewed byDr. Roach of the Condon Committee in1968: "McDivitt saw a cylindrical-shaped object with an antennalikeextension," Roach reported. "Theappearance was something like thesecond phase (sic) of a Titan...It isMcDivitts opinion that the object wasprobably some unmanned satellite."As the years passed, McDivittbecame something of a celebrity toUFO groups with his short, modeststory of a space UFO. After hisretirement from NASA and the AirForce in 1971, he often recalled theevent on television talk shows, radiointerviews, and even on a special long-playing UFO record. For example, onthe NBC TV show "The Unexplained,"subtitled The UFO Connection (Feb.21, 1976), McDivitt related that "I justhappened to look out the window andthere in front of me was an objectwhichwas cylindrical in shape and had a polesticking out there. Itwouldbe about thesame relative shape as a beer can with apencil stickingout one corner of it."Speaking to Houston Post spacereporter Jim Maloney late in 1975,McDivitt gave new details: "I nevermade a big deal out of it. It wassomething Idefinitely couldnt identify. Ireported it to the ground.... Ed wasasleep and we were rotating at a prettyhigh rate in drifting flight. The windowswere dirty, I recall... All of a suddenthere was this white object out there. Itlooked like a beer can with a pencilsticking out of it at an angle."Maloney adds that the astronautestimated that he got a 30-second lookat the object. Furthermore, McDivittsaid, the space agency made noattempt to prevent his telling his UFOstory. The Air Force wasnt interested,either: as far as can be determined,McDivitt never even filed a UFO reportwith Project Blue Book.NASA did not bother with thestory, it seems, because nobody wasparticularly puzzled by the object.When queried by Congressman Robert.Michel (himself queried by aconstituent), NASA AssistantAdministrator for Legislative AffairsRichard L. Callaghan replied that "Webelieve it to be a rocket tank or spentsecond stage of a rocket."BOOSTERThus, the mystery object lookedjust like a second stage ofa rocket, even(in McDivitts own words) a lot like thesecond stage of a Titan-II. So then, whydidnt McDivitt think it was his ownbooster rocket? Could he have reallyseen his own booster and notrecognized it?The glare and contrasts of spacecan trick even an astronauts eyesight,as illustrated by this sequence from theGemini-4 voice tapes. AstronautEdward White (whose eyesight waseven better than McDivitts) has justspotted something out the window:"Weve got an object out in front of us.Its not flashing like its the booster. Itappears that its that type of an objectunless its picking up some glow fromthe sun. It appears a very bright, verybright object.... (30 second pause)... Itwas the booster. I can see the lightflashing on it now...Just as it goes intodarkness, the relfection of the sun onthe booster causes a very brightimage.Thats the object I had seen earlier."D u r i n g G e m i n i - 4 s closemaneuvers around the Titan-II upperstage, one of the astronauts madeseveral shots with a movie camera. Astill photograph from thissequence waslater released by the NASA HQ PublicAffairs Office and was widelydistributed. It showed a beer can-shaped cylinderfloating in space abovea cloudy horizon.During an 1975 interview betweenMr. Philip Klass of Aviation Week andSpace Technology magazine andColonel Bernard Szczutkowski ofNORAD, Klass mentioned his interestin investigating and solvingUFO cases.Szczutkowski reached into his desk,pulled out an 8x10 photo, and askedKlass, "Do you want to see a photo ofMcDivitts UFO?" Klass quicklyassented.The USAF officer handed Klassthe PAO print of the Titan-II secondstage, floating above Earths distanthorizon. This, he told Klass, was whatMcDivitt had seen but had been unableto identify. Itwas hisown Titan booster.Subsequently, Klass obtained acopy of the photo from NORAD andsent it to McDivitt, asking ifit did not infact closely correspond to the verbaldescription of the UFO on the spaceflight. McDivitt replied,"Thank you for sending me theslide of the Gemini IV photograph. Ivery quickly identified the object in thephotograph as the 2nd stage of theTitan rocket which launched us....I amsure that this is not a photograph of theobject which I described many timesand which many people refer to as theGemini IV UFO..."So he was (and still is) certain hisUFO had not been the second stage.The reasons which McDivitt gave forthis certainty, however, were veryinteresting.• It was not because the objectswere shaped differently at all. Instead,McDivitt explained, "At the time I sawwhatever that object was thebackground was nothing but the blackof space. There was not a horizonanywhere within my view." But thatfield of view was only about 25 degreesacross, showing less than 3% of thecelestial sphere. The .horizon couldhave been right past the edge of thewindow and still have been quite closeto the UFO, without McDivitt know it.In addition, McDivitts reply to mypreliminary identification (in 1976) of hisUFO with the Titan-II second stage wasequally explicit: "The reason I did notassume that the object I saw was the(continued next page)
  8. 8. McDIVITT, Continuedupper stage of the Titan-II was simple.During the first orbit of our mission, myjob was to flyformation with the upperstage of the rocket. This Iattempted todo and I spent approximately ll/2 to 2hours looking at this upper stage fromvarious angles and distances, and wasquite familiar with its appearance. Theobject I saw later was indeed not theupper stage of the Titan-II used inGemini IV. It may have been a lot ofother things, but it definitely was notthat upper stage."Keeping in mind that astronautWhite, who had spent the same periodwatching the same booster, hadalreadymisidentified it at least once at a muchcloser range, let us take another look atthe visual conditions under whichMcDivitt saw the object and consider ifhe might have made a similar mistake.The smudged windows (Whitetried to wipe them clean during hisspacewalk the day before, but onlymade them worse — "You smearedmywindshield, you dirty dog," McDivitthad joked at the time)can certainlybe ahindrance for visual identification ofobjects. Moreover, McDivitt waslooking toward an extremely intenselight source:"My small end was up above thehorizon so I couldnt see the horizon.As it came around towards the sun, Isaw the — this other satellite,but thenas the sun came in