Transcript of "Mufon ufo journal 1986 2. february"
MUFON UFOJOURNALNUMBER 214 FEBRUARY 1986Founded 1967.OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF JtMAFOJVV MUTUAL UFO NETWORK, INC..PIONEER 10 PLAQUE$2.50
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 EditorPAUL CERNYPromotion/PublicityMARGE CHRISTENSENPublic RelationsREV. BARRY DOWNINGReligion and UFOsLUCIUS PARISHBooks/Periodicals/HistoryROSETTA HOLMESPromotion/PublicityT. SCOTT CHAINGREG LONGStaff WriterJAMES LEMINGSIMONE MENDE2Staff 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:$25.00 per year in the U.S.A.; $30.00foreign in U.S. funds. Copyright1986by 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.FROMTHE EDITORNine times out of ten, even 99 out of 100, the Journals graphiccapabilities, allow us to pass along to.the viewer a reasonablefacsimile of the picturewere trying to portray. This issue, however,is an exception, inthat we have a remarkable cqlorphotograph, thehues and subtlety ofwhich can hardly be translated intobruteblack& white. Irefer, of course, to the photograph taken byGeorge Lutz,assistant director of the PennsylvaniaAssociation for the Study ofthe Unexplained(PASU),which appears on page 10 of this issue.Aside from its inherent beauty, however, its also an importantpiece of ufological evidence in a negative sort of way. Because itshows what kind of photographicevidence can be produced from aman-made phenomenon, given advance knowledge and time forpreparation. Unfortunately, UFOs fall into neither category; in fact,they have an almost perverse proclivity for not posing for pictures.Nonetheless, some startling photographicrecords have been madeover the years. Were proud to share one ofthese occasions with ourreaders, despite the fact that the subject source is decidedlyidentified.In this issueMcDIVITT SIGHTING:PART II, by James Obcrg 3UFOS: WHAT WENT WRONG?by All Aabutaha 5GLOWING CLOUDS COURTESY NASA, by Stan Gordon 10TRIANGULAR UFO SIGHTED, by John Melesciuc 11IN OTHERS WORDS, by Lucius Parish 12NEWSNVIEWS 13PIONEER 10 PLAQUE 14A CHILDHOOD ABDUCTION? by Budd Hopkins 15LETTERS : 17THE NIGHT SKY, by Walter Webb 18DIRECTORS MESSAGE, by Walt Andrus 20COVER Courtesy NASAThe 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 positionof MUFON.Opinionsof contributorsare their own, and do not necessarily reflect those ofthe editor, the staff, orMUFON.Articles may be forwardeddirectly to MUFON. Responses to published articlesmaybe ina Letter to the Editor (up to about 400words) or ina short article(up to about2,000 words). Thereafter, the "50% rule" is applied: the article author may reply butwill be allowed half the wordage used in the response; the responder may answer theauthor but will be allowed half the wordage used in me 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 ofthe articleisgiven credit,and thestatement "Copyright 1986 by the Mutual UFO Network,103 Oldtowne Rd.,Seguin,Texas 78155" is included.
McDIVITT SIGHTING: PART IIBy James ObergThe McDivitt UFO photo — the"tadpole" — had a life entirely, apartfrom the actual McDivitt UFO report.Immediately after the end of themission, when,pressed by newsmen forthe photo whichMcDivitt had reportedtaken of the object, officials at thePublic , Affairs Office at .NASAheadquarters went through the just-received flight film and selected shotswhich they thought might have beenthe object. This was long beforeMcDivitt had a chance, to review thefilm itself.NASA PHOTOThe original NASA caption on thephoto (PAD ft 65-H-1013) was asfollows: "This photograph...shows thesatellite McDivitt observed on the 20threvolution of his four-day space flight....He said the Gemini-4 spacecraft wasturning and the sun comingacross thewindow when he filmed the object."Later, after consultation with theastronaut, NASA press officialschanged the caption to read:"Astronaut James M c D i v i t tphotographed thissun flare throughthespacecraft window.... McDivittexplained later after the flight that thesun was.coming across the window asthe spacecraft rolled, the sun raysstruck a metal bolt, causing the flares inthe camera lens.", This is hardly a useful photo toprint. It is the kind that. amateurphotographers prefer to throw out. Butunder pressure from reporters ..whowanted to see "McDivitts UFO," itwasthe .best that NASAHQ could come upwith.With just the photo and theirimaginations, many UFO writers soonintegrated the blob into .the "astronautUFO mythology." For .example,George Fawcett reported that "JimMcDivitt reported he photographedseveral strange objects, including...anegg-shaped UFO with some sort ofexhaust."Once the Condon committee hadendorsed McDivittsUFO in 1969, thereputation of the photograph grew.Often reprinted in UFO books andmagazines, it .became an importantpiece of UFO evidence. In 1975, anofficial of NICAP in Washington, D.C.selected it as one of the four best UFOphotographs ever made. His choicewas based on a penciled note on theback of their print, which reported thatMcDivitt had told someone that thisshowed his UFO. Nobody at NICAPcould remember when or where.McDivitt, elsewhere, consistenlyclaimsjust the opposite: the photo wasselected before he could inspect thefilm, and it does not show his UFO.MISSING?There have been somecontroversies and insinuations overwhat became of the shots McDivittreally had made. SomeUFO promotershave implied — even stated explicityly— that the actual films were squirreledaway by NASA and that McDivitt wasnever allowed to see them. Thats howauthor Tony Scaduto told the story inPenthouse in October, 1978: "Ininterviews McDivitt makes it clear thatwhat NASA showed him and releasedto the public were not the photos hetook; the acutal photos have beensquirreled away."But McDivitt himself disagrees: "Inthose days we didnt number the filmmagazines, we couldntgo back and saywhich pack of film it was on. But Ilooked througheach and everyfilm thatwe had and itjust didnt appear there atall. .But there are a lot of photographsthat are blank or overexposed orunderexposed."Elsewhere, the . astronaut hadworded it this way:"I reviewed the filmmyself a week or so later, frame byframe, and there was never anythingthat I saw in the pictures that lookedlike what I saw in space. The cameraswere not, set properly or the lightingwasnt,right or something."The two most outspokenadvocates of the "true UFO" status forthe McDivitt UFO are James Harder,an engineering professor at theUniversity of California at Berkley andthe director of research for APRO, andhis young associate Brad Sparks. Themain pillar of their argument seems tobe studies of the "tadpole" films and anuncritical acceptance of the Condonreports conclusions.At a UFO conference inChicagoinJune 1977,Harder showed slides of the"tadpole" and criticized the officialexplanation: "One of my misguidedcritics (this author!) claimed. thatMcDivitt...caught a reflection of somespecial bolt."In a Playboy interview thefollowing January, he was quoted assaying that "that sort of explanationreally shows how bankrupt the criticsarguments can get."Harder and Sparks had difficultygetting their own arguments straight:Sparks, in a special privately-circulatedreport (Refuting the Skeptics, 1977),wrote that the bolt "would have to beflat and mirror-like"; Harder, speakingat the Chicago UFO conference,reported that "the bolt had to have aconvex reflecting surface of a veryspecial sort." And neither UFO expertaddressed the fact that McDivitthimself — not the UFO skeptics andcritics — had given precisely that "boltreflection" explanationfor the "tadpolephotograph."Harder seemed to have paid littleattention to McDivitts testimonyanyhow, since he said that"he reportedwhat he saw as beinga cylinder with anantenna protruding, and it was clear itwas close by...and closingin."Inreality,McDivitt never said "antenna," and(continued next page)
McDIVITT, Continuedexplicitly he couldnt tell how far awayitwas, and only ventured that he thoughtit "might" have been closing. Hardersjustification for ignoring McDivittstestimony is that "McDivittsconsciousness was somehow changedand his perceptions were not what hethought they were, which is not after allso uncommon with ordinary UFOwitnesses." He elaborated withPlayboy: "The UFO influencedMcDivitts perceptions," Hardersuggested as one possibility.On the other issues, Harder andSparks also seemed to have confusedtheir arguments. • Sparks happilyaccepted the sunglare and eye irritationfactors which reducd McDivitts visualacuity: "These poor viewing conditionsreduce the importance of McDivittsvisual observations and post-flightrecognition almost to irrelevance —that leaves the film." In contrast,Harder attributed the perceptualgaptothe UFO alone: "Eye irritation?Nonsense," he told Playboy.Although the full chronolgoy of theGemini-4 "tadpole photograph" clearlyshows that there has never really beenany evidence to tie the tadpole image toMcDivitts actual UFO encounter —and in fact just the opposite is true —Harder and Sparks have accepted thatconnection as implicit and unarguableand have run with it from that point.Sparks described the UFO as "abright white ellipse with a curved bluishstreamer doing a wavelike motion inspace," which was "in sharp- focus ohthe film." Hence, wrote Sparks, "theGemini-4 space UFO remainsunexplained."Harder was even more confused— and confusing:"The object (sic) itselfshows...to be an orangish oval, aboutthree by five degrees in apparent size;the Titan booster stage would have hadto be within 100 yards...to haveappeared that big." But McDivittrefuted Harder: the tadpole neverappeared to be that size because theastronaut never watched it — it had noconnection with the real objectMcDivitt watched.Harder was undaunted anddescribed motion in the image: "Thatbluish flare...actually has a turbulanceto it," he told the Chicago convention,"as you could expect of a turbulent orplasma jet... This is one of the greatunexplained pictures of the spaceprogram."DISTANCE & SIZEHarder rejected the boosterexplanation: "To have mistaken hisown booster at a hundred yards issomething I just cant believe," he toldthe convention; to the Playboyinterviewer, he asserted that such asuggestion was "an insult to McDivittsintelligence and professionalcompetence." But in order to concludethis, he fallaciously required thebooster to be at the same range it wouldhave had to have been at in order tomatch the angular size of the tadpole,and McDivitt never said the UFO hadeven come near to that angularsize.Infact, McDivitts testimonysuggests thatthe angularsize of his UFO was at leastten times smaller, on the order of atenth of a degree or less — which couldhave been the booster about ten mi/esaway, far enough so as to be easilyunrecognizable.So Harders confusion led to aglaring fallacy in estimatingthe UFOsrange- and the consequent ability ofMcDivitt to recognize it. But thats notthe way Sparks described thecontroversy of my own publishedaccounts of astronaut UFO sightings:"Oberg...has intentionally perpetratedan anti-UFO fraud on the unsuspectingpublic," he complained in 1977.But who is really perpetuating afraud? Harder made this kind ofstatement in Playboy: "Movies of aUFO were taken by astronaut JamesMcDivitt. Yet his evidence, as far as weknow, was never taken seriouslybyanygovernment agency and isdismissed byprofessional skeptics."This claim is manifestly false: theMcDivitt movies do not show a UFO,and