• Save
Mufon ufo journal   1987 12. december
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Mufon ufo journal 1987 12. december

on

  • 672 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
672
Views on SlideShare
672
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

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

Mufon ufo journal 1987 12. december Document Transcript

  • 1. MUFON UFOJOURNALNUMBER 236 DECEMBER 1987Founded1967.OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONOF MUTUAL UFONBTWOMK, INC..SOLAR DISK$2.50
  • 2. MUFON UFO JOURNAL(USPS 002-970)(ISSN 0270-6822)103 Oldtowne Rd.Seguin, Texas 78155-4099 U.S.A.DENNIS W. STACYEditorWALTER H. ANDRLJS, 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 GRAINGREG LONGMICHAEL D. SWORDSStaff WritersTED PHILLIPSLanding Trace Cases JOHN 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. Copyright 1987by 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 EDITORThe harder one strives for perfection, itseems, the more deftlyit slipsaway. In short, last issues cover (a striking photograph of theMarfa Lights byJames Crocker ofDallas) wasprinted upside down!In the same issue a letterin reference to DennisStillingss helicopterarticle (No. 231) went uncredited. The author was Englands JennyRandies, of course. And in this issue, space considerations causedus to delete some of the exhibitsaccompanying Barry GreenwoodsMJ-12 article. Our apologies to all those involved. We would alsoapologize for the presence of two articles on the Billy Meier case,except that any highly visible and controversial UFO incident isalways subject to closer scrutiny. Your comments are welcome.Our present cover, courtesy of NASA, is a high resolutionX-ray photograph of the sun calibrated to a temperature ofone milliondegrees centigrade.In this issueREASSESSING THE MEIER CASE by Dennis Stacy 3OCCULTNESS & AMBIGUITY by James Deardorff 5MJ-12 MAGIC ACT by Barry Greenwood 10LOOKING BACK by Bob Gribble 17CENTRAL EUROPEAN STUDIES by Illobrand von Ludwiger 19UFOs SCIENTIFICALLYLEGITIMATE by Irena Scott 20UFOs 1947-1987 REVIEWED by Dennis Stacy 23DIRECTORS MESSAGE by Walt Andrus 24COVER: The Solar Disk, courtesy by 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 oHhe MUFON UFO JOURNAL are determinedby the editor,and donot necessarily represent the official position of MUFON.Opinionsofcontributorsare their own, and do not necessarilyreflect those of the editor, the staff, or MUFON.Articles may be forwarded directly to MUFON.Responses to published articlesmaybe in a Letter to the Editor (up to about 400words) or ina short article (up to about2,000 words). Thereafter, the "50% rule" is applied:the articleauthor may reply butwill be allowedhalf 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 than200wordsare quoted from anyone article, the author ofthe articleisgivencredit,and thestatement "Copyright 1987by the MutualUFONetwork, 103 OldtowneRd.,Seguin,Texas 78155" is included
  • 3. REASSESSING THE MEIER CASEBy Dennis StacyDennis Stacy is editor of theJournal.Perhaps already intellectuallyexhausted from having to review twobooks in the course of a single season(Communion and Intruders), the NYTimes Book Review gave GaryKinders Light Years short shrift. "Thisearnest but silly and sloppy book isentirely devoted to Eduard Meier, aone-armed, uneducated, down-and-outcaretaker who lives in a small Swissvillage outside Zurich and who was acelebrity in U.F.O. circles in the1970s," wrote reviewer EdwardDolnick (July 19, 1987, p.21).The UFO community has notexactly greeted Light Years with openarms, either, while waxing ecstatic overBudd Hopkinss Intruders, a bookwhose implicationsare no lessstartling(or fantastic). Part of the response, nodoubt, can be attributed to an "us vs.them" mentality, Hopkins being a well-regarded researcher within the field,Kinder being a newcomer, or moreaccurately, an outsider altogether.Other prejudices come into play, too.Meier isa "repeater," for instance, onewho has reported a succession ofvisitsfrom humanlike beings aboard"beamships" claiming to be from thePleiades. His reputation,in thiscountryat least, preceded him. He waspicturedas a master hoaxter who managed tostage series after series of the mostspectacular UFO photographs anyonehad ever seen, though no onesatisfactorily explained how this wasachieved with a single arm and limitedresources. Everyone seemed to agree,though, almost by unconscious fiat,that Meiers pictures were simply "toogood to be true." Then, there was thematter of his "guilt-by-association"with Wendelle Stevens, now servingtime in an Arizona prison. With suchpredispositions already in place,perhaps we shouldnt be surprised thatthis first book about Meierwas pennedby an "outsider." Who else among uswould have touched it with a ten-footpole?The intention here is not toresuscitate Meiers (or Kinders)reputation, but to show that anysignificant UFO case, and this iscertainly that, whether real or not, isworth considering for whatitpotentiallyreveals about the UFO phenomenonand how its perceived by society, bothat large and within the miniscule UFOcommunity itself. Ifthe Meiercase is anoutright hoax, as many ufologistsbelieve, then it becomes a legitimatestudy in counterfeit currency and astandard by which real coins can bejudged. Conversely, it can also beapplied as a sort of Rorshach test forindividualufologists. What, specifically,about the Meier case, ruffles yourhackles or "turns you off? Is yourdiscomfiture based on evidence youknow to be true andcontrary,or simplya knee-jerk response of which weconstantly accuse skeptics anddebunkers? What follows then is less acomprehensive outline of Light Yearsthan an occasional comment wheredeemed relevant.THE PLEIADESIn places Kinder certainly revealshimself as overly gullible, trustingcompletely in his major confidants(Stevens, the Elders) when a littleindependent research would havemitigated, if not drastically alteredaltogether, some of his suppositions.For example, he falls hook, line andsinker for the "singularity" of thePleiades, writing (p. 143) that "Thoughthe Pleiades form little more than aspeck in the visible night sky, no otherstar group has been mentioned asfrequently in the literature andmythology ofworld culturesfor the pasttwo and a half millenia. And in euery(my italics) instance, the tiny clusterofseven was portrayed as female: thesisters, the virgins, the maidens, thegoddesses."Yet virtually the first source Iconsulted on the subject painted asignificantly different, althoughoutwardly similar, picture. The articleis"Asiatic Parallels in North AmericanStar Lore (Milky Way, Pleiades,Orion)" by William B. Gibbon of theUniversity of Nebraska, Lincoln,whichappeared in the July-September, 1972issue of the Journal of AmericanFolklore (pp. 236-247). The first crackin Pleidean invincibility occurs whenGibbon writes, "With regard to thePleiades, two basic motifs stand outamong the North American Indians: agroup of women, and a group ofdancing youths (p. 242)." Are these"dancing youths" always women,too, as Kinder so confidently asserts?Alas, no. Gibbon continues:1"In somecases several conflicting myths havebeen recorded from the same tribe.Themost important element of this motifseems to be the dancing, since theparticipants vary in number and aregenerally designated as children, boysor young men, or, more rarely (myemphasis), young women."Admittedly, the Pleiades,worldwide, have been most commonlyassociated with women, as Kinderssources suggest, but this is perhaps notso mysterious, either, as it is made toseem. (The idea, as employed in LightYears, isto support Meiers contentionthat his female contact came from the"seven sisters," or Pleiades, and thatbyimplication the Pleiadeans may havebeen visiting us formillenia, that, in fact,such visitations a la ancient astronautsmay have given rise to Pleiadeanmythology in the first place, accountingfor its almost global uniformity andspread. We have already seen that said"uniformity" is not the case, accordingtoGibbon.)Is there anything else about thePleiades, significant enough in itself to3