through the window Ilost it because the sun was so bright."Mission Control asked for clarification,repeating, "Roger. You were lookinginto the sun, then, when you saw it?"McDivitts reply was a single shortphrase: "Thats affirmative."Was there anything else whichmight have affected the acuity ofMcDivitts eyesight during this part ofthe flight, so that he wouldbe observingthe booster under viewing conditionssignificantly different from those of thefirst few hours of the mission? Indeedthere was. A space magazine reportedtwo items of interest: "The 100%oxygen atmosphere created some redeyes during the first day or so of theflight..." Furthermore, "Operation ofthe waste collection systems was (sic)generally satisfactory, except forleakage of urine into the cabin...8McDivitt at one point told the groundthat I thought those fumes around 24hours were bad. You ought to be uphere now! "The pure oxygen irritated theastronauts eyes after a day or so ofexposure, and a subsequentmechanical failure made it worse. Thespacecrafts breathing-oxygen tank(located in the unpressurized aft end ofthe vehicle)overheated and threatenedto pop its pressure relief valve, soMission Control engineers decided tovent the excess pressure through thecabin rather than risk the fansunreachable valve from sticking openand draining everything.This decisionwas made because the relief valvein thecabin could be manually closed by theastronauts in case of mechanicalfailure. To allow this procedure, thecabin air pressure had to rise to sixpounds per sqare inch, significantlyhigher than the normal level which hadalready proved irritating to the crewseyes. This buildup was initiated atMission Elapsed Time 28% hours —about an hour before McDivitt reportedsighting his UFO.EYESIGHTTwo months after the flight, aNASA spokesman announced thedecision to eliminate another eyeirritant. "A blotting material to absorbexcess moisture, which might havecaused the eye and nose irritation ofastronauts Edward White and JamesMcDivitt duringthe June 3 GEMINIIVflight had been eliminated from theGEMINI V spacecraft," reported theHouston Chronicle.Did a combination of these threeitems really bother McDivitt andpossibly adversely affect his eyesight?The following extremely revealingconversation took place after threedays in space (at about Mission Elapsedtime 72 hours 43minutes).Houston: Jim, the Flight Surgeonwonders if he can say anything aboutyour eyes. Have you had jny problems?Any drying or anything at all?McDivitt: Yes. Listen, Ihad a lot oftrouble with my eyes at the end of thefirst day. I wasnt sure Iwas going to beable to hack it.But they have cleared upnow...Houston: Okay, You dont haveany problem at all now with them?McDivitt: No problem at all.Though it was really bad between about18 hours and 36 hours.As these same transcripts showedearlier, the UFO was reported at 29hours 52 minutes,right in the middle ofthe period McDivitt judged his eyes"really bad." It is clear that his eyesightwas severely degraded at that time.ELAPSED TIMEDuring the thirty seconds or sothat McDivitt had the object in sight,was he staring at it trying to identify it?Evidently not, and for good reasons. Hewas instead grabbing for two differentcameras and exposing a few framesfrom each. The actual time he waswatching the object cannot have beenmore than a few seconds.One other important subjectiveimpression McDivitt got was the objectcould have been on a collision coursewith the Gemini. This conclusioncomes instinctively to a pilot when anobject maintainsa constant angle off,not changing its relative position in hisfield of view. If the object crosses thefield of view with any speed, it will notcollide.Yet McDivitt recalled: "I wasconcerned that it was going to run intome." Roach interpreted further: "Thereaction of the astronaut was that itmight be necessary to take action toavoid collision."Any pilot in the midst of apotentialmid-air collision is not going to paymuch attentionto the licensenumber ofthe incomingobject. Yet because of thehigh speeds of orbital flight, any satellitein a different orbit would have streakedby McDivitts eyes in a matter ofseconds, as was seen by other Geminiastronauts on other flights. OnGemini-II, for example, a near miss (less thanten miles) with another satellite wasseen by astronauts Conrad andGordon, who never once suspectedthat a collision was imminent duringthat very brief encounter.The conclusion is that the objectmust have been inparallel orbit with theGemini. That once again points to the(continued on page 10)
  9. 9. NEWS N VIEWSJunior HicksOn Halloween night, 1985, theCBS affiliate in Salt Lake City,lookingfor something, strange andmysteriousbesides ghosts and goblins, revisitedthe Uintah Basin for an update onUtahs UFOs. "Prime Time Access,"the magazine-format program thatfollows the six oclock news, sentproducer Alexis Fernandez and acamera crew to Roosevelt to interviewinvestigator Junior Hicks and UFOwitnesses.The KSL-TV science editor wasalso included on the show for"balance." He pointed out that twoscientists, Dr. John Derr of Golden,Colorado, and Dr. Michael Persinger ofLaurentian University, Ontario, havesuggested that at least some of the1965-71 sightings in the Basin couldhave been caused by undergroundshifts in pressure, because a clusterofmini-earthquakes seem to havecoincided with lights seen in the sky.EARTHLIGHTSDr. Brian Brady demonstrated inalaboratory at the U.S.Bureau of Minesin Denver how rocks can explodeunder pressure, giving off a flash of lightthat can be recorded on film in a darkroom. This was interesting andinformative, but as Dr. Bradyconceded, it does not explain daylightsightings.However, the opening and theclosing interviews were with,respectively, science teacher HicksandDr. Frank Salisbury,the plant biologistat Utah State University at Logan, whowrote The Utah UFO Display (DevinAdair, 1974). The book was basedprimarily on Hicks research into UFOsightings in the late sixties. He showedthe three UFO models he has builtbased on the three most commonlydescribed types seen in the area.WITHDRAWNDr. Salisbury has withdrawn fromUFO research in recent years forpersonal reasons, and in his interviewwith host Bruce Lindsay seemed to beanxious not to get too far out on a limbwhile still being perfectly honest.Asked, "Do you as a scientistbelieve in UFOs?" Salisburyfudged hisanswer. But asked whether he thoughtthe earthquake lights theory couldexplain the Utah sightings, he repliedhonestly, "They couldnt account for alarge metal object seen fifty feet away."Asked if the witnesses werecredible, he edged out on his limb bitbybit. "Credible? Whats credible? OneUFO was seen by a Mormon bishop. Ishe credible?Ifyou mean were theyseenjust by the town drunk, the answer isno. They were seen by outstandingmembers of the community."Junior Hicks called me fromRoosevelt to tell me to watch the show.I have it on video. I asked him if therehad been any recent sightings. Two, hesaid, one of a bright light over a ditchand one of a large boomerang-shapedobject crossing the sky. Until I knowmore about it I may give the bright lightto the geologists, but the boomerang?Theres still more happening in theUintah Basin than "light patternscaused by geological stress."