McDivitt himself is the first to sayhe doesnt think his "beercan" waslikely to be any alien spaceship orsimilarly extraordinary phenomenon.To be fair, Harder and Sparks arefar from worst offenders (they did,however, pass up the offer to reviewand comment on this chapter).Sensational UFO literature is full oftales loosely based on the McDivittcase, portraying both astronautswatching in fascination as a rocket shipcircles them and then fades away intothin air. In one account, the UFO hadjust kidnapped an Air Force cargoplane over the Bermuda Triangle.Another distorted version of the storyhas been immortalized in widelydistributed comic strip form.M e a n w h i l e , t h e CondonCommittee investigator, Dr. FranklinRoach, has explained — incorrespondence with me in 1977 —what he really meant bythe provocativephrase "a challenge to the analyst."Hewrote, "I meant that someone withmore knowledge or patience than I hadshould analyze what the report meant.My feeling was that the analyst wouldprobably come up with a very naturalexplanation... Congratulations to youfor following up and making the obviousidentification as the Gemini-4 boosterrocket."So Roach had never intended toendorse the unsolvable nature of theGemini-4 UFO encounter in any case,and his letter clearly stated that he feltthe McDivitt case was closed with thepublication of my preliminaryconclusions in 1976 (even though theconclusions had been a little hard onRoach himself for not following up leadsthat in hindsight were obvious).BEERCANIs any conclusion possible after somany years, when much supportingdocumentation has been lost and theeyewitness testimony has becomefossilized by countless repetitions?The principal legof the Roach/Condonendorsement — that there werent anycandidate objects within a thousandmiles — has been demolished by therecognized presence of the beercan-shaped Titan-II stage.McDivitt, more than a decade afterthe fact, refused to believe he couldhave misidentified that object — butboth his degraded eyesight anddifferent viewing angle at the timeof thesighting eliminate any reliability fromthat opinion — and years of UFOresearch have taught us the surprising(continued on page 17)
UFOS: WHAT WENT WRONG?By AN AbutahaAli Abutaha is a seniorconsultant in telecommunicationsand computers who resides inVirginia.Editors note: UFOs, wesometimes forget, are still acontroversial subject, and nowhereis this more evident than in the areaoftheir possible origins. It is one thing tosay they are extraterrestrial, forexample, quite another to pinpointtheir exact source, whether it be aremote planet light-years removed, orsomewhere much closer to home. Inthe following article Mr. Abutahapresents his own approach to theproblem and arrives at a surprisingsolution. His conclusion is his own andis not to be taken as that of the MutualUFO Network or the editor of theJournal. If his paper inspires others topropose alternative theories or todisprove his own, however,constructive criticism in the field, webelieve, will have been served. Wewelcome both articles and letters ofcomments in response.The Unidentified Flying Object(UFO) phenomenon actually refers toseveral phenomena,one of which is thepossible "intelligent" origin of theobjects. The latter is the mostsignificant aspect of the phenomenon, iftrue. Despite numerous and seriousattempts to decipher the UFO engimain the last four decades, a genuinescientific solution has not beenachieved. This leads to the logicalconclusion that either(a) the intelligentcontent of the phenomenon does notexist, or (b) the serious scientificattempts, so f a r , have beenunsuccessful. It is the authorsopinionthat the latter was the case. Theproblem seems to lie in the scientifictechniques used by the seriousresearchers to solve the UFOenigma,and not in the scientific method.In this article, the specifics of whatwent wrong are presented anddiscussed. It will be shown how theapplication of systematic andestablished scientific techniques canlead to a genuine scientific solution.SCIENTIFIC METHODAlmost every serious work on theUFO phenomenon deals with theso-called modern scientific method.There is no universally accepteddefinition for the method. However,there is agreement concerningitsbasicelements, eloquently stated byImmanuel Kant as, "Concepts withoutpercepts are empty, percepts withoutconcepts are blind," or simply:hypotheses and theories must besupported by observations and tests.Which comes first is not important,butthe two ingredientsmust be present toaccount for a genuine scientificdiscovery.The UFO phenomenon producedthousands of reports by people whoperceived and reported sightings ofseemingly unnatural phenomena. The"descriptions" ofthe objects as givenbythe witnesses, and only thosedescriptions, represent the input, thetrue scientific input, to the problemwhich cries out for a solution. Thereports ofthe witnesses represent a setof observations, or percepts, to whichthe human mind must find equal andvalid theories, or concepts. Beyond thisshort treatise, there is no need forfurther discussion of the modernscientific method. The problembecomes one of "technique" to satisfythe "method," and not the methoditself.CONDON REPORTPerhaps, the most prominentscientific study of the subject was thatconducted at the University ofColorado in the 1960s, "The ScientificStudy of the Unidentified FlyingObjects," and which was sponsored bythe U.S.Air Force as part of ProjectBlue Book. The Colorado group, ledby a prominent twentieth-centuryscientist, set out as their straw manhypothesis the simple equation:UFOs = ETIswhere ETIs are the popularextraterrestrial intelligences. Theintelligent content of some of theUFOs is obvious to the casual andserious reviewer of the reports.Whether the objectiveof the ColoradoStudy was to refute or to prove thestraw man hypothesis was not asimportant as the clear recognition that"UFOspETIs" was consistent with thescientific method. "UFOs" were thepercepts, and "ETIs" the conceptswhich were to be developed by thehuman mind.The Colorado group refuted thesimple equation, and both theirconclusion and methodology weresanctioned by the NationalAcademyofSciences. This, among other things,ledto the terminationof Project Blue Bookin 1969. There were other seriousscientific efforts, by individuals andgroups from public and privateorganizations but these did not achieveacceptable and s a t i s f a c t o r yexplanation of the possible intelligentcontent of some of the UFOs.If some of the reported objectswere the product of nonterrestrialintelligences, then two possibilitiesarise:1. The state-of-knowledge is notsufficiently advanced for theh u m a n mind to developsatisfactory concepts, equivalentto the reported percepts, orobservations, or2. Something went wrong with thescientific efforts so far.(continued next page)
UFOS WRONG, ContinuedIn despair, some scientists concludedthat 1 above was the case. The nextsections will show that the fault was inthe scientific techniques which wereused to solve the problem; admittedly, acomplex problem.THE PITFALLAlmost from the outset of themodern UFO era, the scientificcommunity was divided into threegroups: two minorities,the proponentsand the opponents, and a majority, theindifferent. After sifting through manyreports, the proponents arrived at theconclusion that intelligent content inthe UFO phenomenon is a possibility. Ifnot, they insisted that, at the least,there is a phenomenon which must bedealt, with seriously and scientifically.The opponents, on the other hand,asserted that the mysterious objectsare not spacecraft from anywhere, andthat such possibilityexisted only in theminds of some of the witnesses and theproponents, who were dubbed thebelievers. Judging by the prevailingattitude of the majority, the indifferentgroup, it appears that the opponentsviewpoint prevailed. . The burden ofproof, and rightfully so, should havealways been. on the proponents, andnot on the opponents. Yet both groupstried to solve the problem.Somehow and somewhere,. theidentification of that one genuine case,the clincher, was made a scientificrequirement. In a scientific debate onthe subject in 1969, and in the writingsof some serious scientists andindividuals throughout the modernhistory of the phenomenon, theproponents were invited to select theone case which they agreed to containthe proof of extraterrestrial vehicles.Even prizes were offered to anyonewho could produce the case. That wasthe pitfall.SINGLE CASEBy imposing the single caserequirement, scientists and sciencewere no longer needed. One case doesnot establish a trend, and studyingtrends in observed phenomena is theessence of the business of science.When an alienspacecraft lands on MainStreet, USA, the layman will,not needthe scientists to tell him so; anymorethan he, or she, would need thescientists to explain to them that theEarth is spherical by using photographsof the planet taken from orbit andclearly showing its spherical shape.Rather than conduct systematic.scientific study of the phenomenon, therace for that one case was on. A racethat required no genuine scientificcredentials.While1the serious scientific effortsto solve the UFO enigma should havebeen directed at establishing trends inthe phenomenon, the trend has been"a case by case" study,as witnessed by .the few serious studies of the subject.And while the specific trend to beestablished should have been that ofthe nature, or the essence, of theobjects as found in the descriptions ofthe witnesses, the trend has been tostudy and .classify the witnesses, theirbackground, occupation, and otherpersonal data; or the location, time andfrequency of the sightings, and so on.This is not to minimize the importanceof such encyclopedic tabulations in theoverall scheme of things. But, thesolution does not lie herein. Thesetabulations can only serve to establishthe credibility, or lack of it, of thesightings. Once the credibility of asighting is established, multiplewitnesses and other criteria, then the"descriptions" which were given forthat one case can be considered to beadata point. All such data points canthen be combined to form a data set.The data set can then be processedusing established and systematictechniques in the hope of finding agenuine scientific solution.I must add here that there is nohope in finding a genuine scientificsolution in the pursuit of a governmentcover-up. For if one hopes to find.thatone case, the clincher, in the classifiedfiles, then, as I said before, the scientistis not needed. If,on the other hand, theintent were to add more cases to theexisting ones in the hope ofconductingbetter statistical analysis, then, basedon past experience,the effort will not beproductive. There are more than 50,000cases in the public domain. Some saymore than 100,000 cases. How manymore cases are needed to conduct theanalysis? .STONES & FISHThe most often repeated historicincident in UFO literature is that of thestones that fell from the sky. Would ithave made any difference whether 100or 10,000 stones fell from the sky? Wasthe answer to be found in thecharacteristics of the witnesses, or thecontinent on whichthe stones fell? One. can fill an encyclopedia with the varieddetails of the witnesses, and the size,color, number, composition, angle offall,and other details about the stones.The statement of the scientific problemto be solved was simple: Stones fallingfrom the sky is a perception(observed phenomena) to which thehuman mind had to find explanations(hypotheses or theories), i.e., thedisintegration of comets. Of course,there were reports of fish falling fromthe sky, a different phenomenon, and aclear distinction had to be madebetween the nature of the "stones" andthat of the "fish." . •.The proponents use the "stones"incident, and rightfully so, to cautionthe opponents and, more importantly,the indifferent majority, to take heedfrom past experience. They should alsotake heed, for itseems thatthe problemwith the UFO phenomenon lies in theabundance, and not scarcity, of cases.Ido.not mean to belittle the effort tocollect and classify information, or toseek more cases. Nor do I mean tominimize the importance of the otherpossible natural causes of thephenomenon and their study. But, inthe event that there is a solution to theintelligent aspect of the UFOphenomenon, then there are enoughcases, or data points, to work withalready.ANALYSISModern scientific techniques andinstruments have made theachievement of a high degree ofaccuracy possible. This isparticularlytrue when dealing with quantitative(continued next page)