  • 4. warrant so many ancient culturespaying "undue" attention to whateveryone agrees is a fairly visuallynondescript group of stars? Gibbon (p.243) continues: "Among the manyposes of the Greek sister Pleiades isthat of dancers. The Greeks creditedthe young women with introducingthecircular dance (I can already hearsomeone saying, "shades of saucers!"-author). A more specific reason fortheir gaiety was that the Pleiades, risingin the autumn, proclaimed the harvest(my emphasis again). In other words,the Pleiades were paid attention by"primitive" peoples because of the timeof year they rose, not becausecelestialvisitors from same pointed them out astheir "home."HUMAN MYTHAnother argument, based on thecontent of the actual myths, alsomitigates against Pleiadean singularity,a point which Kinder and/or hissources, fail to mention, presumably,one supposes, because it doesntsupport their case. This is the fact thatin almost every myth Gibbon relates,the Pleiades are seen as, i.e., represent,humans who have gone up to heaven,and not vice versa.Gibbon again, page 243, cites "theBlackfoot who, in addition to thedancers, saw the Pleiades as a group ofboys who ascended to the sky out ofpique because their fathers had givensome buffalo hides to their sistersinstead of to them. In another legendthe Pleiades represented six brotherswhose parents were too poor toprovide the boys with buffalo robes.Feeling embarrassed, they resolved toascend to the sky. The neighboringAssiniboine also saw seven poverty-stricken youths."To be fair, the Wyandot Indians,northeast of the Great Lakes, saysGibbon, portrayed the Pleiades "as sixsinging maidens, daughters of the sunand moon, who wished to come toearth to sing for the tribe." Students ofmythology and its repetition may stillfind the more interesting comparison tobe between "poverty-stricken youths"and Meiers own financial predicament,than between Semjase and thePleiades.4Unlike most armchair ufologists(and skeptics, too, for that matter),Kinder got off his duff and actuallyvisited Meierand hissurroundings.Thedetails of those three visits, totalingalmost 13 weeks in Switzerland, werereported in his open letter to the UFOcommunity in the April 1987 issue of theMUFON UFO Journal, and need notoverly concern us here. Suffice it to saythat Kinder talked with numerousassociates of Meier, pro and con,including the neighborhood photoprocessor where Meier developed hisfilm, and uncovered no obvious signs ofcollusion and/or massive hoaxing. Healso documented those aspects of thecase that have proved the mostfrustrating and perplexing: thedisappearance of the so-called uniqueBeamship metal samples from Dr.Marcel Vogels laboratory, even as Dr.Richard Haines was on his way over tothe lab to view them, the full-spectrumsound recording of another PleiadeanBeamship, and the photographs takenby Meier of an earthquake-ravaged San. Francisco , supposedly retrieved fromthe future, but later shown to have beenartwork previously published in Geomagazine.But the Meier case, need it beremembered, is hardly the firstextended UFO event to be plagued bycontradictory, or even suspiciouslyproduced evidence, as is true of much"paranormal" phenomena, fromtelekinesis to the production ofectoplasm. Some of those historicalprecedents have subsequently faredbetter or worse.in the UFO literature;few have generated as much internalheat and controversy. In the name of"scientific respectability" we ufologistsconstantly clamor for theincontrovert-ible, physical proof of a solid objectbehind the UFO phenomenon. Yet theMeier case, ifit reveals anything, showsus that "evidence" is just as elusive asthe phenomenon itself, and thatultimately we can no more agree on itssubstance than we can reach unison asto its meaning.A parallel example, in more waysthan one, would be a comparison of thecareers of Meier and Uri Geller. Thereare plenty of bent spoons around, too,but those that cannot be convincedoftheir paranormal bending, connot beconvinced, period, no matter howfrequently they populate the field.Conversely, those who can beconvinced, are easily swayed byasinglesample. The best a "skeptical believer"can manage is the position thatsometimes Geller cheats — andsometimes he doesnt. But for Meiertohave cheated once, if cheat he did, isconsidered inexcusable and we neednot look further. So the esoteric secret,perhaps, preserves itself from prying,profane eyes.IMPLICATIONSThe final and most importantaspect of the Meier Conundrum is howthe enveloping mythologyis employedby individuals according to their ownpredisposed beliefs. A favorite taunt ofufology, for example, frequently hurledat scoffers, is Arthur C. Clarkes Law"that any advanced technology willappear as magic." Like a magicalmantra, a subset of mental technology,it can be used post facto to "explain"away standard UFO mysteries like theabsence ofa radar return,suddenaerialacceleration and stops, abruptmaterialization and disappearances,and intergalactictravel, not tomentiona volumeof visitationsthat amounts totraffic jam proportions. And theselesser mysteries do not even begin totouch on the greater ones associatedwith the beings who purportedlyoccupy UFOs, with their powers ofmental telepathy, transmogrification,and the ability to pass through solidmatter.If we accept future- technologyprima facie as magical, what is there inthe Meier case, then, as well ascountless others, that prevents ourwelcoming it as extremely solidevidence of extraterrestrial visitation?Certainly it is magical enough, andsince the consideration foo magicalcannot apply by definition,could it bethat we simply have too much"evidence" in and of itself? If this isindeed the case, we need not examineMeier so much as our ownpreconceptions. Ultimately, the UFOphenomenon may be incapable ofproof, which places it squarely in anexperiential — or existential —(continued on page 22)
  • 5. OCCULTNESS & AMBIGUITYBy James DeardorffMr. Deardorff is ProfessorEmeritus of Atmospheric Sciences,Oregon State University.INTRODUCTION — ETI ANDTHE MEIER CASEOne of the manymessagescomingfrom the Meier case is the well knownidea that UFO intelligences are to beequated with extraterrestrialintelligences (ETIs). Essentially thesame idea minus the UFOs happensalso to be a respectable school ofthought discussed in astronomicaljournals for the past 15years. This is thehypothesis that extraterrestrialintelligences (ETIs) are inour proximityand have beenaware ofus for millennia.However, radio astronomers usuallyprefer the competing hypothesis thatallETIs are essentially forever isolatedwithin relatively small spheres ofinfluence within the galaxy, and that wehave therefore by chance escaped theirdetection so far.The problem with this astronom-ical view is that it falls far short ofrecognizing Clarks law — that whatETIs in advance of us can do shouldseem indistinguishable from magic tous, whether they are 200 years inadvance or 200 thousand years or 200million years. This should apply to thefields of galactic transportation andcommunication as well as to other fieldsof which we cannot conceive. Thus, thepossibility that advanced ETIs are notrestricted in mobility by our presentlimitations of rocketry and relativity ismuch more plausible than not. ThatUFOs could be their vehicles of traveland refuge then becomes an obviousidea to explore, as the astrophysicistPeter Sturrock of Stanford pointed outin an article in theQuarterly Journal ofthe Royal Astronomical Society (aBritish journal; 1978, pp. 521-523).Unfortunately, his pleato bringthe dataof the UFO organizations into actionhas been ignored byastronomers, whoseek a message from the stars, not froma contactee on Earth. It would be verydisappointing to them to have scientificinterest in the ETI problem shift fromradio astronomy to the UFO-contactee-abductee problem.If we could dip into the past, say200 years ago, and bring back somepeople and scientists to examine ourpresent technology, they would regardmuch of it as magic, or occult. Similarlyfor us ifwe were brought 200 years intothe future, assuming our civilizationsurvives that long. Therefore, what weor ETIs 1,000 years into our futurecould do would seem like magic raisedto the 5th power (1000/200). WhatETIs3,500 years ahead of us could dowouldseem likemagic raised to about the 17thpower — extremely occult. If there areany ETI-contactees around today whohave been treated to some displaysoftheir contactors and whohave reportedon it, their reports would therefore seemvery occult to the rest of us. EduardMeier is one such contactee whosereports, if genuine, should seem likemagic raised to about the 17th power.This they do. Starting in 1975 he wassupplied with a very lengthy series ofmessages over a several year periodwhose main theme is spiritualism —reincarnation and evolutionof the soul.This does not sit well with many UFOinvestigators who seek hardware, not aspiritual message.However, the Meier case is mostunique in that the amount of evidencehis contactors supplied him with,mostly photographic, is