—Mildred BieseleThe Mutual UFO Network -Central European Section (MUFON-CES) conducted their annual meetingin Stuttgart-Leonberg on October 25,26 and 27,1985. The speakers andtheirpapers were:Adolph Schneider --The VancouverIsland Photo Analysisby Dr. RichardF.Haines.Illobrand VonLudwiger- Limits ofthe Application of Hypnosis Regressionin UFO Research.E. Gerland - Sounds andSmellsinthe Surroundings of UFOs.Hans-Werner Peiniger --(continued next page)
  10. 10. NEWS, ContinuedInvestigation of UFO Reports in 1985Over Germany.Illobrand von Ludwiger -- NewPlanned Experiments in GravitationalResearch.L. Gentes --On the Possible Use of."Modern Arms" in Ancient IndiaAccording to the Mahabarata-Texts.G. Morblech -- Demonstration ofGraphic Computer Program forDisplaying Star Maps with Positions ofPlanets, Sun and Moon for each Timeand Location on Earth.We are still working on ourMUFON-CES Report No. 10 with thefollowing contributors:Dr. Herbst H. Peiniger -- UFOSightings over Germany 1984/85.Illobrand von Ludwiger --Boundaries of Science and theirHandling by Science - Journalists.K. Brauser -- New Tools to Provethe Reliability of Witnesses.Adolph Schneider -- The GreatMongurri Picture Hoax.E. Hausler -- Theory - Open DataProcessing System for UFOs.Adolph Schneider --Summaries ofPapers about Hypnosis Regressions.Illobrand von Ludwiger -- TheLimits of the Application of HypnosisRegression in UFO Research.Dr. Bick -- Hypnosis RegressionE. Bauer -- Can Hypnosis Really BeUsed to Extract Information onForgotten Experiences?A discussion about hypnosis andits value of applicationto UFO researchwill be the concluding chapter.Published in German, the book will beavailable in February 1986. MUFON-CES is composed of the German-speaking sections in Europe fromGermany, Austria andSwitzerland.-Illobrand von LudwigerPROFESSIONAL FORUMIn our effort to upgrade theMUFON UFO JOURNAL, James M.McCampbell, Director for Research,has suggested the idea of aProfessionalForum, characterized as a place foropen discussion among many people.We want to encourage our mostqualified people to contribute articles10that analyze the availabledata on UFOsand provide insights pertaining to theirprofessional specialties. Contributionsare not limited to only Consultants,because Research Specialists andmany of our members have specializedtalents/Each paper must be identifiedby providing the authors name,degrees or educational level, and theirMUFON title or occupation.Drafts of submitted papers will beforwarded for preliminary screening toMr. McCampbell. Worthy materialwould be distributed for review toappropriate MUFON consultants forcomments on the technical soundnessof the article in all fields that we cover.Suitable revisions or adjustmentswould be negotiated with the authors,whenever necessary. At this stage, Jimwould forward the manuscripts to theEditor of the Journal, Dennis Stacy,along with a record of the reviews andcomments.Publication would be at the solediscretion of the Editor based upon hisassessment of general interest, long-term value in the literature, clarity, andcompetition from other submittals.Such procedures are envisoned toapply to only a small fraction of theJournal content so as to preserve themajor portion for articles of generalinterest. Please forward all articlespertaining to the Professional Forum toMUFON at 103 Oldtowne Road,Seguin, Texas 78155-4099.—Walt AndrusRADIO NETThe MUFON Amateur Radio Netmeets every Saturday morning at 8:00AM Eastern Time on 7237 kilohertz(forty meter band with singleside bandmodulation). Three stations alternateas the net control station dependingupon the prevailing skip distance andQRM level. They are K8NQN, DavidDobbs; WA3QLW, Les Varnicle andN1JS, Joe Santangelo, the NetM a n a g e r . W A 4 R P U , GeorgeMcClelland, has also assisted in thiscapacity. UFO reports, current news onUfology, upcoming UFO meetings, andTV and radio UFO programsconstitutethe normal communications handled.The weekly average of stations"reporting in" to the net was eleven,whereas the high was 15 and the lowonly 3 when conditions were very poorand other stations interferedwith goodcommunications. 28 different stationsparticipated for 1985.This net has been meeting for over12 years on a weekly schedule. It hasbeen suggested several times that asimilar UFO net should be organized onthe west coast foramateur radiodistrict6 and 7 stations. MUFON has manymembers in these districts who areactive ham radio operators. If you areinterested in organizing a net or helpingwith same, please advise JoeSantangelo, 20 Boyce St., Reading,Massachusetts 01867 or by writing toMUFON in Seguin, Texas.McDIVITT, ContinuedTitan II second stage as an impressivecandidate. It had the right shape, theright orbit, was in the right place at theright time— and ifafter all that McDivittstill didnt recognize it at a glance, therewere ample physiological reasons andpossible precedents as well.OTHER UFOS?McDivitt saw two other "UFOs"on the flight, neither of them in any waydifferent, in appearance from ordinaryman-made satellites. At a pressconference in Houston, he describedthem this way: "We saw another one atnight. It looked like just a pinpointoflight in the sky.... And Isaw another oneover the Western Pacific again justshortly before I got into the sunlight onthe windshield... The only one I couldeven define the shape of at all was thefirst one..." These sightings are in noway remarkable, except in how theycan be rewritten (one author reportedthat the shape of McDivittsthird UFO"defied description" — a slight twistofwhat the astronauts had originallymeant!).(To be continued)