UFOS WRONG, Continueddata. The UFO problem is highlyempirical. The input consists mainly ofdescriptions given by human witnesses,of varied background and ability toarticulate their experience. • . • . •The descriptions .represent1thetrue scientific input to the problem, andonly qualitative analysis can beconducted. Such analysis should leadus to a normal trend, a firstapproximation solution. Inthismanner,the effects of bad data points can beminimized, or hopefully eliminated.This is the best scientific approach asfurther analyses, iterations, can onlylead us closer to the correct answer.Until such analysis is performed and aregion of gravitation, or a normal trend,for the data points isfound, any attemptto deal with a singledata point (sighting)would not preclude the possibility that abad data point,a wild point, is selected.The objective of our analysis, then,will be to find if a correlation existsbetween the data points (thesightings)and some other variable, which mayassist us in establishing a reasonablehypothesis concerning the. mysteriousobjects. Let us attempt a systematicscientific analysis of the phenomenon.HUMAN EYEEach sightingwill be considered adata point. Allthe sightings combine toform a data set which shall be thesubject of this analysis. To avoidcluttering of the data, and in order tofacilitate a solution,one, and only one,common characteristic of the objectsshall be selected for the analysis. Whichcharacteristic, of the many, shall beselect? We should like to select avariable which is collected with areasonable accuracy. The validity ofscientific and technicaldata depends onthe accuracy andi calibration:, ofmeasuring instruments and the visualacuity of the observer. The majorsource of information about the UFOshas been the human eye. There wereother characteristics perceived by theother senses, but these senses are notas accurately calibrated as the visionsense.The reported characteristics of theobjects are many, including shape andsize, phenomenal speeds andmaneuverability, instantaneousappearance and disappearance, andmany others. Before we study themanner in which they perform thereported superior -technological feats,we should like to know somethingabout their nature, which may lead usto identifying them and their home. Thenature of the objects can be found intheir appearance to the human eyewhich is, scientifically speaking,reasonably calibrated as discussednext.The human eye sees only anarrowband in the electromagnetic spectrum,the visible spectrum. The longerwavelengths of the infrared spectrumare invisible to us, though these areperceived by our skin as heat. Also, theshorter wavelengths of ultravioletradiation are not seen by the humaneye.Vision requires the eye, aconscious observer, and a source oflight. The reflection of light fromsurrounding objects makes themperceptible to the human eye. Thesnake, on the other hand, sees arabbitin total darkness. What the snake seesis the "heat" of the rabbits body. Thebody heat of the rabbit makes it appearto, the snake to be bright and self-luminous. This is possible because thesnakes thermal eyes see inthe infraredspectrum. The snake, knowingthat itisperceiving in the infrared region anddistinguishing the appearance of therabbit from surrounding cooler objects,can then make the judgement that therabbit is a warm-blooded animal. Thebee, on the other hand, knowing thatitseyes perceive ultraviolet radiation andseeing this radiation in certainparts ofaplant, make a quick judgement,and fliesdirectly to the source of,nectar. Theappearance of an object depends notonly on its nature, but also on themethod of observation. (.Since we are interested in thenature of the UFOs, we know ourmethod of observation, and we havenumerous visual descriptions of theobjects, then the variableweshall selectfor the analysiswill be the "appearance"of the objects to the human eye.LIGHT SOURCEIn the visible spectrum, theappearance of an object depends on itstemperature. The metallic appearanceof metals and alloys, for example, iseasily recognized in the light, butunseen in total darkness. When thetemperature of a , metal sample isincreased, a point is reached when asource of light, the reflection of light, isnot needed forthe human eye to see thesample as it. becomes visible in totaldarkness. Here, the sample appears tous to glow, and can.be described as self-luminous, and fire-like; as seen in heateror kitchen stove elements. Eventually,the glow itself becomes a source of lightmaking other objects around itperceptible to the human eye. Theglowing color of the sample will undergochanges as temperature is increased,glowing red, then yellow, and then blue.The color of glow has even beencalibrated to tell us the approximatetemperature of a hot object by merelylooking at it.So far, we said.that a sighting isconsidered a data point and we selectedthe visual appearance of the objects asthe variable for our analysis. But, howmany sightings shall we select for theanalysis, and which ones shall we use?With the exception of the most obviousmisperceptions and hoaxes, a truescientific analysis must includeallof thesightings reported over a period oftime.Ancient and historic cases must beavoided as the timeelement would haverendered these obsolete. The modernsightings, say, those made in the lastforty years, can be included,as the levelof confjdence in these should be higher.To discard any sighting will beinterpreted as tampering with, orfudging, data — scientificallyunacceptable. It then seems that anyscientist who may. be interested intrying out his or her luck with the UFOengima must cope with tens ofthousands of cases. But, that need notbe the case.The serious investigators of theUFO phenomenon, pros and cons,have culled through the tens ofthousands of sightings which havebeen reported in the last four decades.They eliminated obvious mispercept-ions and misidentifications of natural or(continued next page)
UFOS WRONG, Continuedman-made objects, single-witnesscases, hoaxes, and others. In theprocess, they must have eliminatedgood data points; but this was donerandomly. Whether the good sightings,or the unsolved cases, are 20%, 10%,5%, or even one percent of the totalsightings, this is sufficient to conductreasonable statistical and scientific!analysis.DATA INPUTWhen the descriptions of theobjects are entered into a computerprogram as input to the problem, theresulting data set is the mostunscientific looking data set that ascientist has ever seen. The data setdoes .not lend itself to standardanalytical, empirical, or finite-elementt e c h n i q u e s . Even g r a p h i c a lpresentation appears impossible. Yet,as the appearance of the engimaticobjects may betray their nature, let usreview some of the words selected bythe witnesses to describe the objects.The descriptions are in the actualwords of the witnesses and shouldrepresent the true scientific input to theproblem. I must emphasize that therewere cases in which the objectsappeared to ,the witnesses to be ofmetallic or other identifiable character,but these were fewer indeed. The mostcommon description of the objects, asseen by the human eye, is given inTable-1, The UFOs Data Set.This is but a small fraction of what Ihave in my computer. Many of thewords seen in the Table were repeatedover and over by different witnesses, ordifferent background, in differentlocations, and at different times in thelast forty years. Again,there weremanycases where the objects were describedas metallic in appearance. Theserepresent but a small fraction of thetotal number of sightings.Today, great emphasis isplaced onquantitative analyses and theiraccuracy. But, how do we handle theUFOs data set quantitatively? Whatcan we calculatefrom it?There are novalues to deal with and no acceptablescales to use. We cannot use the least-squares method nor can we develop8TABLE 1. THE UFOS DATA SETShinyBlindingRed flameVery brightGeneral glowSelf-luminousAs a welders torchTerrific bright lightAs a hot electric stoveBrilliant blueGlowing orange •A light so powerfulBright orange objectBright flashIntense blinking lightsAmber-coloredRising on flamesBall of fireBright blue-white lightBlinding bluish lightVery luminousLuminous ballVery brilliant circleDazzling sphereDisk of fantastic brillianceA ball of intensely white lightHalo around the edgesA sort of luminous tomatoVery bright shining diskIlluminating the whole townExtraordinary source of lightA luminousplateColor of a red-hot ironGlowing with iridescent glowgeneral polynomialsfrom the raw data.We cannot calculate a standarddeviation, a variance, a probable error,a confidence limit, or any othermeaningful statisticalvalue.The prevailing scientific view todayis that genuine scientific analysis mustbe supported by exact calculations;else, the analysis is considerednonscientific. This is akin to sayingthatthe separation of water into hydrogenand oxygen was not science, but thatthe quantitative analysis of the ratioofthe two elements was; or that theCopernican heliocentric hypothesiswas not science, but that the Keplerianorbital equations were; and so on.Almost allgenuine scientific discoveriesbegin with a qualitative solution whichcan then be refined to. the highestaccuracy desirable, or attainable withHuge fiery-orange sphereReddish yellow lightGreat amber-rust lightDiffused and whitish in colorBrilliant gold deviceA phosphorescent golden sphereOdd tongues of flameSilhouetted by a bluish glowGlare of an oxy-acetylene torchReal hot lookingRed glowing ballWith color of fireBlazing with lightIt light up the pastureHuge lightLight of varying intensityBrilliantly glowingBig bright lightThe source was extremely intenseVery, very brightFiery round deviceA saucer-shaped glowA diffuse luminous objectGlowing in silenceAbnormal blinding flashVery luminouscylindrical objectVery brilliant circleFantastic brillianceSupernatural brillianceBrightly shining diskFiery spheresSelf-luminous sphereSelf-luminous objectA red sun-like lightexisting instruments. Any solutionthatwe can obtain from the UFOs Data Set,and irrespective of the level ofaccuracy, is better than no solution atall. No computer, short of a welldeveloped Artificial Intelligence (AI)computer, can deduce the desiredsolution from the data set. Even whenAI is fully developed, it may not becapable of decipheringthe enigma. Themind which is already an advanced AIsystem, can be, and could have been,applied to the problem on hand.A NORMAL TRENDCan we make a predictionconcerning a normal trend, or a regionof gravitation, for the appearance of the(continued next page)