much morebountiful and of higher quality thananything seen heretofore. It was a newidea that a particular contacteesomewhere might be singled out andsupplied with evidence by ETIs in orderto support their messages. Anotheridea totally foreign to UFOinvestigators is that the ETI might havea strategy of doing this in such a waythat the overall covertness of the UFOphenomenon would be maintaineduntilmankind is better prepared for thefirst official, overt contact. That is, thata prime contactee could beallowed a lotof color photographs and some movie-film exposure of their craft, but notallowed any photos of themselves norallowed to bring any others to witnessthe actual contact meetings. I havemenioned five reasons now (italicized)why the Meier case was rejected,around 1979, by the main UFOorganizations which spent little or notime looking into it before calling it ahoax.A sixth reason isthat Meier said hehad been a contactee on manyoccasions well before 1975. Of course,this would be a perfectly logical courseof action for ETIs who were pursuing astrategy and who needed to educatetheir contactee in certain matters.However, that fact was held againstMeier on the grounds that ETI contactsor UFO sightings should be randomthings. Only recently have UFOorganizations begun to realize, afterseveral books on UFO abductionsappeared under the auspices ofrespectable publishers, that abducteesreceive repeated attention from theirabductors who seem to have theirownstrategies. Thus, we can now see thatcontactees might also receive repeatedETI attention, so that this sixth reasonprobably no longer applies.It was therefore left up to lesserknown investigators, with theexception of Wendelle Stevens, toinvestigate the Meier case in depth. Hepublished his findings in 1982 in aninvestigative report of limiteddistribution. He could find no evidenceof fraud, except by some who calledMeier a fraud. Stevens was thereforealso discredited by the main UFOorganizations.A few years later an initiallyinexperienced UFO researcher, theinvestigative journalist Gary Kinder,made an in-depth study of the Meiercase for three years which culminated5
  • 6. in Light Veers. As Dennis Stacy pointsout, Kinder broke new ground as wellas treading old ground in havingexperts in various fields reexaminesome of the evidence. But again therewas no sign of a hoax, no sign ofaccomplices, and no mechanical norfinancial means uncovered for Meier tohave accomplished a hoax. Already, Ihave heard Kinder labeled asincompetent by UFO investigators forhaving reached these conclusions. Iwould recommend that you read hisbook and then decide for yourself ifthecase is not indeed worth the mostserious of studies.The lesser known investigators,Lee and Brit Elders alongwith ThomasWelch, published their results in twovolumes containing enlarged colorphotos from Meiers daytime photo-session contacts. They spent over 300days at the Meier farm houseinvestigating the case, during some 16trips between Arizona andSwitzerlandover a 4-year period, and it seemsunlikely that the sales from their twophoto-albums have recouped theirexpenses. They have apparently alsobeen dismissed by the main UFOorganizations for seeing reality in theMeier case, for taking his spiritualmessage seriously, and for chargingforthe sale of their photo-albums.The reader need not be a studentof psychology to recognize whatappears to be going on here!6COMPARISONSince the occultness of reportsfrom the Meier case isone reason it hasbeen disparaged, let us briefly compareits occultness with that of other UFOcases to see if there is much new.In at least two incidents in theMeier case, a tree too close toSemjases hovering beamcraft soonafterwards developed many deadbranches next to where the craft hadbeen. This is so commonplace in theUFO literature as to need nosubstantiation here. However, in atleast one of these instances thecontactors (Pleiadeans) were said tohave later caused the tree to disappearwithout any indication left that it hadever existed. This is the fir tree inMeiers photo series #55-57, 64-66,69-71 and 76, all taken on July 9, 1975,according to Meiers records. In thisseries at least 5 of the photos showindisputably that part of the hoveringobject was eitherwithin the branches oron the far side of the tree from thecamera.I asked two professors of forestryat Oregon State University ifthis treeinthe photos was at all identifiable; it didnot take them long to say it wasdefinitely a mature Abies alba, orEuropean silverfir.(They had very littleso say or ask about the saucer-shapedobject.) This indicates that the treecould not have been a model tree, northe object a small model. It may bepointed out that the occultdisappearance of UFO evidence is alsonot new; as an example, severaldifferent copies of a certain letterwhichwould have helped expose a UFOcoverup by the British governmentwere noted to have disappeared undermysterious circumstances by Butler,Street and Randies, authors of SkyCrash.The other occult aspect of thisphoto case, besides Meiersacknowlegement that these wereshots of a posing beamcraft purposelyallowed him, is that the contactor latertook the time to explainqualitatively toMeier what had happened to the tree(they had "changed its time").On numerous occasions soonafter Meier had said he had had acontact with one or more of thePleiadeans, he and others could pointto geometrically precise "landingpatterns" in remote meadow grass oroh snow near his contact point. Thesereceived much photography by Meierand others. Again this is toocomonplace to dwell on here, except tonote the most occult aspect describedwell in Kinders book, regarding theaffected grass continuing to stay aliveformonths afterwards, but growinghorizontally in a swirling pattern. Thesecond occult aspect is that Meiercould ask Semjase how this could be,and receive a qualitative answer (thegrass sense of direction of gravity hadbeen distorted by 90 degrees).On several, if not perhaps all, ofMeiers beamship photographysessions, it appears that ifMeier couldphotograph the craft then other Swissvillagers in the general vicinity, ormotorists on one occasion, should alsohave noticed the craft or have been ableto photograph it. Again Meier receivedan answer from Semjase to his questionon this: they can render their generallyinvisible craft visible from any narrowsector they wish. This is not a newthought, but one forced into existencefrom other UFO-sighting cases, asdiscussed for example in the book byRandies and Warrington UFO Cases:A British Viewpoint.In some of Meiers movie-filmsegments Semjases beamcraft is seento perform maneuvers involving
  • 7. incredibly great accelerations for thecraft or any occupants. However, thiskind of behavior on the part of UFOs isso commonplace that it was one of thefirst occult aspects to which UFOinvestigators had to becomeaccustomed.On at least one of Meiers photo-collection sessions, Semjase couldremotely control the basic operationofhis movie camera while Meierconcentrated on the use of his 35mmcamera. And on the April 14th, 1976occasion when a Swiss Miragejet made22 successive passes at Semjasesbeamship, Meier reportedly learnedlater from her that she had remotelydisabled the pilots armaments andcamera. However, reports oftelekinesis have come out of numerousUFO investigations,often involving thecontinued motion or transport of anautomobile no longer under the controlof the driver whether or not its enginewas running (as in the book SkyCrash).SPIRITUAL THEMERegarding the spiritual themewhich runs throughout the Meier case,especially in Semjases messages, theoccurrence of such is again nothingnew although Semjase goes into muchgreater depth than usual. In a muchhigher percentage of alleged contacteecases than one would expectdemographically, the message recipientends up discussing reincarnation as areality, regardless of his or her previousreligious affiliation. Nevertheless, inalmost all those cases the contacteehad no evidence as substantial asphotographs to back up his message.Thus, a dedicated Christian,Moslem orJew who does not believe inreincarnation, or who believes inresurrection, may be alarmed by theMeier case and have strong incentivefor dismissing it or discussing only itsweak points.Meiers claimed ability to receivethoughts telepathically from hiscontactors, telling him where to travelon his moped for a contact or photosession for example, is again not new.This is the normal mode ofcommunication from UFO intelligencesto humans, with language or thoughtssomehow being expressed in the nativetongue of the