  12. 12. SIGHTING REPORTSSubject: Northwest Florida Case #5Type of Report: CE-1 with mist andodorPlace of Sighting: Ft. Walton Beach,FL, 30 block, Woodham Rd.Local Evaluation: OrdinaryunknownsightingOn 20 August 1985, Teresa Hand,a 31-year old school teacher inPensacola, FL, called to tell me about a1973 UFO sighting. She got my phonenumber from an article about MUFONin the 19 August Pensacola NewsJournal. She reported a glowing,yellow/white, oval object about the sizeof a compact car about 70 feet awaythat caused a strange odor. Duringaninterview in her home on 3 Sep 85, shemade the following statement."I was at a party with my boyfriendwhen Inoticed a very strange odor (thewindows were open). This odor wasdifferent from anything I had eversmelled, and Iwas quite frightened by it.My verbal remarks were, This doesntbelong here — it doesnt belong to ourtime. I really was frightened and begansearching the house with others for thesource."My boyfriendand Ilooked out thefront window and observed the objectmoving smoothly above the power lines(phone and 110 v.). I was awe-struckand knew immediately that I waswitnessing a UFO. Duringthe sighting Iwas completely mesmerized. I wasunable to take my eyes off the object.My fear turned to awe."As it moved from view myboyfriend and I sat motionless for aboutone minutetryingto grasp what wehadwitnessed. Reassuring each other thatwe had both witnessed the samething,we then tried to tell others. But theylaughed, so we ventured out on outown. The smell had decreased inintensity, and the object was no longer .visible. There was also a mist whichseemed to clear as the object left (firstseen through the window). This may12have been purely a weather relatedcoincidence (itwas clear and 65 to 70°Fwhen they arrived at the party)."The object was beautiful. It wasabout 11 feet long and 5 feet wide. Itmade no sound and glidedgently(about2 feet) over the power lines(inthe frontyard, north to south). At one point itpaused a few seconds and thenresumed movement." It was in viewthrough the window for about 20seconds.At the time of the sighting, Teresawas 19 years oldand single.She has hadlittle experience in chemistry classes,and has still not identified the strongodor. She had not been usingalcohol ordrugs. She said she had no particularinterest in UFOs; however, in 1971 herparents showed her about 10 distantnight lightsdancing in the sky that theycould not identify. She lost contact withthe others at the party when shemarried and moved to Pensacola, sothe other witness was not located. Thesighting location was checked, and itappears as she described it.I think this is a true account of anobject so close it could not be a plane,natural phenomenon, or hoax. Thisunknown object is considered anordinary CE-1 that caused a mist andstrange odor.-Donald WareDate: May or June 1968Time: 2:00 am MSTLocation: Interstate Highway 10 inNew Mexico (Railroad tracks ranparallel to I.H. 10 on the north side)Witnesses:(1) Revard N. VordenbaumSari Antonio, Texas(2) Diane Vordenbaum (wife)Mr. Vordenbaum had recentlybeen discharged from the U.S. MarineCorp. He and his wife, Diane, weredriving from San Clemente, Calif, toSan Antonio, Texas. Revard wasdriving a 1965 Grand Sport Buick(similar to a Buick Skylark).Diane observed a light (oval shape)traveling east parallelto the witnesses,approximately 100 yards north of therailroad tracks, and pointed it out toher husband. The witnesses weredriving 65 m.p.h.The lighted object was traveling alittle less than 65 m.p.h., since it wasgradually dropping behind. The lightwas described as "not large, but notsmall." After flying parallel and pacingtheir car for about two minutes, thelight made a distinct90 degree turn andascended straight up.It disappeared within 1 to 2seconds. Diane was leaning over theback seat to watch it ascend, since itwas no longer visible to the driverthrough the left front window.Revardvolunteered the following informationwhen he was questioned during theinterview: There were other carsproceeding east with them on I.H. 10but none passed them traveling west atthe time of the sighting.The drivers window (left front)was open, but no sound was heard. Hedoesnt remember if the radio wasturned on, but it probably was not dueto the poor reception of both AM andFM radio stations in that area and thehour (2 a.m.). The engine functionedperfectly.They stopped at the next town,checked into a motel and stayedovernight. He does not remember thename of the town. When he was asked ifthere was a mountain range or hillsalong the north side of I.H. 10 in thearea of the sightings, he said he wasunable to observe any due to thedarkness.One of the witnesses is abusinessman in San Antonio and wasexhibiting his merchandise andproducts at the Guadalupe CountyFair.(continued next page)
  13. 13. SIGHTINGS, ContinuedEvaluation: Probably a UFO butnot considered significant. The light orobject performed a maneuverinconsistent with earthly aircraft orknown objects. Two adults witnessedthe light for two minutes.-Walt AndrusDate: 1985Time: 8:00 CST (approximately)Location: 12 miles east of Beeville,Texas and 7 miles east of Chase Field(Naval Air Station) on State Highway ,202 in Refugio County.Witnesses:(1) Mrs. Linda NesloneyLuling, Texas(25 years old on D.O.S.)(2) Bessie Swinnea (mother)Beeville, Texas(48 years old on D.O.S.)Linda Nesloney and BessieSwinnea were driving west on StateHighway 202 toward Beeville, Texas(Mrs. Swinnea was the driver). Theywere about seven miles east of ChaseField N.A.S., but could not see theobstruction lights around the field (flatterrain). A rotating ball of light thatlooked like aluminum metal, having adisc or saucer shape descendeddirectly in front of their automobile.It was an extremely bright light.They were driving 55m.p.h. prior to thesighting. The object was slightlyabovethe windshield level. The diameter ofthe object was wider than the hood ofthe car and was only 12 feet ahead ofthem at the closest point.Mrs. Swinneaslowed their automobile because shethrought she might hit the object, sinceit was so close.After pacing their car for about aminute, the object ascended andpassed directly over their automobile.Both Linda and her mother turned tosee where it had gone, but didnt see itagain.Their radio was not turned on andthe engine was not affected.They heard no sound associatedwith the object. The object was abovethe headlight high beams of their car,appeared saucer-shaped and lookedlike polished aluminum. They did notreport .the sighting to the Naval AirStation, since they had an appointmentin Beeville that evening.Evaluation: Significant CEI.Estimated distance 12 feet. Two adultwitnesses. Observation time was oneminute. The classic UFO shape anddescription. (Mrs. Nesloney is a schoolteacher.)