UFOS WRONG, ContinuedUFOS? It seems that the answer is yes.We set out to see if a correlationcan be established between thesightings and the appearance of theobjects to the human eye. A carefulstudy of modern cases shows a clearnormal distribution in the descriptionofthe objects. The partial UFOs data setlisted in Table 1 is given to show wherethe area of intense population of thedata exists. Titanium-, aluminum-, andstainless steel-like unidentified flyingobjects constitute a sparsely populatedarea of the data set.The normal trend ofthe data isthatthe objects appear to the human eye,and within the visible spectrum, to be"glowing, self-luminous, and fire-like."Itshould be noted that in most cases thewhole object appeared to glow and tobe on fire, and not only someappendage associated with thrust orpower. The whole object appearedbrilliant and fire-like, not unlike theappearance of the rabbit to the snakeseyes. This is the essence of the natureof the mysterious UFOs.If we ad to this the claim of manywitnesses that the object appeared tobe under superior intelligent control,then we havea well defined scientific, ortechnical, problem to solve. How canwe mentally explain the intelligentlycontrolled "glowing, self-luminous, andfire-like" objects? The glow of theobjects and our method of observationshould immediately tell us that theobjects could not come from Earth-likep l a n e t s , that they are notextraterrestrials, and that they are,very likely, nonterrestrials.Ifany of ourown spacecraft appear "glowing, self-l u m i n p u s , and f i r e - l i k e " tononterrestrial beings, we canimmediately deduce that they do notsee in the visible spectrum like we do.So, before we begin speculationsabout parallel worlds and universes,faster-than-the-speed-of-light travel,and other possibilities in search ofEarth-like planets in our and othergalaxies; and before we search for anti-matter existences, psychologicalstimuli, and others, let us first reflect onthe normal trend of the UFOs data setand see ifit tells us somethingabout theobjects.LIFE SUPPORTThe most important element inspace travel is the life support system.In our case, the spacecraft and thespace suit. The life support systemmust contain and maintain theenvironment and provisions which arenecessary for the preservation andmaintenance of life and equipment. Ifthe reported "glowing, self-luminous,and fire-like" objects were the productof some nonterrestrial intelligence,which isconductingspace travel,then alife support system is as necessary forthem as ours is for us. Their designersmust contain and maintain theenvironment and provisions which arenecessary for the preservation andmaintenance of "their" life and "their"equipment.If they normally exist in sub-zerotemperature, then that temperaturemust be maintained throughout theirtrip. And if they normaly exist at atemperature of 3,000°, or even 6,000°,then that temperature must becontained and maintained in their lifesupport systems to preserve theirbodies and their equipment. Inthe caseof unmanned spacecraft, thetemperature constraints may berelaxed; but there is a limit to allowabletemperature variations.HIGH TEMPERATURESWe should not be so inflexible asnot to allow nonterrestrial intelligencesthe ability to contain and maintain suchtemepratures for long durations. We,perhaps infants in the vast universe,have been able tocontain temperaturesin the order of millions of degrees,though forshort durations;but we hopeto maintain and control fusion-generated temperatures in theforeseeable future. The same field thatwe use to isolate ourselves and oursurroundings from the fusion infernomay, at some point in the future, beused in reverse; namely, to isolate usand our equipment on the inside of atoroidal structure from externallyimposed harsh conditions. Such areversed tokamak may even be used totravel into the Sun and back safely. Ifthe protective shield of such a devicewere to fail while in the vicinity of theSun, then everything inside ourenclosure would melt, boil, evaporate,and disintegrate in a split secondleaving no "nuts and bolts" to tell of themission.Just as the snake can reason, fromthe glowing appearance of the rabbitand the infrared method of observation,the natureofitsprey, so shall we be ableto reason from the "glowing, self-luminous, and fire-like" appearance ofthe UFOs and our visible spectrummethod of observation the nature of theobjects.It is reasonable and logical toconclude from the appearance of theobjects, as described in the data setabove, that their temperature is 2,000°,5,000°, or an even highervalue,and thatliving organisms and equipment inthese enclosures must also be at saidtemperature. Whether developed inaccordance with the theory ofevolution, or created, these livingbeings wouldhave evolved inthe highertemperatures. The m i n i m u mtemperatures measured for the Sun arein the range of 4,000°K to 6,000°K, andthis should not go unnoticed.Such statements run contrary tothe prevailing common sense of ourtime. Here, we must be cautious, for thebuilt-in bias in our collective commonsense can have more influence on ourjudgement than our knowledge. This isthe very same common senseremember, which refused for centuriesto accept that the Sun isat the center ofthe solar system, that the Earth isspherical inshape, and so on with manyother phenomena.But, how? How can living beingsexist at such high temperatures? Canwe use the laws of science to show ifsuch a fantastic possibility is possible?Is it possible that the designers,builders, and operators of themysterious objects comefrom the Sun?The Sun reached a thermo-dynamic state of equilibrium muchsooner than did Earth. If we canconceive a mental picture of a"Darwinian Pond" on the Sun, wheresimple living organisms could haveformed and evolved to the complexlevel seen here on Earth,then the sameprocesses which we use to explain how(continued on page 18)
GLOWING CLOUDS COURTESY NASABy Stan GordonStan Gordon is MUFQNsState Director forPennsylvania. Helives in Greensburg and is co-director of PASU, the PennsylvaniaAssociation for the Study of theUnexplained.•It. was about 5:30 a.m.,, on themorning of November 20, 1985when. the PASU, Pa. Hotline began to, ring.iThe first calls from observers gavedescriptions of an object that initiallysounded like a brilliant meteor. But asreports began to come in from manysections of the state, it was soonapparent that . something besidesmeteors was involved. Truckers, police.officers and other early morningtravelers described seeing towards theSoutheast part of the sky a pinpointoflight that gradually grew in size until itwas about 5 times the diameter of thefull moon. This bright circle of lightexpanded and was described by someviewers as like a silent explosion oflightin the sky. This light dissipated and left asomewhat fan-shaped, greenish cloud.SECOND CLOUDIn a short time, a secondappearance of a similar light explosionoccurred in the same part of the sky,and produced a similarcloud below thefirst one.These brilliant, green cloudformations remained visible in manyareas for over half an hour.The bizarre appearance of theselights created fear in some of the earlyrisers. Reports of newspaper deliveryboys asking to come into local homes,some thinking we were under nuclearattack, were not uncommon from .information we received. Police radiocommunications systems buzzed withreports. PASU, recognized as astatewide clearinghouse for UFOreports, was deluged with inquiriesfrom the public as well as lawenforcement agencies and news-reporters.10NASAS CHEMICAL CLOUDSROCKET LAUNCHAfter interviewing a number of theobservers, we felt what had occurredwas explainable and was likelyconnected with the space program.PASU first contacted the FAA,whichhad no . i n f o r m a t i o n on thephenomenon. A callwas then placed toNORAD in Cheyenne Mountain,Colorado. They asked me to call backafter the information was cleared.I then dialed up the NASA facilityat Wallops Island, VA., a good sourcefor IFO reports. It was here we foundthe source ofsaid UFO reports. At 5:19a.m., NASA launched from this facilitya three-stage, sub-orbital soundingrocket known as a Taurus NikeTomahawk.At an altitude of 230 miles therocket released a compound oftitanium, boron, and barium.And at analtitude of 325 miles, a compound oftitanium, boron arid lithium wasreleased. The various chemicals— Photograph by George Lutzcreated the strange, colored clouds.To complicate matters, duringthetime of the rocket launch it seems quitelikely that some people in variouslocations were also observing brightmeteors, some of which fit thedescription of a Bolide, which is muchbrighter than the normally observedmeteor. The Leonid annual meteorshower had jusr recently peaked, andPASU had been receivingother brightfireball sightings during the precedingcouple of weeks.A careful investigation of UFOincidents normally results in a naturalor scientifically explainable occurrence.There is no doubt, though, that thereare strange UFO encounters that arenot easily identifiable, and that is whatmakes UFOlogy so interesting.MUFON103 OLDTOWNE RD.SEGUIN, TX 78155
TRIANGULAR UFO SIGHTEDBy John MelesciucOne of the interesting aspects ofthis case is the credibility of Ana andPer Hoel. Due to their professions, bothare trained to observe and memorizedetail. Ana is a professional artist andPer an industrial designer. At 1815hours on 26 November 1984 whiledinner was being cooked, Ana and Perwere out for a refreshing walkaccompanied by Patrick, their IrishSetter. It was a routine they enjoyed forfive years. The nightwas clear, 57°, andthe water of MagnoliaBay was calm.YELLOW WEDGEOn entering Shore Road, Ana andPer noticed a wedge of yellow lightbeing aimed at the surfaceofthe ocean.Ana thought it must be a reflection ofmoonlight which proved negative forthe moon was more southerly. Theyalso thought it might have been a CoastGuard rescue operation but there wereno helicopter sounds. This investigatorverified through the Gloucester CoastGuard that there was no resuceoperation in progress. Also theelevation of the light was too high for aships marking light.Patrick is a very impatient dog. IfAna and Per decide to interrupt thewalk to converse or to observe a snowyowl, the dog will bark continuallyuntil the walk is resumed. It must bemade clear that there was no animalreaction to the UFO on Patricks part.So while the Hoels were observing thelight, Patrick started one of his barkingfits and it was quite annoying.After six minutes of continuousbarking, Ana jokingly said to Patrick, "Ifyou dont stop barkingImgoingto havethis light beam you up." Upon makingthis statement, two red lights, one onthe left and one on the right beganblinking alternately.It was now obviousto the Hoels that the object was movingtowards the shore very slowly and thatthe initial light was at the front pointofthe object.TRIANGULAR UFO SEEN BYANA AND PER HOELAs it neared the shore the redlights stopped blinking and they nownoticed four white lights lined upbetween the two red lights at the rearofthe triangle. They now estimated theobject to be 125feet inaltitude and theyboth could see a canopy-type structureunderneath. It was the same type ofbright yellow light shiningthrough thisframed transparent structure as thefront light. The triangle itself seemed tobe of non-reflective material with theouter edge darker.At this point, a low droning soundwhich was very consistent could beheard. She said the sound was asmuffled as her dryer. It passed overtrees and there was no airdisplacement.town, a five-story condominium. TheHoels now were running after theobject which was about a quarter mileaway. As it approached the roof of thecondominium, they could judge thescale of the object — 150 ft. across therear section and 130 ft. from front pointto rear.VANISHESTURNSThe object now made a 90-degreeturn toward the center of Magnolia. Itwas heading towardthe highestpoint inWhen the object was about 100feet from the rooftop, it vanished. Thishalted Ana and Per in their tracks. Anaasked Per if they were both "flippingout." It must be made clear that thewhole object, not just the lights,vanished for approximately onem i n u t e . Upon r e a c h i n g t h econdominium, they spotted theformation of lights through trees. Thisformation of lights, four white lightsbetween two red, was heading back out(continued on page 16)11