contactee or abductee.The UFO organizations have by nowmostly accepted this apparent fact astruth despite its great occultness. Evenmore occult, in many instances it isapparent that the UFO intelligencescould read the mind of a witness andrespond almost instantaneously. Thisisequivalent to inadvertent mentaltelepathy directed from human to ETI.An aspect of the Meier case which isonly a slightly further extension into theoccult is that he claims to have beentaught how to communicatetelepathically at will with Pleiadeanswith whom he became acquainted;some of his two-way communicationsessions were ostensibly via telepathyand did not represent face-to-facemeetings.A related piece of occultness isthat the Pleiadeans are said to be able todetect when or if any human isanywhere near their contact vehicle,and able to ascertain the whereaboutsof a particular individual, such as thecontactee. This latter ability, however,is common to many other contacteesexperiences.Also, the method by which Meierwould, a day or so after each contactsession, record the word-by-wordconversations of the contact, wasostensibly some form of machine-controlled telepathy. His recording ofitwas like "automatic writing" or"automatic typing." As an apparentresult, his voluminous contact notesare much more interestingreading thanif they were merely later remembrancesor summaries of what had transpired.(Occasionally, Meier would note thatan item which they had discussed at acontact meeting had been censored outof the later machine-telepathictransmission. Meiers objections toSemjase about this went unheeded; shereserved the right to withhold variousportions oftheir conversations from thewritten record.) One may note thatnumerous alleged contactees claim tohave received their messages viaautomatic writing.Meiers reported rides in Pleiadeanbeamships also should not be thoughtof as new or preferential treatment;Enoch of Old Testament days appearsto be one of the first contactees to havebeen so treated, judgingfrom hisbookswhich never quitemade it intothe Bible.Daniel Fry (see his book The WhiteSands Incident) is but one example of amodern case of this nature whichpredates the Meier affair. And, ofcourse, there are the numerousabductees who have been taken intosaucer craft against their will. SinceMeier appears to have been on afriendly basis (though not always so,juding from his contact notes) withseveral different Pleiadeans, andtreated almost as if he were one ofthem, it would be surprising if he had7
  • 8. not been treated to such travels. At the(east, a saucer craft would be aconvenient place to hold covert contactmeetings.Meiers recordings indicate heonce had a case ofpneumonia partiallycured during a contact session, andonce had some broken ribs healed byamachine on Semjases beamcraft.Again, this does not constitute unheadof UFO occultness. Numerous UFOwitnesses or contactees have attestedto having had various ailments curedfollowing a contact — even cancer.Several secondary witnesses intheMeier case noted that he vanished fromtheir midst on:acouple of occasions,apparently to attend contact meetings,and once he was observed to returninthe same manner. Again, this basic ••phenomenon is not entirely new for us, .having occurred, apparently, in theTravis Walton case (see Abducted! byCoral and Jim Lorenzen). Reports ofUFO entities moving up or down abeam of "solid light" seem to representa similar degree of occultness; see forexample Sky Crash.Meiers main investigators,Wendelle Stevens and Lee & BritElders, were occasionally at Meiersfarmhouse when he went out for anighttime contact meeting. They oncenoted soon afterwards that theirwatches registered highly incorrecttimes. Again, such a "disturbance intime" is not a new phenomenon to hearof accompanying a UFO event.However, Meier reported much moreoccult experiences, involving time,namely various forms of time travel.One of his beamship trips,documentedlater via extremely lenglhy contactnotes, was said to occupy 5 daystime.When Meier returned, his face showedan approximately 5-day growth ofstubble, and he promptly slept for 26hours. This was attested to bywitnesses, and his having shaved themorning he had departed was alsoattested to. Yet, he was noted to havebeen away for only one day.On March 18, 1978, Meierallegedly was allowed to time-travel intothe future to view and photograph theruins of San Francisco after adevastating earthquake. This is one ofthe most occult, and most disputed, ofhis reports. His alleged photo of the8ruins at first glance is said to look justlike a photo of a painting within theSeptember, 1977, issue of GEO, aGerman magazine. Discussions withinhis notes from contact #106 withQuetzal, another Pleiadean, indicateMeiers apparent consternation uponlearning that this painting had pre-dated• his photo, and supply Quetzalsexplanation which involved still moreoccultism.MAGICDoes allthis seem like magic raisedto the 17th power? I believethat itdoes,and that occultism tosome such degreemust be expected ifthis comprehensiveseries of contacts were genuine. Yetmost of Meiers confrontationswith the .occult do not represent phenomenaunfamiliar to ufologists, but ratherrepresent an unheard of amount ofexposure toit by any one individual.According to Hyneks "strangenessindeXi" the Meier case would rank atthe extreme in stangeness; withoutMeiers photographic evidence andsecondary witnesses to providecredibility the case would receive littleor no attention. Disparagers of thecase have therefore had to saysomething about the photographicevidence.PAST DISCREDITING OFMEIERS PHOTOSHow were these photos belittleddespite analyses by specialistsdeclaring that no signs of fraud could bedetected in.the photos examined?First, those specialists who haddone the examination of selectedprints, out of Meiers 700 or so photosshowing beamcraft, and unable to findfault, were simply declared inept.Second, at an early date WilliamSpaulding of Ground Saucer Watchhad been given 10 of the Meier photosto analyze by a West German UFOinvestigator. Spaulding decided theywere fakes, and claimed that theyinvolved suspended models, doubleexposures, and the double printmethod. (The implausibility that ahoaxist would use allthree such diversemethods should have alerted moreserious investigators to look into thematter for themselves.) Kinders bookgives ample reason why Spauldingsconclusions regarding UFO photosshould not be trusted. Another reason,however, isthat Spaulding admitted inaletter to Flying Saucer Review (issueNo. 5, 1985) that he believes the onlybona fide "saucers" are thoseconstructed secretly by governmentson earth.Third, many times after Meierloaned out photos and film, what hereceived back were apparently copies.The specific generation of the print orinternegative placed at the disposal ofthe investigator thus is not usuallyclear. This has discouragedexamination of even those aspectswhich do not require the originals.. Fourth, Kal Korff, an 18-year-oldyouth at the time, discredited bothMeier and Stevens inhis 1981 book TheMeier Incident: The Most InfamousHoax in Ufology. Korff, acceptedSpauldings conclusions and madeheavy use of ridicule,while>never oncesuggesting that Clarkes law should bekept in mind. In the Abies alba photoseries already discussed, he impliedthat the later disappearance of the treehad not happened, further implying thata model tree had been used.In the March 29,1976, series twoofthe photos shown in the Elders photo-albums indicate that the craft wasbehind a limb of a deciduous tree.However, Korff claimed from one of thesame photos in his book that it wasinstead in front of the tree. He thencalled it a model UFO. However, in a1981 article in Frontiers of Science,(March-April issue) he claimed thesame tree was a model tree. Yet weknow from photos in the Elders et al.photo album, Vol. 1, that the deciduoustree in question was not a model, sincea photo of it a year and a half later byone of Stevens investigative teamshowed the same tree, this time in leaf.In Meiers close-up beamshipphoto, #6, the upper of threecircumferential ribs girding the craftwas described as uncannilyresemblinga (braided) rope. Korff implied that itmay have been a cow-bell rope.However, close inspection of the"rope" where its cross-section appearsat opposite edges of the craft disclosesthat it has rather square corners, unlike