-Walt AndrusHOVERING UFOIn 1962 (or possibly 1963), LoisRueb, then about 22, was driving thefamily car southward about 10-20milessouth of Lincoln, Neb. With her wereher daughter of about 2 years and hermother. It was nearly dusk with the carlights not yet on, when they suddenlynoticed a UFO hovering a foot or twoabove the field ahead and about 50 feetto the right of the road.It was about the size of a "smallhouse," and the tall grass directlyunderneath was observed to ripple orundulate unnaturally. When almostabreast of it, it.started to rise, slowly atfirst and then faster. It then simplyvanished, too quickly to havedisappeared in the distance. She saidthis fact had bothered her ever since.She was quite.relieved to hear that aconsiderable fraction of UFOs arereported to terminate their appearancein that manner, as she had done noreading up on UFOs.LIGHTS & SOUNDSFrom her remembrance of thegrass or grain, she feels that theoccurrence was probably in late springor early summer. She said the UFO hada saucer shape and a metallicappearance, and vaguely remembersnoticing red lights around its rim. Shealso remembers a humming noiseassociated with it. The total sightinglasted only a couple of minutes. Thecars ignition was not affected by it.Both Lois and her mother werenot frightened by the object, and Loisremembers their feelings of not wantingit to leave.There were no houses nearby andno other cars around at the time, andshe knows of no other witnesses to theevent. When they reached theirfarmhouse to which they had beendriving and told Lois father, a minister,about it, he became rather upset andasked that they not talk about it toothers. So they made no report toanyone connected with investigationofUFOs until mid 1985.Only recently did Lois learn thather mother had had another UFOsighting a few years after the first one.However, her mother does not nowremember much of the details of it, andtends to get the two sightings confusedaccording to Lois.-Jim DeardorffSAY YES TO MICHIGAN17TH ANNUALUFOSYMPOSIUMJUNE 27-291986KELLOGG CENTERFORCONTINUINGEDUCATIONMICHIGAN STATEUNIVERSITYPRESENTED BYMUTUAL UFO NETWORK13
  14. 14. DELPHOS REVISITED: PART IIBy Walt AndrusINTRODUCTION, Part I of a series of articles to betitled "Delphos Revisited" waspublished in the September 1985 issue,number 209, of the MUFON UFOJOURNAL under the heading"Delphos, Kansas Case" by TedPhillips. Some very .unusualreproductive events subsequentlyoccurred to the sheep after theNovember 2, 1971 near-landing of aUFO alongside a sheep shed (barn).This i n f o r m a t i o n has beenreconstructed from records maintainedby Ronnie Johnson, age 16, of hisFuture Farmers of America (F.F.A.)sheep-raising project by the author.This material is beingpublished forthe first time so that it may become anintegral part of this case. It will also giveknowledgeable people/an opportunityto be exposed to the possible animalmedical reproductive-!effects ofexposure in close proximityto a UFO.This report may be considered asensitive and controversial subject;however, it mightalso provide essentialclues to radiation effects upon animalssuch as sheep. We hope that trainedpeople in the field of veterinarymedicine, radiology, biology, etc. areable to provide answers.BACKGROUNDRonnie Johnson (age 16), amember of the F.F.A. (Future Farmersof America), had as his project raisingsheep. This report is a follow-up on theUFO sighting report, of November 2,1971, when at approximately 7:00p.m. abrightly glowing object hovered in themuddy sheep lot while Ronnie wassecuring his sheep for the night. Afterhovering one or two feet above theground, Ronnie observed the objecttake off at an angle directly over thesheep shed alongside which,he and hisdog "Snowball" were standing. Ronniewas temporarily blinded by the bright14Ronnie Johnson and his dog Snowball at the landing site (1971)-MUFONlight for about ten minutes, whereas thedog continued to bump into objects onthe following day.This report will be confined to theunusual events surrounding thereproduction of sheep and lambs afterthe November 2, 1971 sighting. WhenLarry Moyers, Former State Director,of Akron, Ohio visited the Johnsonfamily on August 1, 1972, he was toldthat several of Ronnies six-month oldlambs had produced offspring earlierthan normal for sheep. The gestationperiod for a ewe isnormally147days, ornearly five (5)months. Since each of thepremature lambs was either stillborn ordied one day after birth,Ronniedecidedto sell all 20 of the fattened lambs in thisage bracket for slaughter.Larry Moyars reported this fact toboth Ted Phillips in Sedalia, Mo., a fewdays later and to Walt Andrus inQuincy, 111.When itwas learned that the lambsdisplaying the very unusualreproductive characteristics were soldto the Standard Stockyard in Wichita,Kansas, on August 2, 1972, thepossibility of submitting these lambs toa school of .veterinary medicine forresearch purposes was eliminated.Knowing that members of the FutureFarmers of America quite oftenmaintain very detailed accounts andrecords of their projects, Walt Andruscontacted the Durel Johnson family onSeptember 21, 1972 by telephone todetermine if Ronnie Johnson had factsand figures concerning the birth datesof the lambs whichhad produced lambsof their own.CHRONOLOGYThe major concern in this case iswhether the,UFO landing in the sheeplot on November 2, 1971 could in anyway be related to the unusual birthrecords of these lambs. After talking toDurel, Erma, and RonnieJohnson, and(continued next page)