In Others WordsBy Lucius ParishThe NATIONAL ENQUIRERSDecember 3 issue reports on the 1948Directorate of Intelligence report on1947-48 UFO sightings which has beendeclassified and released through theFreedom of Information Act. Thisreport has been reprinted in theJOURNAL.The "Anti-Matter/UFO Update"column in the January issue of OMNIdeals with the CNES/GEPAN UFOinvestigative agencies in France. Some1600 UFO reports have been loggedwith GEPAN during the past elevenyears, 38% of which remainunexplained.A little-known UFO (or "mysteryaeroplane") wave during the months ofJanuary-February 1916 is detailed byMichael T. Shoemaker in theDecember issue of FATE. The eventswere reported from the states ofPennsylvania, Delaware and NewJersey, with additional reports comingfrom Canada. The January issue ofFATE has an article by Dr. BruceMaccabee on three large and briliantUFOs seen in Connecticut onDecember 4, 1981.CORRECTIONA correction and apology to thosewho may have ordered any of ZechariaSitchins three books from the AvonBooks address given in a previouscolumn. This was the editorial addressand, although orders to this addressshould have been forwarded to the mailorder division, this does slow up theprocess. For those who may wantcopies of THE 12TH PLANET ($4.50),THE STAIRWAY TO HEAVEN ($3.95)or THE WARS OF GODS AND MEN($3.95), the correct address is: AvonBooks - Dept. BP - Box 767, Route 2 -Dresden, TN 38225. Please include$1.00 per book for postage &handling;allow 6-8 weeks for delivery.Okay, here we go again! For thosewho are still with us after all the furorabout the Eduard ("Billy") Meier case from Switzerland, we can report thattwo excellent videotapes are nowavailable which detail the originalinvestigators findings. The materialwas gathered by a Japanese film crewheaded by Jun-Ichi Yaoi, which filmed adocumentary for Nippon TV in Japan.Lee Elders has edited the originaltapesinto three videocassettes. The first two,BEAMSHIP: THE MOVIE FOOTAGEand BEAMSHIP: THE METAL, arepriced at $59.95 each. As the titlessuggest, these tapes deal with,respectively, all the 8mm motionpicture footage shot by Meier, plus ananalysis of the footage by the Japanesefilm crew who shot the documentary,and the metal samples allegedlygiventoMeier by extraterrestrials.The films are extremely interestingand the analysis certainly suggests thatsomething out of the ordinary wastaking place when the films were shot— something not easily explained bymodels, superimposition of images orany of the other "answers" provided bythe critics. The metal samples areexamined by Dr. Marcel Vogel, achemist for IBM. It would be helpful tohave a background in chemistry and/ormetallurgy while viewing this tape, butthe end result is that, once again, thereare some decided anomalies whichsuggest that the metal samples wereproduced by a very advancedtechnology.The third tape in the series,BEAMSHIP: THE MEIER CHRONI-CLES, will be available later in the year.As I say, ifyou havent already made upyour mind on this case, I can highlyrecommend the videotapes. They areavailabe in either VHS or Beta format(please be sure to specify which whenordering) from: Genesis II Publishing,Inc. - P.O. Drawer JJ -Munds Park, AZ86017.SOURCE BOOKThe latest volume in the Catalog ofAnomalies series from William R.Corliss Sourcebook Project is THEMOON AND THE PLANETS,detailing astronomical anomalies withinour solar system. Anything andeverything of an unusual nature whichhas been reported on or near the Moonand the nineplanets isexamined in thisvolume. Two later volumes, THE SUNAND SOLAR SYSTEM DEBRISand STARS, GALAXIES, ANDCOSMOLOGY, will: cover otherastronomical subjects. As with all otherpublications of the SourcebookProject, this latest one is replete withallmanner of data evaluation scales,indexes, extensive lists of references,illustrations, etc. Pyramids on Mars,kinked rings of Saturn, transient lightson the Moon — all these subjects andmany more are covered.I have only one "gripe" concerningthe evaluations (tentative though theymay be) of anomalies; at no time is itseriously considered that some ofthesephenomena might be due to the actionsof "other intelligences." Consideringsome of the events which have beenreported, I fail to see how this verydefinite possibility can be ignored. Still,THE MOON AND THE PLANETSis an outstanding contribution to theliterature of anomalies and I can onlygive it my unqualified recommendation.Copies are available at $18.95 from:The Sourcebook Project -P.O.Box 107- Glen Arm, Maryland 21057.MEIER CASEMUFON103 OLDTOWNE RD.SEGUIN, TX 7815512
NEWSNVIEWSThis report is a reconstructionfrom events reported by TV stationKVOA in Tucson, during their newsprogram on October 7, 1985, and fromarticles which appeared in the ArizonaDaily Star and theP/ioenix Gazette, onWednesday, October 9, 1985.A local air-traffic controller and apolice helicopterpilot tracked about 60unidentified aircraft over TucsonMonday morningOctober 7th at 12:15a.m. Tucson International Airportradar picked up the aircraft southwestof the city, near Ryan Field and lostthem as they flew northeasterlythrough Redington Pass, said PatrickOSullivan, Air Traffic Manager for theFederal Aviation Administration.The air traffic controller on dutythat night reported to OSullivan thatthey monitored the objects forabout 90minutes as 15 groups of four or sixobjects each were tracked on radartraveling at about 250 knots or 288mph.RADAR TARGETSThe controller asked a policehelicopter pilot to try to identify theobjects, but hewas unableto do so. Sgt.Doug Russell of the Tucson PoliceDepartment said the pilot told himwhathappened. "The tower called and saidthey had some targets but notransponders." Transponders areradar receivers that automaticallyidentify individual aircraft for air trafficcontrollers. "If you dont turn yourtransponder on, all it shows on radar isa blip," Russell said.The helicopter pilot tried to followthe objects and did see some lights, butwas unable to catch up with them,Russell said. The pilot was at about4,000 feet altitude and estimated thatthe lights were at about 7,000 feet.David-Monthan Air Force Base,only four miles away from TucsonInternational Airport, stops flying jetsby 10:30 p.m. said Lt. Julie Fortenberry,base spokesman. No military flightswere known to be inthe area, she said.Authorities are not investigatingthe occurrence because "if they wereairplanes, they didnt break any laws,"OSullivan said. Its not unusual seeingairplanes going across the scope whodont talk to us," he added. (AssociateEditors note: The speed of250knots or288 m.p.h. is within the range of someprivate planes, however it is unlikelythat sixty such aircraft would be flyingin groups over Tucson after midnightwith none of their transponders turnedon.)EDITORIALThe Arizona Daily Star (Tucson)in an article on Sunday, October 13,1985, asked some provocativequestions. "Somebody knows whythose 60 flying machines washed overTucson in waves in the wee hours onMonday."But why does no one seemespecially curious to find out? Theuniform shrug of shoulders from the AirForce, the Federal AviationAdministration — even from Jim andCoral Lorenzen at Aerial PhenomenaResearch Organization — reads likethe opening sceneofaSteven Spielbergscript."Officialdom agrees that therewere no reports of U.S. military activityin the area at that hour.The idea thatitcould have been foreign aircraft isdismissed out of hand. Foreign aircraftwould have been detected somewhereelse in the nation before being spottedover Tucson. Surely they would havebeen picked up by scanners at theNorth American Air DefenseCommand inColorado Springs, as theyheaded northeast from Tucson. But nota peep of explanation from NORADwas forthcoming, either."The F.F.A. says that aircraftgoing over a city at 7,000feet or so donthave to check in with that citys air-traffic controllers. Davis-MonthanAirForce Base says that military planesthat pass more than five miles from amilitary field dont have to check ineither."But 60 of them? Flying in"waves"? Somebody knows."MUFON is indebted to severalmembers in the Tucson area whosubmitted newspaper clippings andtelephoned, including Allen Benz inTucson and Thomas R. Taylor inTempe.Coral Lorenzen, when beinginterviewed on television, requestedthat all witnesses should call APRO.She said that she fielded about 20 callsfrom people who claimed to havesighted the aircraft Monday, but shesaid she unplugged her telephone about2 a.m. to get some sleep. (Consideringthe present status of APRO, theseindividual reports to Coral may neversee the "light of day."Associate Editorscomment.)-Walt Andrus" 1 7 T H ANNUALUFOSYMPOSIUMJUNE 27-29. 1986PRESENTED BYMUTUAL UFO NETWORKKELLOGG CENTERFOR CONTINUINGEDUCATIONMICHIGAN STATEUNIVERSITY13