  • 9. a rope.Considerations such as these,plusKorffs prolific use of innuendo ratherthan unbiased observation, shouldhave alerted other UFO investigators ofthe need for a comprehensive andobjective study of the Meier case.Instead, the heads of the UFOorganizations often referred to Korffsbook as reason why they needed totake no interest in the case.My own observations presentedhere might be declared biased by anywho adhere to the view that ETI cannotbe in our vicinity and cannot bestrategically observing us.Admittedly,this review is written from theperspective that the in-proximityschool of thought regardingETI is moreplausible than the radio astronomersschool or the mankind-is-unique schoolof thought.AMBIGUITIESWith the in-proximity school ofthought, the ETIs, and most certainlythose in charge of the "embargo"against Earth, give high priority tomaintaining the embargo until ourunderstanding of the situation hasincreased substantially. Withthe leaky-embargo hypothesis, equally highpriority is presumed given to theirsupplying gradual leaks in the embargo(UFO sightings and contactees) thatwould help increase our understandingbut without disrupting the embargo.This would mean that in acomprehensive case accompanied byextensive photographic evidence, atleast some of the scenes might need tobe partially staged in a manner thatwould introduce some ambiguity.Thenskeptics who are mentally unpreparedto acknowledge the plausibility ofthe in-proximity school of thought would notbe "forced" into new thought patternsby the sheer weight of evidence.They could instead cry "hoax"without undue embarrassment,directing attention to suspiciouslooking scenes while ignoring theothers. This neutral level of ethicalbehavior on the part of the ETIscarrying out the embargo would beconsistent with likely ethical reasonsfortheir maintaining an embargo inthe firstplace. It would also help maintain theembargo in the presence of leaks. Theabsence of undisputed hard evidencefrom UFO sightings in general afterforty years would fall into the samecategory of explanation.The abductee phenomenon wouldappear not to be part of a plannedleaky-embargo strategy. It wouldinstead seem to represent independentETI behavior deemed sufficientlyinnocuous by ETIs in charge of theembargo as to require their taking nocorrective action, as long as theabductions do not cause any abruptrupture in the embargo.One of Meiers 8-mm movie-filmsegments (18 March, 1975) is clearly acandidate for planned ambiguity on thepart of the Pleiadeans. When someJapanese UFO investigators viewedthis film, or a copy of it, at Meiersfarmhouse, they saw the unknownobject circling within a nearly horizontalplane, with its closest pointof approachonce bringing it just behind the uppertip of a fir tree. Each circle took only afew seconds. From the video views ofthis film now available, however, theviewer cannot be at all certain that ithad acutallypassed behind the tree. Ifithad instead been a suspended modelclose to the camera, then the circularmotion might be explained as simpleharmonic motion induced by motionofa supporting pole above the view of thecamera.However, on one of the apparentpasses of the object past the top of thetree, the trees upper portion was seento make a sudden swerve along thedirection of travel of the craft,immediately followed by return tonormalcy. This indicates some kind ofaction of the craft upon the tree whichwould ruleout the model theory, as thetree was again no model. However, themotion of the tree seemsincomprehensible, suggesting someaction of occult ETI technology uponit.A biased skeptic might call thisa "copy-out," and insist that photographicevidence be rejected which involvesincomprehensible action of any objectadditional to the UFO.The same cry for inadmissibilityhas been made regarding the series ofphotographs showing the beamcraftposing around various sides of theAbies alba tree because it later occultlydisappeared without trace. Such criesmust obviously be resisted, sinceoccultism is to be expected, as is anintelligent strategy on the part of anyETIs in our vicinity.One series ofMeiers photos whichhas been ridiculed shows him, and inone instance the arm of an allegedPleiadean (by the name of Alena)pointing a "ray gun" said to be amuseum piece of one of the colleaguesof Semjase. Meier was allowed to testthe weapon on July 6, 1977, near hisfarmhouse during a contact when noone else was around. He burned a holecompletely through the trunk of anapple tree, about 10inches in diameter.This would not seem like unreasonablebehavior for a contactee interestedin guns, in alien technology, and onfriendly terms with humanoid ETIs withwhom he had become friends after 77previous contacts since 1975.However, a skeptic who cannottolerate ETIs having a strategyinvolving a primary contactee similarlycannot tolerate the possibilitythat suchan event occurred.Silly arguments have thereforebeen advanced why the guri depicted in, the pictures must be a fake,notwithstanding the present existenceof the hole in thistree, the photos Meiertook of it soon afterwards showingcharring around the hole but no wooddust, and the difficulty of drilling a holeof this length through a tree by a manwith only one arm. Nevertheless, sincethe evidence is riot compellingit insteadseems incriminating to a biased skeptic,yet the entire episode would beconsistent with an ETI strategy ofoccasionally supplying ambiguousevidence chiefly for the "benefit" ofskeptics.Ambiguities seem to have beenbuilt into the messages Meier receivedtoo, as iffailure to do this might cause apremature rupture of the embargoagainst Earth. That is, parts of themessages relating to science andancient history seem to involveabsurdities, just as most allegedcontactee messages seem to containabsurdities. An unknownfraction of theapparent absurdities, however, mayinstead constitute science or truthswhich will only become evident to ourdescendants of the distant future. In
  • 10. addition, there may beother motivationwhy ETIs interactingwith Earthwouldnot act in an entirelytruthful manner. Itwould cause us to question allparts ofany given message, accepting none ofiton faith. This in turn wpuld tend tocause those who appreciate thespiritual content of the message not toget carried away and turn it into a newreligion, nor to worship these ETIs asgods. According to Meiers contactnotes, the Pleiadeans do not wish this tohappen.SUMMARY AND PROGNOSISAn entirelynew attitude is neededfor analysis of. the Meier contacteecase. It needs to be viewed from theoutlook that ETIs inour proximity likelyexist and likely possess a strategy fordealing with an emerging civilization.We must cease accusing experts whoexamine Meiers evidence and find nosign of a hoax of being incompetent onthat account. Instead, we need toaccept these findings as the basis formuch more. extensive investigations,and for treating Meier as an honestreporter unless it can be provenotherwise beyond reasonable doubt.We must learn to put ourselves in hisshoes and ask what we would havedone in his stead, if we had beenexposed since childhood to anappealing ETI philosophy and hadagreed to publicly disseminate it.Because of the ambiguitiesapparently built into some of the Meierevidence, we must examine all theevidence, not just that fraction whichmay look suspicious to diehardskeptics. Havent we learned by now tobe skeptical of skeptics who claim, forexample, that a low soaring object thesize of a football field moving slowlyalong at dusk without making noise isjust a tight formation of powered hanggliders whose pilots and airfield cannotbe ascertained? We must beespeciallyskeptical of skeptics who may have oneor more non-scientific reasons forwishing a particular case to be a hoax.At the least, we could examineallthe evidence and secondary witnessescarefully and form our best estimatesofthe odds that Meier and assumedaccomplices could have successfullyfabricated this evidence. We couldinquire into what motivations he mighthave had forso doing,and for persistingto this day, ifother than to disseminatean ETI spiritual message. We couldexamine his lengthyseries of messagescarefully to see what the mosttrustworthy essence of it seems to be.I think we should do allthese thingsand more. However, in final analysisitseems likely that if Meier represents aprime ETI contactee in a strategydesigned to maintain covertness for awhile, that strategy will continue tosucceed. The Meier case, as a primeleak in the embargo, will not turn intoarupture of the embargo unless or untilwe learn for ourselves what our rightfulplace is as thinking beings within agalaxy and universe which may beheavily populated with other thinkingbeings.MJ-12 MAGIC ACTBy Barry GreenwoodThe following article isreprinted by permission of