  15. 15. DELPHOS, Continuedreferring to the records maintained byRonnie on his sheep project, thefollowing facts have been reconstruct-ed in a somewhat chronological order:(See Table) The remaining twenty-four ortwenty-three lambs were placed in aseparately fenced feed lot during theSpring of 1972 to be fattened formarket. Three of these lambs bornsometime between October 1,1971andlate in November 1971 delivered lambsof their own, the first arrivingJune 12,1972. Two of the lambs were not fullydeveloped and were stillborn. The thirdwas the size of a large cat and was fullydeveloped with respect to wool, hoofs,etc. However, this lamb died after oneday even though it was normal in everyrespect, except that it was small. TheJohnsons did not consider thisunusual, even though the mothersweighed only 50 pounds. The irregular,births occurred to only three of the 23or 24 lambs that were being fattened.So that as many facts are availableas possible, it must be explained thatthe sheep lot or enclosure used forfattening of the lambs is separated fromthe lot containing the two rams and thetwenty-two adult ewes by a doublefence separated sufficiently so that apickup truck may be driven betweenthe two fences in order to feed thesheep and lambs on either side.The adult rams were confined totheir own lot or pen and had no accessto the lambs in the adjoining fencedarea. Ronniehad no records identifyingthe number of male and female lambsthat were being "fed out." This may ormay not be pertinent, but it was of noparticular interest to Ronnie if theywere destined to become lamb chops.STILLBORNWhen the three lambs starteddelivering stillborn lambs, Mr. Johnson. thought something seriously wrongandrecommended that Ronnie sell thelambs. A disturbing fact, which mayhave been very useful, is that DurelJohnson made no effort to contact hisveterinarian, Dr. James Walker inGlasco, Kansas to seek medical helporadvice. When their dog Snowball wasRonnie, age 16, and his father, Durel Johnson, 52, with GeigerCounter used to measure for radiation (1971).-MUFONbleeding from his nose, he wasimmediately taken to Dr. Walker fortreatment.One of the pertinent questionswhich may go unanswered is whichthree lambs produced the prematurelambs. Were these three of the fivelambs born prior to November 2, 1971UFO landing or part of the twenty-sixlambs born after that date? In thisreport the investigator elected to studythe five lambs that were born beforeNovember 2,1971 for two reasons..(1) Ifradiation was responsible, newly bornlambs would have been moresusceptible to radiationexposure thanthe lambs still beingcarried by the adultewes. (2) Since the unusual factor inthis case is the reduced time for thenewly born lambs to conceive andreproduce, I haveused the oldest lambsas a conservative factor.VETS CONSULTEDDoctors of Veterinary Medicinewhen first confronted with these factsconsidered them from highlyimprobable to very unusual. However,these notes were given to severalqualified doctors for their study,research, and their individualconclusions in 1973. Dr. RalphTheobald, a Consultant to the MutualUFO Network in Radiology,indicatedthat humans and animals subjected tooverdoses of radiation could becomesterile. (At first glance, a condition indirect contrast to this may have takenplace; that of increased fertility.)Other facts gleaned from RobertSturdy, D.V.M., head of the researchlaboratory for Moorman Manufactur-ing Company in Quincy, Illinois are: (1)An adult ewe has an estrous cycle ofone year. (2)Sheep (ewes) are normallyone year old before they conceive forthe first time. (3) A fifty pound sheep isconsidered small for a mature adult. (4)Since the adult rams had no access tothe fenced area containing the lambsbeing fattened for market (spaceddouble fence), theymight be eliminatedas suspect in these unusual births. (5)Biologically, insects have demonstratedthe ability to reproduce without sexualcontact or i n t e r c o u r s e . (6)Veterinarians textbooks reject thepossibility of mammals, of the biologicallevel of sheep, conceiving through(continued next page)15
  16. 16. DELPHOS, KANSASlanding sitewind directionNORTHoriginalpositionof limb75 ft. to witnessRONNIE JOHNSON5 ft.fenceDELPHOS, Continuedother than natural or artificialinsemination.ASSUMPTIONSThe following speculative study isbased upon the following assumptions:(1) It is assumed that the five lambsborn prior to the UFO landing onNovember 2, 1971, consisted of threefemales and two males. (2) They weredirectly effected in some biological16 flight pathtree knocked to groundmanner due to the radiation or otherexposure while inclose proximity to thehovering UFO just outside of the sheepshed.Reconstructed data from RonnieJohnsons F.A.A. records and thetestimony of himself and his parents(Durel and Erma Johnson) confirm thebirth of one developed lamp thatsurvived one day, and the stillborndelivery of two underdevelopedpremature lambs. If it is also assumedby the investigator that the first lambborn on Oct. 1,1971, duringthenormallambing season was a female and thesame fifty pound lamb that deliveredthe developed lamb on June 12, 1972,the time interval is approximately 8l/2months. Since this newborn lamb (thesize of a cat) had formed hoofs and awool skin, it is conceivable that it mayhave approached the normal 147 daygestation period for sheep (4.9months). If the 4.9 month gestationperiod took place, the ewe lambconceived when she was only 3.6(continued next page)
  17. 17. — ^ ^ r i"7* li^ 1 » *-W1s *T < ^•"i*. SJ!i****r.»;J1r *,<?;«Adu/f sheep within the fenced enclosure next to their shed. Noteproximity to landing site (center) marked by tripod (1971).-MUFONDateOctober 1, 1971November 1, 1971November 2, 1971November 3, 1971and thereafterEventMature ewes started lambing (twenty-two adult ewes)Five lambs were born prior to November 2, 1971UFO landing reported in the sheep lot.The above twenty-two (22)ewes produced a total of eighteenlambs (singles) and four sets of twin lambs for a total oftwenty-six lambs (twoor three lambs died shortly afterbirth,datesunknown.)DELPHOS, Continuedmonths old. If this is true, new sheepmedical records have been established.If the spaced double fence properlyconfined the two adult rams • fromentering the fenced enclosurecontaining the lambs being raised byRonnie Johnson, the obvious questionarises: how did these three lambsbecome pregnant? Were the other twolambs born prior to November 1, 1971,males and responsible? Obviously,neither the investigator nor the Doctorsof Veterinary Medicine that heconsulted, had answers to thisseemingly impossible feat.This is the conclusion to Part II ofacontinuing series of articles titled"Delphos - Revisited" written for theMUFON UFO Journal. By publishingthis unique material exclusively in theJournal, the author/investigator, isseeking professional advice,comments, and further informationfrom readers to explain this medicalmystery associated with a UFO near-landing case that has apparentreproductive .implications. This