PERSPECTIVESBy Marge ChristerisenAs we begin a new year, itisa goodoccasion to take sortie time to put thelast, .year, into.perspective and to takemeasures to ensureprogess inthe yearahead. It may.,be said that 1985 will beremembered as the year that the firstNational UFO Information Week wasobserved, and the year that MUFONbegan to, really function as a mutualnetwork .with a greater degree oforganization than in prior years.,We will also remember 1985as theyear that the Field Investigators Examwas instituted and standards .for ourfield investigators began to becometightened,. and to reflect greaterprofessionalism and compentency onour parts. In 1985 we also saw asignificant document release from AirForce Intelligence; we witnessed a 5-part documentary on an importantUFO case on Cable NewsNetwork, aswell as a fairly good UFO documentaryon HBO.Also, during National UFOInformation Week, we saw severalmedia articles and programs portrayingthe UFO subject seriously .andobjectively and we witnessed somegenuine dedication to the UFO subjectby many..of our State Directors andmembers who gave generously of.themselves both in effort and funds aswell as time in order to promote publiceducation. ,/ , . • . • , .; DECLINEAs 1985 came to a conclusion,however, we witnessed some less thancredible media articles and a generaldecline, in" high caliber publicinformation on the UFO subjectthroughout the country. Why thisoccurred after such a successful mediablitz as we achieved • last August, isdifficult to comprehend.The only sensible, constructiveavenue open to serious UFOlogists atthis time is to turn this situation aroundentirely.Let 1986be the year UFOlogistscome of age! Let it be the year that agenuine concentrated effort be madeby everyone who calls himself/herself aserious UFOlogists to work selflesslytoward a solution to this vital enigma,and to cooperate with other serious,UFOlogists toward the end. Let .it bethe year that we are all able, to riseabove petty egotistical needs,and bothindividual and organization rivalries andbattles. Let,it be the year that we give.the skeptics a real run for their moneyand stop .assisting thenrby giving themthings to attack us for. " -.Let 1986. (be the year ofPROFESSIONALISM IN UFOLOGY.. It is time .we stopped being our own.worst enemies and started tobecome. our own best supporters. Dpesnt thatmake a great deal more sense?Only wecan make it happen.Let our slogan for the year be:BECOME A PART OF THESOLUTION, NOT A PART OF THEPROBLEM.Marge Christensen is a highschool English teacher andMUFONs Director of PublicRelations. She was the driving forcebehind the first National UFOInformation Week and hasfrequently contributed articles tothe Journal.NASANational Aeronautics andSpaceAdministration2525th Anniversary1958-1983Pioneer 10 PlaqueThe Pioneer 10spacecraft, destinedto bethe first man-made object toescape ibursolar system, carries this plaque. It is designed to showscientifically educated inhabitants of some other star system—whomightintercept it/millions of years from now—when Pioneer waslaunched, from where, and by what kind of beings. The design isengraved intoa gold-anodized aluminum plate, 152by 229 millimeters(6 by9 inches), attached to the spacecrafts antenna support strutsina position to help shield it from erosion by interstellar dust.At the far right, the bracketing bars(1) showthe height ofthewomancompared to the spacecraft.The figure indicated by (2) representsareverse inthedirection of spin of the electron in a hydrogen atom. Thistransition puts out a characteristic radio wave 21 cm long, so we areindicating that 21 cm is our base length. The horizontal and verticalticks (3) are a representation of the number 8 in binary form. There-fore, the woman is 8 x 21 cm = 168cm. or about 55" tall. The humanfigures represent thetype of creature thatcreated Pioneer.The manshand is raised in a gesture of good will.The radial pattern (4) will help other scientists locate our solarsystem inthegalaxy.The solid barsindicate distance, with the horizon-tal bar (5), denoting the distance from the Sun to the galactic center.The shorter solid bars represent directions and distances to variouspulsars from our Sun, and the ticks following them are the periods ofthe pulsars inbinary form. Pulsars are knownto be slowingdown andifthe rate of slowing isconstant, an other-world scientist should be able14to roughly deduce the time Pioneer was launched. Thus, we haveplaced ourselves approximately in both space and time.The drawingat the bottom (6) indicates our.solar system.The ticks accompanyingeach planet are the relativedistance in binary form of that planet to theSun. Pioneers trajectory is shown as starting from the third planet,Earth. ,. , ..O • - ^
A CHILDHOOD ABDUCTION ?By Budd HopkinsBudd Hopkins is a New York-based artist who joined MUFON in1975. He specializes in abductioncases and is the author of "MissingTime."In March of 1984 I receieved, inresponse to my book Missing Time, aletter from a woman I shall callMargaret Bruning.Margaret, or "Meg"as she prefers, is a registered nurseliving in central Ohio, and her letterdetailed several "childhood dreams" —her phrase — which paralleled UFOabduction accounts she had read aboutin my book. She hope that by relatingthese "nightmares and dreams" shemight "finally lay .the ghosts of. (her)childhood to rest." She would like toend her "embarrassing habit ofbecoming hysterical whenever aninanimate object vibrates or hums."Megs letter was precise, neatly-written but rather sadly desperate, anot unexpected emotion consideringwhat she has gone through. The firstexperience she related was a "dream"that occurred in 1952 or 53 when shewas about five or six years old.DREAM"Everyone — my parents andsister — are asleep. I cant sleepbecause of the humming. It seems tocome from the back yard. I get out ofbed, walk into the kitchenand look outthe back screen door. There were threemen on the back porch. As with mostdreams the rest of it doesnt makemuch sense. Somehow the three menwere suddenly in the kitchen. Theywere standing around me, pinning medown on the kitchen table — literally.They pushed a huge needle into mystomach. The pain was terrible. Theoverhead kitchen light (which was offwhen Iwalkedintothe kitchen) seemedbigger — brighter — blinding. I triedscreaming — couldnt move. When Iawoke in the morning, my shortyBUDD HOPKINS AT ST. LOUIS SYMPOSIUMpajamas had dried blood all over them.Id had a pip of a nosebleed inmy sleep— it had clotted in my braids and a bithad pooled in my ears."SCARSThere were other, similar"dreams" and memories included inMegs letter. She also mentioned thatshe has two odd scars — "Right temple1-2" long, right forearm 4-5" long, forwhich neither my parents nor Ihave any— Dennis Stacyexplanation. Ivenever been cut therethat we can recall. Weve always calledit stigmata."Meg stated rather firmly that shedid not want an investigatorto contacther; she merely wanted to put herrecollections down on paper in hopesthat they would somehow beneutralized by the telling. I was aware,of course, of the implicationsof Megsdescriptions, but I was also aware that(continued next page)15
ABDUCTION, Continueddespite her disclaimers she seemed tobe asking for some kind of help.Iwroteto her, inquiring further about herchildhood "dream."I wanted to know if, the nextmorning, she had told her mother abouther nightmare. She could notremember, but she recalled that hermother "was awakened by the soundofmy vomiting. Not only had the bloodpooled and clotted in my ears, hair,face, and on my pajamas, but I hadswallowed a great amount in mysleep."She went on: "The night followingthe nightmare I woke mother and ourneighbors across the street screamingfor help in my sleep. All I could recallwas a man in black and pain."MEN IN BLACKI had inquired about the three menin the first "dream." "I do remember theappearance of the men in black. Theywere dressed in similar black uniformsthat creaked like leather or plasticwiththeir body movements. I neverunderstood why their clothing madesounds but their footsteps didnt."One of them wore a scarf. He wasthe one that toldme to be still —you arefine — be still. He had a crease wherehis mouth should have been — thecrease didnt move when he talked tome. He had dark slanted eyes thatreminded me of a shark. Ihad a book onsea creatures. His eyes were like thesharks in the book. All of them hadgrayish white skin — odd shaped heads(egg-like). They had hands but thefingers didnt seem right.They were thesize of grown-ups — big. Im not sure1ifthe hummingsound came from them orthe air. It made my skin crawl and feelnumb."Meg and I exchanged letters and Iphoned her on several occasions. Shesteadfastly maintained that theserecollections — and other, equallydisturbing memories which have yet tobe explored — were nothingmore than"the unpleasant phantasms of a veryillchild" or perhaps the result of "masshallucination," however that conceptmight apply.The one indisputablefact was thatsomething deeply traumatic had16occurred, and more than once. Megalways worked the night shift, sheexplained, because of her terror offalling to sleep after dark. Evenduringdaylight hours she said she sometimes"awakened screaming, gasping for airor unable to move a muscle — yetunable to remember what terrified me."MEETINGIn the fall of 1985 I was invited toDenison University in Granville, Ohio,as a visiting artist. I wrote to Meg, wholived not far away, and proposed ameeting. In late October she came toDenison with a woman friend and wespent the morning chatting about herrecollections, and about the idea ofusing hypnosis to re-experience her."dreams." She agreed, finally, that itwould be better to explorethe past thannever to know what had, and what hadnot, actually happened to her. Itold hermy belief that knowing forcertain mightlessen the power of her fear. The^edgeless unknown always seems to befar more terrifying than the finiteknown.The hypnotic session took placethe following morninginmy room at theUniversity guest house. It wasremarkable not only for its content butalso for the vivid way Meg reenactedher experience. Everything she saidand did was exactlyappropriate for thefive- or six-year-oldchild she had beenat the time. She had no idea, forexample, of UFOs. Her descriptionswere limited by the knowledge andvocabulary possessed by an intelligentfive-year-old girl living in central Ohioin1952.For the hypnosis I used the deviceof an imginary movie theater, a placewhere Meg and I and a friend of herscould sit in comfort and safety to view afilm made years before of a strangeexperience she had had as a child. Itisamethod that helps to keep traumaticexperiences at some distance, andoffers the subject control over theimages: the "film," I explained, canemploy closeups, long shots, it can bedimmed, shut off altogether, and so on.I set the scene and Meg describedher house, her bedroom, and theimageof her sister and herself asleep. Shementioned the fact that her little sisterwas shoring as usual.Meg: Theres a noise. Its like ahumming. (Pause) Somebodys talking.Doesnt sound like Daddy. So how doyou know my name? Ill make sure thedoors locked. (Pause) IfI get up Mom11be mad. Uh oh. (Pause) Howd they dothat? A lock doesnt do that. Notwithout somebody touching it. (Pause,and then, nervously) Can you turn itoff?(To be continued)TRIANGULAR, Continuedto MagnoliaBay.Again Ana and Per raced towardsthe triangle trying desperately to catchup. On reachingShore Road they nownoticed the object drifting slowly and ata lower altitude toward Kettle Islandabout one mile out. At this time thetriangle seemed to come to rest abovethe water with the lights becoming dimthen bright.Ana and Per observed thisaction for 40 minutes and believed theobject was still there when they left tocheck on their now burnt dinner.As reported earlier, there were noCoast Guard operations at this time.This was verified by calls made to bothBoston and Gloucester Coast GuardStations. This investigator alsocontacted Hanscom Air Force Base,Otis Air Force Base and Camp CurtisGuild whichverified no unusual militarymaneuvers. Subsequent checks weremade at Beverly, Lawrence andNewburyport Airports for advertising1and ultralight aircraft. This also provednegative.Due to media and press coverageon this sighting, three more witnesseswere contacted but were reluctant tobe interviewedfor fear of ridicule. Thisinvestigator feels itshould be noted thatPer Hoel went through a period ofridicule from his co-workers. Anewspaper headline was lateredstating, "Drunk couple see UFO," andfound in his office. Also, a model of asaucer dangling from a hat was pinnedto a bulletin board. Despite these twodisturbing instances, Ana and Per stillfelt this experience should be madeknown to the public.