BarryGreenwood, editor of Just Cause,published by Citizens Against UFOSecrecy. Aone-year subscription isavailable for $10, from CAUS, Box218, Coventry, Conn., 06238.We can now report to you that,regrettably, the MJ-12 affair appears tobe a grand deception and,consequently, a giant black eye on thesurface of UFOLogy. This conclusiondid not come lightly and was the resultof extensive inquiriesby CAUS. We didhave high hopes that perhaps our initialdoubts would have been allayed byadditional releases and that a properexplanation would be found for theproblems. It was not be be. The deeperwe looked, the .worse it became.In dealing with government10documents it isvitally important that weknow where information comes from.Otherwise, howcan one possibly vouchfor its authenticity? It is why CAUSregards cover letters from agencyreleases almost as important as thereleases themselves.In the case of MJ-12, Moore,Shandera and Friedman (hereinreferred to as MSF) have not providedthis most basic element. The material,save for the 1954 Cutler memo, wassent to Jaime Shandera anonymouslyon undeveloped 35mm film which waslater made into hardcopy. Who is thesource? MSF doesnt say. Where diditcome from? They dont say that either.This by itself should raise suspicions,but there is much more.SHANDERAWhy did Shandera receive thefilm? He is not exactly a well-knownperson in UFOlogy. We have asituation where a "government source"finds it important to release verysensitive, still-classified documents oncrashed discs, Roswell, and alienbodies, certainly the story of thecentury! To whom does he go? WalterCronkite? Dan Rather? Carl Sagan? No,he goes to MSF who are clearly in thepro-Roswell camp already and need noconvincing. And they do have much togain from these "documents" beingmade public. It sounds pretty self-serving that someone shouldanonymously drop proof of Roswellinto the laps ofonly its chief supportersand no one else who may have moreinfluence in uncovering the "truth."Why, at the MUFON Symposiumin June, did Moore declare that the
  • 11. burden ofproof ison those suggesting ahoax (in front of a press conference)while saying in a Ft. Walton Beach,Florida, newspaper that he has foundno undeniable proof that the documentis genuine? In a true scientificinvestigation the burden of proof isalways on the proponent to prove hiscase, not on the opponent to disprove.Why did MSFalter the appearanceof the MJ-12 documents in their firstrelease of the Focus newsletter withoutexplanation? Whole sections weredeleted, giving the appearance ofgovernment censorship, by MSF asthey later admitted. It smacked of asensationalist technique to arouseinterest.These are only minor quibblesover technique. The major problemsfollow.MJ-12 DOCUMENTSThe core of MSFs case lies in thedocuments which have been"released." These are what mustsurvive scrutiny ifwe are to accept MJ-12as genuine. Since we have describedthem previously, we will report on ourstudy of the papers without extensivere-quoting.• The"Project Aquarius" report—A three-page extract of a largerdocument with title page and two pagesof text. Source and date are unknownand no other information is traceable.We direct your attention to the titlepage (Exhibit 1).You see in large print"EXECUTIVE CORRESPONDENCE"and below in typescript is "ExecutiveBriefing." Looks impressive doesnt it?It implies an important presidentialpaper with the bold phrase"EXECUTIVE CORRESPOND-ENCE." However, there isa problem asyou will see next.Exhibit 2 is a reproduction of asample sheet of stationery with a clear,plastic cover that had accidentallybeensent with an FOIA release to RobertTodd in 1979. The cover says"EXECUTIVE CORRESPONDENCE"at the top and on the bottom it says"DO NOT WRITE ON THIS COVERAS IT IS INTENDED FOR RE-USE.RETURN IT WITH THE FILECOPIESTO ORIGINATING OFFICE." It is aEXECUTIVE CORRESPONDENCEI >:;.: I v i i: ;: I c I ii CJ yJ I C t iCENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCYWAIHINaTON. D.C. 1OIOIJune "•,C»ecutlva Briefing <Pe»o>Yesterday RS requested briefing on Project "A". In particular.he wanted updated Info fro* CaV^a^ rj? advised that that•Info was not available to P2. Apparently. Hhltr House reouestef*any dissemination, per CO PllSh. reoarrtless of who requestsinfo. Contact T-ST and sea If he can assuie custody of the•attar.Dont allow AT to evaluate IDCNT info. They nay open up alittle too euch. KCW-? can assist to io«e entent.rjf.EXHIBIT 511
  • 12. plastic file cover used internally byvarious agencies in trasmittingand filingpaperwork. The bottom portion of thecover takes away much of thepresidential flavor of the top phrase.Now note Exhibit 1 again. Whilethe plastic cover in Exhibit 2 shows thetop and bottom printing at the very topand bottom, the Aquariuspaper shows"EXECUTIVE CORRESPONDENCE"dropped down about an inch or so,resulting in the bottom phrasevanishing. We believe that this was adeliberate deception to give the paperan appearance of being presidentialbymoving the top wording downward tocause the more mundane bottomphrasing to disappear off thephotocopy.The emblem on the cover of theAquarius paper has more theappearance of being drawn on ratherthan printed on the page. A felt-tippedpen could have done just as well.Of the various projects mentionedon page 2 of the Aquarius text, one,"Pounce," just appeared in UFOhistory. It was said to be a proposal forinvestigating UFOs by Kirtland AFB,New Mexico, according to the CIAs1953 Robertspn Panel. No explanationof "Pounce" appears in the Aquariuspaper.Additionally, "Project Sigma" inthe Aquarius paper (said to be an AirForce effort to communicate withaliens) has been located in the massive,two-volume Code Name Directory bythe Defense Marketing Services ofGreenwich, Connecticut, 1986 edition.It is listed as a "Top Secret Air Forceprogram i n v o l v i n g RockwellInternational.1"If the DMS "Sigma"isnot the sameas the Aquarius "Sigma," thenAquarius Sigma is probably wrongbecause duplicationofcode names in aclose time frame is not within normalmilitary procedure. Obviously, twoprograms with the same code namewithin the same branch of service (AirForce) would be confused. Thats whyselection lists of code names exist.If the two projects are the same,where is the massive security forAquarius "Sigma" that it appears in acommercially availabledirectory?Project Snowbird, in a previousissue olJust Cause, wasdescribed as a12"Joint Army/Air Force-^peacetimemilitary exercise in the sub-articregion,1955, according to Gale ResearchsCode Names Dictionary, 1963. Noconnection to UFOs is apparent hereand certainly not in the context of theAquarius papers description.Snowbird was a training exercise forArmy and Air Force units under arcticconditions.Finally, our last issue dealtwith theshort-lived confirmation of an Air Force"Project Aquarius" by the NSA. Therevelation fizzled however when theNSA retracted its confirmation basedupon a false assumption.No other independent confirm-ation of the Project Aquariusdocumenthas been possible.MJ-5• The CIA"MJ-5" memo —A one-page document (Exhibit 3) on CIAletterhead, but not released throughFOIA. Source and year of memo areunknown. Deletions by MSF. Thisdocument first appeared in Mooresnewsletter Focus. It has not appearedin any subsequent.discussion of MJ-12.The MJ-5memo isa real problem.Type style, placement of securitymarkings, use of CIA letter stationeryinstead of internal forms and languageare all atypical of CIA standards. Theexecutive order number quoted in thememo is non-existant. The deletion byMSF of the year forbids accuratefollow-up and implies an attempt tocover a deception. We were informedby MSF in a June phone conversationabout various points in favor of MJ-12.When discussion focused upon the MJ-5 memo, we stated our concern overthe flaws in this paper. A response fromthe CIA regarding the authenticity ofthe memo was entirely negative, theCIA labeling the memo a "poorly madefabrication." When informed of this,MSFs only response was, "Youbelievethem?" Indeed we do if the statementagrees with what we can see with ourown eyes!It is notable that MSF have let thememo quietly disappear from laterpresentations of evidence on MJ-12,even though, according to MSFsphone conversation, it came from thesame source as the other documents.Why. is this memo no longer beingdiscussed? Suspicious as well is thesimilarity of the type style in the MJ-5memo, written on CIA letterhead, andthe Aquariuspaper, writtenby the MJ-12 group. Ifthe MJ-5 memo isno longervalid to present as evidence of MJ-12,and it came from.the same source asthe other documents, then what doesthis say about the Aquarius paper, orindeed the rest of the evidence?