is aclassic CEI and CEII sighting case.MUFON103 OLDTOWNE RD.SEGUIN, TX 78155LETTERSDear Editor,I find it encouraging that MUFON,a basically critical, scientificorganization, is able to considerseriously a contact case like that ofEduard Meier (L. Parish, July-August1984 issue, p. 19, and J. Deardorff,August 1985, p. 16) on the basis of thesubstantial evidence now available.I think we impoverish ourselvesneedlessly when we reject information-rich sources of potential understand-ing, where there is sufficient evidenceofgood faith and supportingdata to justifya deeper study of any particularreported extraterrestrialcontact.In Japan, Shinichi Seike, a youngspace-scientist, took seriously thebooks of George Adamski and found inthem abundant clues to a new source ofenergy, non-polluting and omnipresent.In his "Principlesof Relativity," (GravityResearch Laboratory, Uwajima, Japan,7th Edition, 1983), the author includesAdamskis familiar scout-ship photoas an illustration of a "negative energyG-field engine" embodying anadvanced technology which he"emphatically hopes will be peacefullyused by his noble brothers make our planet a paradise." Since its publication in 1969,Seikes book has become a standardtext in the nascent science of electro-gravitation. Readers are also referred toDr. Hans Niepers enormouslyimportant book, "Revolution inTechnology, Medicine and Society,"(Oldenburg, West Germany, 1985).In this country, former PresidentCarter showed that he took seriouslythe idea of a flourishing communityofspacefaring civilizations, so oftenreported as a fact in the contacteeliterature, (see, for instance, the closingpages of ElizabethKlarers "Beyond theLight Barrier," Timmons, Cape Town,S.A., 1980; German edition, 1977),where almost identicalwording is used.In his "Message to Extraterrestrials,"included on board Voyager II, Mr.Carter said: "This is a present from asmall, distant world.... We areattempting to survive our times so thatwe may live into yours. We hope someday, having solved the problems weface, to join a community of galacticcivilizations. This record representsour hope and our determination, andour good will in a vast and awesomeuniverse." (Astronomy, vol. 13, no. 9,and Associated Press release.)William T. SherwoodRochester, New York17
  18. 18. SITUATION, Continued THE NIGHT SKYheads," of overcommittingthemselves.• A sense of powerlessness, of"what difference will I make?"• Fear of failure.• Not having the skills needed inparticular volunteer jobs.• Not havingenough money to copewith the expenses connected withvolunteering.• Family resistance.• Peer pressure.• Religious customs.• Lack of rewards and recognition.Volunteer management can be anawesome experience. It isimpossible tosatisfy all the people all the time; butwith proper planning, training, andcare, the organization can moveforward. UFO organizations needleaders that recognize the importanceof the volunteers and have the skillsandmotivation to lead in this newenvironment.UFO organizations do serve animportant need. They are collectingand preserving an important part ofhistory. Without them the data wouldbe lost forever. Equally important istheir publicinterface.They are the onlysource of help for victims of UFOencounters.MUFON and CUFOS seem to bemoving in the correct direction; but1986 is a turning point. Therefore, wewill not have long to wait to observe theresults. Action and cooperation willmake the difference.MUFONAMATEURRADIONETEVERY SATURDAYMORNINGAT 0800 EST (OR DST)ON 7237 KHz S.S.B.JANUARY 1986Bright Planets (EveningSky):Jupiter, in Capricornus, can still be seen inthe SW, setting 2 hours after the sunin midmonth but only an hour after sunset by months end. The crescent moonlies 5° west of the giant world on the 12th.Bright Planets (MorningSky):Venus disappears from the morning sky, leaving the predawn hours to Marsand Saturn. At midmonth Mars, in Libra, rises in the east about 2 AM, whileSaturn, movingintoOphiuchus, rises inthe ESEabout 3:30.The crescent moonpasses first Mars on the 5th then Saturn on the 7th.Halleys Comet:Halley has undergone a surprising 2-magnitude jump in brightness and thusshould easily be observable with the naked eye after dusk during the first 2weeks of January. Even so, binoculars will present a more pleasing view. Ashort tail shoud be seen. The comet begins the month just below the Water Jarof Aquarius and 3°east ofAlphaAquarii. Itsnew projected magnitudethen mayvery well be about 3l/2 or 4. On January 1look to the SW from about 6 to 9PM(midnorthern latitudes). The fuzzy object lies 12°above Jupiter on the 12th.Bythe 15th, as the comet moves westward toward the sun, it is 4° east of BetaAquarii and visible from about 6 to 7:30. After midmonth, both increasingmoonlight and twilight will hamper viewing, and by the last week the comet willhave disappeared into the suns glare.Moon Phases:Last quarter-January 3New rnoon--January 10First quarter-January 17Full moon-January 25 CThe Stars:OThe night sky of January features some of the brightest stars ever seen fromour latitudes. Orion the Hunter now dominates the southern sky, and with itscharacterisitc hourglass shape and three belt stars ina row isone ofthe easiestconstellations to recognize. Look for the glowingOrion Nebula in the hunterssword below the belt.Surrounding Orion is a large halo of first-magnitude stars-the "Winter Circle."Proceeding clockwise from the lower left, they are brilliant Sirius, Procyon,Pollux, and Castor the Twin Stars, Capella, Aldebaran, and Rigel.Just NW of Aldebaran is the beautiful little star cluster called the Pleiades orSeven Sisters, frequently mistaken for the Little Dipper. Whether observedwith the naked eye, binoculars, or telescope, it is one of the outstanding sightsin the winter sky and remains a lifetime favorite of all amateur skygazers.18