LETTERSDear Editor,When I recently told a respectedjudge, who is a personal friend, of myinterest in the UFO phenomenon, hesurprised me with his encouragementand support. In this violent, unstableworld threatened with nuclearholocaust, he regarded the pursuit of ahigher order of intelligence suggestedby the UFO phenomenon as more thanworth the effect.When individuals approach theUFO phenomenon with an almostreligious devotion and fervor, weshould be reminded of how vital theirefforts are for overcoming theresistance and suppression fromelements in society that consider asfalse any phenomenon that cannot beexplained by presently acceptedprinciples and points of view. Thevanguard of any successful movementtoward change requires such bold andforceful individuals for its success.We have here a phenomenonsupported by substantial empiricalevidence. Even the integration of suchknowledge with current scientific viewscan be exceedingly painful. There isample evidence of this phenomenon inthe context of ancient religiousexperience that often has been treatedlightly in the modern world. We needenlightened integration. Old concepts,worn threadbare over the ages, will beinstilled with new life and realism.Suchintegration with science and religioncould result in new, uplifting, andconstructive understanding with greatheuristic value in social, scientific, andreligious endeavors.Much of societys present outlookwill need penetrating reconstruction.Established and institutionalized ideascannot be expected to yield politely tothe advance of new and revolutionaryknowledge. Individualsand institutionscan, in fact, be expected to erectroadblocks and throw more than afewobstacles in the way. But the time willcome. The foundations are beinglaid. Avirtual renaissance in the understand-ing of our world and universe ispossible. Our present anthropocentricthinking will be shattered as it isimmeasurably broadened to includeunderstandings that can change humanrelationships and result in anunprecedented harmony andreverence for life.With every new discovery, newvistas of exploration are revealed. Wein the UFO movement have a foot ineach of two worlds — the world of thepresent and the world yet to come. Ourefforts are relevant, and there is roomfor everybody. Science, religion,philosophy, politics, education, socialservice, business, industry, allmodesofproductivity, and every honestobserver are included.Open-minded honesty, becominglike a little child to learn at the feet ofNature, and courage are required.Insight and discovery then come like agift. We must work hard, think clearly,and build upon the efforts andcontributions of those who alreadyhave given so much dedication, skill,time, and penetrating thought to thisperplexing and promising phenom-enon. New discoveries will come. Somewill amaze us at their simplicity andpower. Thinking in new and untriedways is a virtue.We must pursue itwithdiligence, pride, and circumspection.We will not be disappointed.L. BechtelMaineMcDIVITT, Continuedlesson that pilots are, in truth, amongthe poorest observers of UFOsbecause of theirinstinctive(andentirelyproper!) pattern of perceiving visualstimuli primarily in terms of threats totheir own vehicles.Lastly, this coincidence must beconsidered: that Gemini-4 was the onlyone of ten manned flights of that seriesin which a rendezvous was attempted(and nearly accomplished) with abeercan-shaped target; and thatGemini-4 was the only flight on which acrewman reported seeing anyunidentified beercan-shaped object.If the case cannot be closed forcertain, it at least cannot any longerstand as a particularly valuablepiece ofUFO evidence. It shows how thetapestry of modern spaceflight legendrycan grow to cosmic proportions evenwhen woven only of individual prosaicstrands.All it has really proved is howreadily some UFO researchers canadopt — and adapt — useful material to"prove" whatever they originallyintended to prove, evidencenotwithstanding, and how certain aUFO witness (of impeccable technicalcredentials and personal integrity) canbe of a distanct, drifting memory.The Gemini-4 case may beevidence for many things, but UFOsare not one of them.UFO NEWSCL1PPINGSERVICEThe UFO NEWSCLIPPING SERVICEwill keep you informed of all the latestUnited States and World-Wide UFOactivity, as it happens!Our service wasstarted in 1969, at which time wecontracted with a reputableinternational newspaper-clippingbureau to obtain for us, those hard tofind UFO reports (i.e., little knownphotographic cases, close encounterand landing reports, occupant cases)and all other UFO reports, many ofwhich are carriedonly in small town orforeign newspapers."Our UFO Newsclipping Serviceissues are 20-page monthly reports,reproduced by photo-offset,containing the latest United States andCanadian UFO newsclippings, withbur foreign section carrying the latestBritish, Australian, New Zealand andother foreign press reports. Alsoincluded is a 3-5 page section of"Fortean" clippings (i.e. Bigfoot andother "monster" reports). Let us keepyou informed of the latest happeningsin the UFO and Fortean fields."For subscription information andsample pages from our service, writetoday to:UFO NEWSCLIPPINGSERVICERoute 1 — Box 220Plumerville, Arkansas 72127117
UFOS VVRQNQ, Continued. i ., * ,"• " • " " - " • • • • , , , , - T "Homo, t sapiens evolved ;frorri the•simplest organisms on our planet can.;be ;used torshow how intelligent and.technologically advanced Sob sapiensare also.possible. •• ; , ,• .; , , . ;, Considering the estimated ages of,1;the Sun and the .Earth, Solo sapienswould have started on the ladder ofevolution sooner than .did.[., Homosapiens. If Solpr sapiens embarked ipn1space , explorations, then, isqlar•aerospace > engineers must .havedesigned,life support systems capableof -containing and maintaining theirenvironment: high temperatures/ high:pressures, str.ong magnetic fields and;Other variable which are necessary tokeep the.molecules of their astronautsand their equipment intact-. • :. The temperature of the objects,and, .even themselves, makes themappear to bur eyes, within the visible.spectrum, to be "glowing, self-luminous, and fire-like," just as our,analysis has shown to be the case with,the mysterious objects. . ; ,; . "It is: possible that we are dealingwith intelligencethat is vastly superior lv Y - with intelligence that is vastly superior; to ourpwn and only some eight-lightrminutes away from Earth? Suchpossibility explainsmanydilemmas andparadoxes associated with the UFOphenomenon:(To be continued)MUFONAMATEURRADIONETEVERY SATURDAYMORNINGAT 0800 EST (OR DST)ON 7237 KHzSSBTHE NIGHT SKYV •• ; By,Walter N. Webb;MUFON Astronomy Consultant .FEBRUARY 1986Bright Planets (Evening Sky); , : , :Venus emerges in the evening twilight,late in the month, setting in the;westthree-quarters of an hour after the sun. , . . . . .,••,, Jupiter, inCapricornus,isverylowinthe WSWearly inthemonth and setsonlyan hour after, the sun. Thereafter, if vanishes into the solar glare. The giantplanet moves into therhorning sky on,the 18th, although it will not be visibleuntil around mid-March. v-;i...., . :.Bright Planets (MorningSky): ; . , . : , , , •• ...... ..-.,Mars and Saturn appear near each other this, month, rising in the ESE about, 1:45 AM ohthe 15th. Mars passes just below trjie Srd-magnitude star BetaScbrpii on the 7th, 5° above the Ist-rriagnitude star Antares on the 17th; aridabout 2°below Saturn on the;18th: Antares means "rival of Mars," a referenceto the reddish color of each object. This month affords a good opportunitytocompare the color and brightness ofboth planet and star. Mars and Saturn arealmost due south at dawn in midmonth.„ . . ; ,Halleys Comet:Halley will not be visible from the earths surface during most of February as itswings around behind the sun. Perihelion, or closest approach to the sun,occurs on the 9th (separation 55 millionimiles). During the last week itmight bepossible to glimpse the comet rising tail-first south of east as morningtwilightbegins ;.(about 5 AM). But full moonlight; will interfere, and observers have abetter change of seeing both the comets head and tail next month. • • * . , • Moon Phases:Last quarter-Feb. 1New moon-Feb. 8First quarter~Feb. 16Full moon-Feb. 24OThe Stars:By February evenings, Orion the Hunter-since November a prominent part,of,the evening sky-has moved into its highest position in the south. ReddishBetelgeuse marks the right shoulder of the warrior, bluislvwhite Rigel marksthe left leg,.and stars of lesser brilliance indicate the head, left shoulder, belt,sword, and right leg. Orion justifiably can be called the perfect constellationbecause it so precisely outlines its namesake. .To the SWofOrion lies that brightest of(nocturnal)starsSirius. At midmonthitis low in the SE at dusk, transits south at 9 PM, and sets WSW about 2 AM.UFO investigators should be thoroughlyaware of this infamous IF.QJ18