• The MJ-12 Briefing Paper — Aneight-page document with a title page,introductory page, three pages of text,a list of attachments, title page forAttachment "A," and Attachment "A,"a copy of a signed letter by PresidentHarry Truman. Source is unknown.Numerous inquiries have revealedthat there has been no confirmationofthis document in any.library or archive.The one source most certain to haveinformation on the Briefing Paper is theEisenhower LibraryinAbilene, Kansas.Their response is.Exhibit 4.Page 2 of the Briefing Paper refersto the formation of MJ-12 "by specialclassified executive order of PresidentTruman on 24 September, 1947..." Wehave checked the Truman Libraryslisting of executive orders and foundthat no orders were issued on 9/24.Executive order numbers 9891 - 9896were issued respectively on 9/15, twoon 9/20, 9/23, 9/30 and 10/2/47, noneeven closely resembling the MJ-12subject. There is no gap in the numbersequence for these dates so none aremissing. Further, the number quoted inAttachment "A" of the Briefing Paper,#092447 (Exhibit 5A), is not anexecutive order number but the dateofPresident Trumans memo, 9/24/47!Executive orders are not numbered bydate but are numbered sequentially,and at the time the numbers were onlyfour digits. ,Trumans "EO" (Exhibit 5B) wassent to the Truman Library forauthentication. Their answer is Exhibit6.-None of the other attachments areavailable forexamination.We also find peculiar the atypicaluse of "O" prefixes in front of numbers(07 July, 06 December, 092447).In the text itself, two thingsrequirecomment. Page 3 of the Briefing Paperstates, "The wreckage of the craft wasalso removed to several different
  • 13. E X H I B I T snCOW OMK OP OME.WWTCRATIOI OF ATTACHXnCTSi•ATTACHnHrt "A-. .Special Classified BxnciitlveOraor «092U7. (TS/BO)-1? 3tutusEXHI6U 56THC WHITC HOUSCW A B M I M O T O MSeptember 2I», 191.7.KKMnRANDUN POR THE SECRETARY. OP DEFENSEDear Secretary FerreataliAa per our recent conversation on this natter,you are hereby authorised to proceed «lth all due• peed and caution upon your undertaking. Hereafter1thle aatter shall be referred to only as OperationMajestic Twelve.It continues to be ay feeling that any futureconsiderations relative to the ultimate dispositionof this aattsr should rest solely with the Officeof the President following appropriate discussionswith yourself. Dr. Bush and the Director of CentralIntelligence.locations." We question the wisdomofthis practice, ifindeed it happened at all.One of the first procedures in aircraftaccident investigations is toreconstruct the vehicle from whateveris left of the wreckage: We saw this inthe Challenger disaster; gather all thepieces in one place and reassemblethem to either determine the cause ofthe acccident, or in this case, see whatthe vehicle looked like. Apparentlysuch was not done here. Keepingpieces in different locations forbidsreconstruction and risks the loss ofpieces in transit between variousplaces. Immediate reconstruction isprimary, especially with an exotic,unknown vehicle.We draw your attention to Exhibit7, a report on a 1950 UFO crashextracted from the Briefing Paper, page5. According to a report by JeromeClark in the February 1980, Saga UFOReport, a UFO crash took place 15-20miles into Mexico from the Laredo,Texas area. It is most likely the samestory referred to inthe Briefing Paper aswe find no other different 1950 crashedUFO reports in that area. The story isbased on the testimony of Lt. Col.Robert Willingham, an eyewitness.Another reference, in LeonardStringfields The UFO Crash/Retrieval Syndrome, Status Report 2(Case B-7) discusses the same storyand gives the location of the crash as30miles NW of Del Rio, Texas, ascorrected by further research.However, the Briefing Paperpinpoints the "ElIndio-Guerrero" area,some 90 miles SE of the Del Rio positionand 70 miles NW of the Laredo site.There is a significant disagreementbetween eyewitness statements andthe Briefing Paper regarding location.Additionally, if the object were aspaceship (the Briefing paper only says"probably of similar origin" to theRoswell crash), isnt it getting shortshrift in the Briefing Paper? After all,MJ-12 was supposed to be an elite panelformed to study such incidents. Thiscase is said to be only the secondcrashed UFO in historyand yet it getsonly slightly over 7 lines in the BriefingPaper! Visibly, there isno evidence thatMJ-12 had much information on the1950 "crash," despite the fact that ithadalmost two years to gather details. Iswhat is described in the Briefing Paperon the 1950incident terribly differentfrom a meteorite impact? Read it again!MSF have stated that they havefound nothing wrong in the BriefingPaper; that they find agreement withwhat they have discovered andreported in their various papers andThe Roswell Incident. We agree! Butthat is the problem — there is little thatconflicts with what was already on therecord for a number ofyears. Enoughisin print on the Roswell incident toconcoct a pretty good — but false —scenario. This must be considered asan equally plausible explanationfor thedocuments at present unless somecompelling new information comesalong.MSF have cited a December 8,1950, FBI cable as evidence in favor ofthe 1950 Texas crash. The cable statesthat the FBI field office in Richmond,Virginia, was advised that ArmyIntelligence was placed on "ImmediateHigh Alert" for any information on"flying saucers." Anythingat all on thetopic was to be phoned to Air ForceIntelligence. While intriguing, caution isadvised in linking this firmly to theTexas incident.First —The cable is notclassified, though it states that the alertwas "strictly confidential." Second —The cable says nothing about Texas,crashed discs, MJ-12, or relatedmatters. Third — It is not clear why theRichmond FBI field office or RichmondArmy Intelligencewould be put on alertrelative to the Texas incident for "anyinformation whatsoever" on flyingsaucers. Fourth — If this were a topsecurity matter, why involve the FBI,anon-military agency?CUTLER MEMO• The 1954 Cutler Memo —Aone-page memo on carbon copy paper fromRobert Cutler, Special Assistant toPresident Eisenhower, to GeneralNathan Twining. Source is the AirForce Intelligence file group at the13
  • 14. National Archives inWashington, D.C.The Cutler memo is the key documentto MSFs case because it is the solepiece of MJ-12 evidence that could betraced to an official source. If this isgenuine, then there was an MJ-12.As mentioned in our last JustCause, problems arose early. Intelephone conversations with EdwardReese of the Military Reference Branchof the National Archives, CAUSlearned that while the memo was foundin an Air Force Intelligence file box,several things were peculiar.1) The security markingappearedin an unusual position, under the dateinstead of.on the top and bottom of thepage. 2)It was a carbon copy; unsignedand not the original. 3) It lacked theusual stamping, initials; etc. found onold documents. 4) It originally lacked aTop Secret register number, by whichthe document could be filed into aproper folder. Implication was that itwas not part of the original file groupreleased by the Air Force.More on #4. Reesesaid he receivedseveral requests for the Cutlermemo, probably as a result ofan articleby Bruce Maccabee in theNovember/December 1986 issue of theInternational UFO Reporter. Thearticle by Maccabee was the earliestmention of the existence of the Cutlermemo, presumably given to him byMoore.Reese was unable to locate thedocument until one of the requests(Reese couldnt remember who)included the Top Secret registernumber of the file which contained thememo. Apparently sometime before,someone had gone through the boxwith the Cutler memo, recorded theregister number of the file, then latersubmitted the request usingthe registernumber (T4-1846). Reese, finding thememo in the file, was puzzled that itlacked the number so assigned the filenumber to the document himself toallow its re-location.Moore and Shandera said they werethe first individuals to inspect the boxesin 1985. In fact, the release authority atthe Archives, identified by the writtennotation on later copies (NND857013),indicates the year of declassification(1985) and the case number (7013) forthe entire file group, not just file T4-141846. Yet, Moores copy of the memoindicates that it was released on1/12/87.Questions arise! If the memo wasfound by Moore and Shandera in 1985,why do they present a copy releasedtwo years later? Didthey not get