  19. 19. MESSAGE, ContinuedDecember 20th. A positive result of thismeeting was Mrs. Wallersappointmentof John R. Clem to be the State SectionDirector for seven north centralOklahoma counties surrounding Enidwhere John resides.Mrs. Ann Druffel, Treasurer ofthe North American UFO Federation,(NAUFOF), has advised the currentstatus of what could have been ahealthy and influential asset of Ufologyon the North American Continent. Thebank account was closed out at the endof 1985 with the payment of taxes andexpenses. Mrs. Druffel summarized thetermination of NAUFOF by saying "Inspite of the fact that NAUFOF did notfulfill its goals, we fought the good fightand tried our best. Perhaps the timewas not right to achieve what we set outto do. Let us hope that in the not toodistant future, a similar effort will enjoymore success."* * *Acting Director, John B.Musgrave, will soon make a publicstatement on the Boards decision forthe future of NAUFOF. In the opinionof MUFONs International Director,Dr. Richard F. Haines, the originaldirector of NAUFOF, was one of thefew people in North America who couldhave been successful in this idealisticbut difficult endeavor. JohnSchuessler was responsible for settingup the bylaws and establishing the firstBoard of Directors. The failure ofNAUFOF was due to two majorfactors, the lack of support from APROand CUFOS, and the negativepersonalities in a few small UFOsplinter groups.The APRO Bulletin Volume 33,No. 1announced the cessation of theirbulletin. Informed sources in Tucson,Arizona have advised that Jim andCoral Lorenzcn have sold their homein Tucson and must give possession byJanuary 15, 1986. Telephone callers totheir home and office after Christmaswere advised that the phones had beendisconnected. Both Mr. and Mrs.Lorenzen will be missed on the UFOscene. Through their books, theyshared the thousands of UFO reportssubmitted to APRO from members inN o r t h a n d S o u t h A m e r i c a .Mismanagement of APRO and the poorhealth of both in the past few yearsattributed to the decline of APRO asa viableorganization and to its apparenttermination.ON SECOND TUOU6UTLETS NOT £EPoerTHIS ONE.19
  20. 20. DIRECTORS MESSAGEbyWalt AndrusThe MUFON Board of Directorshave increased t h e a n n u a lmembership/subscription dueseffective February 1, 1986 to $25.00 inthe U.S.A. and a single copy will cost$2.50. Second class mailing to allforeign countries will become $30.00 inU.S. funds, paid by International PostalMoney Order or a check writtenagainst a U.S. bank. The specialstudent membership has beeneliminated. Since the study of the UFOphenomenon is frequently a familyaffair, additional members in the samefamily,.that is,identical home addressesmay.become members for $10.00 eachwhen one member in the familysubscribes at the regular rate, providedthey so designate whensubmittingtheirdues. Please contact MUFON inSeguin for additional postage if youdesire to have your Journal sent AirMail to foreign countries.* * *Twelve monthly issues of theMUFON UFO JOURNAL of 20 pagesfor $25.00 annually is an exceptionalvalue compared to the bi-monthlyInternational UFO Reporter, the otherleading UFO magazine in the U.S.A.,which only has six issues per year for$25.00. Renewal forms will continue tobe inserted in the Journal as areminderto member/subscribers of theirmembership expiration.* * *As an international organization,MUFON is proud to announce thatMr.Kanishk Nathan has been appointedRepresentative for India. He has a economics and is a certifiedcomputer programmer. Residing inNew Delhi, Mr. Nathan is anxious toorganize MUFON UFO chapters in themajor cities of India.* * *•Francis L. Ridge, a veteran UFOinvestigator, has accepted the positionof State Director for Indiana. From1960 to 1970, he headed up NICAPIndiana Unit No. 1and has been a StateSection Director for MUFON from1972 through 1985. His UFO researchhas been concentrated upon thedetection of electromagnetic effectsthrough instrumentation and computercorrelation studies.Formerly the State Director forWest Virginia, Ted Spickler, Ed.D.has agreed to serve as theState SectionDirector for Hancock, Brooke, Ohioand Marshall counties. Dr. .Spicklerjoined MUFON in 1974 when heattended our UFO symposium inAkron, Ohio. Mrs. Norma J. White,of Hico, West Virginia, has joined theWest Virginia team headed by StateDirector, David A. Bodner. She is thenew State Section Director for Fayette,Nicholas and Greenbrier counties.Mrs. White has investigated numerousUFO cases inher area over the past fewyears. She was recommended by bothGeorge Fawcett and Ted Spickler.* * *James R. Melesciuc, StateDirector for Massachusetts, hasappointed Victor W. Zeller, a collegeprofessor in astronomy and physics tobe the State Section Director forBristolCounty. Mr. Zeller also serves as aResearch Specialist in Physics. WilsonA. Powell, M.D. of Chevy Chase,Maryland, volunteered to be aConsultant in Dermatology. Dr. Powelljoined MUFON in 1980.Robert Mack Dreyfus ofHingham, Massachusetts wasapproved as a Research Specialist inHypnotherapy by James R. Melesciuc.He obtained his B.A. from SyracuseUniversity in 1968 and has since takentwo years of psychology courses atBoston University, i n c l u d i n ghypnotherapy. He hopes to utilizehypnotic regression as a research toolin the study of the UFO phenomenon.Another new Research Specialist inPilot Reports is Bernard Haugen,M.A., a retired scientist and educator inOxford, North Carolina. Mr. Haugenjoined MUFON in 1982.Gary Urban, J.D., an AttorneyatLaw in Houston, Texas, volunteeredhis services to MUFON as a LegalAdviser, and Field InvestigatorTraineeduring a recent visit to theheadquarters office in Seguin.* * *Beginning with the MUFON 1986UFO. Symposium, to be held atMichigan State University, a new awardwill be given annual to the individualwho has made the greatestcontributionto the UFO subject in the past calendaryear. The award may be givenfor anyofthe following categories: research,investigations, public education. Thenominees for,the 1986 award listedalphabetically are:-Marge Christen-sen, Barry Greenwood, BuddHopkins, Bruce Maccabee andDanWright. A ballot will be enclosed with afuture issue of the MUFON UFOJournal, whereby each subscriber mayvote for his/her choice for this honor.The theme for the MUFON 1986UFO Symposium at Michigan StateUniversity on June 27, 28 and 29, 1986is "UFOs: Beyond the Mainstream ofScience." Speakers committed areJohn F. Schuessler, M.S.; BruceMaccabee, Ph.D.; Harley Rutledge,Ph.D.; Michael Swords, Ph.D.;Richard F. Haines, Ph.D.; David M.Jacobs, Ph.D.; Robert Bletchman,J.D.; and Alan C. Holt, M.S. MargeChristensen will be the keynotespeaker.* * *Mrs. Jean Waller, State Directorfor Oklahoma, conducted a meetingofthe members in the Oklahoma Cityarea on December 19,1985 inNorman,Okla. Those attending in addition toMrs. Waller, were John Clem,Simone Mendez (Staff Artist), andWalt and Jeanne Andrus. Walt wasthe guest on a radio talk show onstation KTOK in Oklahoma City,moderated by host Bob Riggins on(continued on page 19)