MESSAGE, ContinuedJournal.Even though the Field Investigat-ors Examination has a few questionsthat are not covered in MUFONs FieldInvestigators Manual,the third editionpublished in 1983 (161 pages) is still therecognized authority and tool for allpeople conducting UFO sightinginvestigations. The price to currentmembers is $6.00 and to all others$10.00 plus $1.50 for postage andhandling in U.S. funds.* •*• *MUFON still has an adequatesupply of the MUFON 1985 UFOSymposium Proceedings that was heldin St. Louis, Missouri with the theme"UFO: The Burden of Proof (180pages) for $10.00 plus $1.50 for postageand handling ifordered separately fromother books. Symposium Proceedingsare still available from 1975 through1984 at various prices from $4.00 in1975 to $10.00 starting with 1980 andthereafter. The postage for combinedorders is only $1.50 at the fourth classbook rate.As we enter 1986, markingMUFONs seventeenth anniversaryand the 19th year for SKYLOOK andthe MUFON UFO JOURNAL, you areencouraged to read the article in thisissue titled "Perspectives" by MargeChristensen, Director of PublicRelations.* * *Over the past five years, theMUFON UFO JOURNAL haspublished aritcles about the Billy MeierCase both pro and con as to itsvalidity.The article titled "The Meier Case" byJames W. Deardorff inthe November1985 issue number 211 has alreadyresulted in 14 readers asking foradditional sources and material.Background information on the authorwas inadvertently not included. Theauthor has a Ph.D. degree, is aprofessor at Oregon State Universityand a Consultant to MUFON inAtmospheric Phyics. Even though mostof us have declared that this case isbasically a hoax after studying it since1978, your International Directorinvited Mr. Deardorff to write an articleexplaing what he learned first-handfrom Eduard "Billy" Meier during hisvisit to Schmidruti, Switzerland in June,1985. Dr. Deardorffs contribution isappreciated, since only a few peoplehave been able to meet Eduard Meierpersonally. However, his meeting withMr. Meier was inadequate to obtain theinformation that he sought.John Brent Musgrave, thecurrent director of the NorthAmericanUFO Federation (NAUFOF), advisedthat a ballot was circulated in the Fallof1985 among the Board to determinewhether it would be best to formallydisband NAUFOF. Four of the sixmembers on the Board responded tothe ballot (Druffel, Manak, Musgrave,Wilhelm). Two (Haines, Mazzola)abstained. All who replied expressedtheir wish that the organization hadflown, but allfelt that at the present timethere is no viable alternative, but toclose shop and formally disband. In hisletter of 26 December 1985 andreceived on 22 January 1986, Johnstated "Given the results of the poll, Ibelieve I have no alternative but todeclare that NAUFOF has in factdisbanded."* * *Dale Goudie has taken over themanagement of the computeroperation known as UFO InformationService from Michael Hart. Theiraddress is UFO Information Service,P.O. Box 219, Mercer Island,Washington 98040-0219. It is stillfunctioning as a UFO Bulletin Boardusing voice line (206) 721-5035 andcomputer line (206) 722-5738 with anIBM-XT as the main computer. BobGribble of the National UFOReporting Center has been submittingUFO sighting reports to the bulletinboard.We are happy to report that BobGribble is again referring UFO sightingsto MUFON in Seguin, Texas forassignment to appropriate investigat-ors for interviews and investigation.State Directors are receivinga copy ofthe half-page report so they may follow-up with their investigators. To beeffective, prompt responses areessential.Donald A. Curtis, State Directorfor Iowa, recentlymailed 146letters andsighting referral notices to theDepartment of Public Safety, IowaHighway Patrol, 99 County Sheriffs and25 of the larger municipalities (PoliceChiefs) in the state ofIowa as phase onein his program to advise them where torefer UFO sighting reports. Thismailing included printed sightingreference cards for easy referral. Mr.Curtis is to be congratulated for thisimportant and positive step. Last year,Mrs. Jean Waller, State Director forOklahoma, conducted a similar mailing.MUFON RADIO NETDISTRICTSFIRSTN1JSW1LHVN1BDCK1AJLSECONDWB20GSWA2IUIWA2VBTN2EQLN2EPGTHIRDWA3QLWK3HWHW31KGWB3AMRN3BBIFOURTHK4HXCWA4NKZWA4RPUN4JUBW4SKEN4FSZFIFTHW5UAAWA5CTJK5WLTKA5RRLSIX&SEVEN EIGHTHW6LTP/7 KNQNW8ZDXKA80GFKA8RWMWD8PLPK8ZDZNINE&ZEROWAOOBNNOCISWB9QQHKAOLYYWOAJAKAODIG19
DIRECTORS MESSAGEbyWalt AndrusEffective February 1, 1986, theMUFON Board of Directors hasincreased the annual membership/subscription dues to $25.00 in theU.S.A. and a single copy to $2.50.Second Class mailing to all foreigncountires is now $30.00 in U.S. funds,payable by International Postal MoneyOrder or a check written against a U.S.Bank. Cash in U.S. dollars isacceptable. 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 regularrate, providedthey so designate whensubmitting theirdues. Air Mail postage to foreigncountries is an additional fee.* * *We are confident that memberswill feel that 12 monthly issues of theMUFON UFO JOURNAL (20 pages)for $25.00 is an exceptional valuecompared to the International UFOReporter, which publishesonly 6 issuesper year for the same price. BothCUFOS and MUFON recognized thenecessity for evaluating their financialpositions inorder to remainviable UFOorganizations.* * *Tom Benson, recently.elevatedWard C. Campbell from a StateSection Director to the Assistant StateDirector for New Jersey. Mr. Bensonhas selected Fred Schaefer to replaceMr. Campbell as the newState SectionDirector for Gloucester, Camden, andSalem Counties. Ward Campbell hasbeen a member of MUFON since 1974.* * *Leonard W. Sturm, State DirectorforIllinois, has appointed William A.Leone to the position of State SectionDirector for Cook and DuPageCounties. Mr. Leone resides inWestmont, Illinois.Robert Todd of Ardmore,Pennsylvania has volunteered hisexpertise as a Research Specialist inthearea of the Freedom of Information Act(FOIA). By specializing in the F.O.I.A.,Mr. Todd has probably been the mostsuccessful researcher in obtaininggovernment and military documentsrelated to UFOs. It is a privilege to haveRobert represent MUFON in thissignificant field. Richard M. Neal, Jr.M.D., a speaker at the MUFON 1983UFO Symposium and a Consultant inPhysiological and Psychological effects,is concentrating his research onmedical cases. Dr. Neal plans tosubmitfuture articles on his work to theMUFON UFO JOURNAL.* * *The theme for the MUFON 1986UFO Symposium at Michigan StateUniversity, East Lansing, Michigan onJune 27, 28 and 29, 1986 is "UFOs:Beyond the Mainstream of Science."The following speakers have selectedthese titles for their presentations:John F. Schuessler, M.S., "Cash-Landrum UFO Case File: The Issue ofGovernment Involvement;" Dr.Richard F. Haines, "Detailed Reporton the Vancouver Island Photograph;"and Marge Christensen, "Scientistsand Anti-Scientific Thinkingin Regardto the UFO Subject." Other speakersare Bruce Maccabee, Ph.D., HarleyD. Rutledge, Ph.D., Michael D.Swords, Ph.D., David M. Jacobs,Ph.D., Robert H. Bletchman, J.D.,and Alan C. Holt, M.S.An award for the individual whohas done the most for the UFO subjectin each calendar year will be awarded.The individuals who have beennominated for the 1986 award are asfollows: Barry Greenwood, BuddHopkins, Marge Christensen, DanWright and Bruce Maccabee. Aballot will be includedin the March 1986issue of the MUFON UFO JOURNALso that members may cast their votesand submit them to Walt Andrus fortabulation. The award will be presentedat the MUFON 1986 UFO Symposiumat Michigan State University.The survey of the MUFON Boardof Directors taken in October for ideasand suggestions to improve theprofessional caliber of the MUFONUFO JOURNAL emphatically notedthat more ofour Consultants, ResearchSpecialists, State and NationalDirectors, Staff Specialists, and JournalStaff members should be submittingarticles for publicationbased upon theaccomplishments in their specializedfields, speculative proposals toresolving the UFO enigma, bookreviews and reports of the activitiesintheir State or Nation.All members are invited to submitnarrative reports for publication ofUFO sightings that have beenthoroughly investigated and definitelyfound to be UFOs — not IFOs. If theMUFON UFO JOURNAL is going tocontinue to be the leading monthlyUFO magazine in the world, it isimperative that the finest material bemade available for publishing. Until wecan keep the Editor and AssociateEditor inundatedwith crediblematerial,none of us has the prerogative ofcomplaining about the caliber ofmaterial beingpublished.* * *Dan Wright andShirley Coynehave indicated in a preliminary reportthat the new Field InvestigatorsExamination response has been verygood and of those responding thus far,the great majority have scored well.Before they can assess the overallachievement, they must factor in thenonresponses. For those of you whohave not returned your answer sheet toMrs. Shirley Coyne, please comply sothat we may progress to step numbertwo. A few of the respondents haveoffered substantive suggestions toreword or otherwise improve perhapshalf a dozen questions prior tofinalization of the exam as an ongoingdocument. Dan and Shirleywill preparea findings report for publicationin the(continued on page 19)