a copywhen it was found on site? How did theunknown phone caller know theregister number .unless he wentthrough the file and why didnt he makea copy while there? Where is a copyofthe memo witha dated release of 1985?The implication of this is that someoneplanted the memo before 1987 and set itup to be "officially" discovered and"officially" released by Archivespersonnel. Why no mention of it byMSF before this year when, asevidenced by our article in theDecember 1985 Just Cause, the topicwas already public news and needed tobe verified at that point? Why didntMSF confideinus at that pointwhenwewould have helped?Reese also said that an Archivesvisitor, not Moore or Friedman, insistedthat the memo be stamped with theofficial NationalArchives stamp on thefront, contrary to Archives policy ofstamping the backs of documents. Thiswas certainly to guarantee theappearance of "officiality" when thememo is reproduced. Moores firstrelease of the memo is the front-stamped copy (Exhibit 8).In the file T4-1846 along with theCutler memoisawithdrawalcard foran"Air Intelligence Estimate 1/54." Theoriginal document was classified anddealt with Soviet aircraft. Question:why would the Cutler memo be filed inthe same folder with a document on acompletely unrelated topic?Upon visiting the NationalArchives on June 25th, thiseditor hadachance to examine the Cutler memooriginal. It was in Box 189, RecordsGroup 341, Entry 267. The box wasvirtually empty except for a few folderscontaining a smallnumber of non-UFOdocuments and folders with withdrawalcards. The box had been carefullyscanned before declassification andmost of the files were removed andreplaced with the cards. Question: Howdid the "Top Secret Restricted" Cutlermemo escape the obviously carefulsanitizing of the box, though MJ-12 wassupposed to be of extreme sensitivity?The memo itself was on delicatecarbon copy, rice-type paper with thetyping in blue carbon impression and ared slash through the securitymarking.The memo was remarkably cleanlooking with little sign of 33 years ofwear and handling, except for a veryslight age browning around the fouredges. A watermark, "DICTATIONONION SKIN," could be read and insmaller, less distinct letters a wordlooking like "FOX," perhaps themanufacturer. Other marking wasevident but entirely unreadable.Reese was in a quandry because,despite hissuspicions about the memo,he had to treat it as genuine. Heexpressed to this editor hisopinionthatit wasnt genuine but, in lieu of a forgercoming forward, it would be extremelydifficult to prove. I suggested that thedocument be given an in-houseanalysis. The controversy was sure toincrease and an analysis might answersome questions. Reese thought itwas agood idea so with that I thanked himand left.While you are digestingthis assaulton your brain cells, Exhibit 9, comingfrom the Assistant Director of theEisenhower Library, gives thatinstitutes conclusions on the Cutlermemo and MJ-12.Finally, a "coup, de grace" for theCutler memo came from the Archives.Exhibit 10isa disclaimernow beingsentto requesters of the memo. Itgives a10-point list of reasons why they feel theCutler memo "poses problems." Thedisclaimer is signed by the sameindividual who was quoted in MSFspress release of June llth as initiallybelieving that the memo was genuine,based on the simple fact that it wasfound at the Archives.DISCUSSIONPro-MJ-12 people have claimedthat security is such at the National-Archives that a hoax could not beperpetrated. This editor visited theArchives on June 25th with two filefolders full of zeroxed governmentdocuments, this to aid in my researchinto other matters. I signed in at thedesk, obtained a researchers card andwalked on in without anyone so much
  • 15. as peeking at my folders. I spent 45minutes with Mr. Reese while there,chatting about MJ-12 and UFOs.During that time I had ampleopportunity to plant or steal documentswhile Reese was fielding phone calls.After our discussion I left with amanilla envelope that Reese kindlyprovided for my folders full ofdocuments. I went down to the desk atground level, signed out and left. Againnot so much as a look at myenvelope.So much for massive security! It wouldhave been easy, had I been so inclined,to plant a single page hidden on myperson intoa folder. The last Iheard theNational Archiveswas not doinga stripsearch of every patron!Reese had admitted that there wasno way to prevent some "seeding" orthefts, that they just didnt have thatkind of security. A recent news storyrevealed the theft ofhistoric documentsfrom the Archives by an art historian,something Reese told me about wellbefore it ever became news.MSFs press release of June llthmakes several interesting comments.Acknowledging that they are not in aposition to endorse the authenticityofthe documents, MSFsay, nevertheless,that they appear to be genuine and that"nothing has surfaced during thecourse of our research which wouldseem to suggest otherwise." They alsostate that a "detailed and exhaustivestudy" has been underway since :December 1984.. • -..In that two-yearstudyhow is itthatMSF managed to avoid the negativecomments of various agencies andlibraries relative to the authenticity ofMJ-12?Trie Truman and Eisenhowerlibraries would be among the firstsources to contact since the key .documents came, from thoseadministrations. Either MSF contactedthose sources, received positivereplies, and for some strange reasonare withholding results that would helpprove their case, or MSF receivednegative replies and, as such, aremisinforming the public in their pressrelease that notfiing was found castingdoubt on the affair. Or MSF did notcontact them at all,layingwaste to theirclaim of a detailedand exhaustivestudyover two years.Actually a "Majestic" project wasL X H I U H =July 1U,ix po:: oc •auu, Tv3V3J3T.I ::rC/KJ-12 Special Stndlta ProjootTh* President has*4e«Uad that tb» XI-IS JSP brl«flneshoold take place dartnr tb« already schjodnlod Milt* Itouie•»«ilAC of Joly 16, rntbvr than fallowing it u prvrixraalylatnded. More prods* arrnn(«n<Bti vlll b* axplalaad tojva Boon arrlvnl. Ploaao alter your plnni aoeordlnelr.Tour ooncumnee In the abort chance of arran;«nar.tsla assrcod.ROBERT CUTLERSpecial Aaslitaatto the Pr«5t<!<ntfound at the Archives but was nothingmore than an emergency war plandrafted in 1952. No connection to MJ-12 is at all evident.MSFs sole support from an expertat the National Archiveswas a quoteinthe London Observer by archivist JoAnn Williamson on May 31,1987(MSFPress Release, June 11, 1987,pg.3),when the story was forced into thespotlight by TimothyGoods new bookAbove Top Secret. This support didnotdevelop during the two-year study butonly after ithitthe press.And,as slim asit was, it was demolished by Williamsonherself in the July 22, 1987, NationalArchives MJ-12disclaimer.It would now be a good idea forMSF to publish all the evidence of theexhaustive, two-year study, which theyclaim totallysupports MJ-12, very soonas the story is under considerableassault.It is also time to see the additionalportion of MSFs information; thethings that they have publicly stated ashaving in hand relative to MJ-12. Thisinformation is, by their words, far moresensational than what has already beenreleased. MSF wants a scientificinvestigation into MJ-12, but have yet toopen the book fully on whatbroadcaster Paul Harvey callsthe "restof the story." Where are thosephotographs and video tape? Whyhavent recent press releases by MSFdiscussed the "MJ-5" memo and theAquarius report? Where is thePresident Carter briefing paper? Let ushear a little more about "EBEs" and the"Highs?" We know MSF have thisinformation and it certainlywould be arevelation if what we hear about thesethings turns out to be true. Why areMSF playing "Project Blue Book" andnot releasing the beef?DISTURBING REVELATIONNow that we knowtheMJ-12 storyis severely flawed, what is the sourceofthis information? Since MSF arenttalking about their sources, wevediscovered several things which we15
  • 16. think point in the rightdirection.• In 1984, LindaMoultonHowe,whoproduced the well-known cattlemutilation film Strange Harvest, wascontacted by a government source toaid introducing a UFO documentary,essentially providing an answer toUFOs. She was invited by the source,briefed on the story, then sworn tosecrecy about it until the films eventualrelease. The deal was never completed.Details of the story given to her matchthe MJ-12 tale, along with much extradetail about contacts with "EBEs" (seeMJ-12 Briefing Paper), Nordic-stylealiens called "Highs" and. conflictingalien factions.• In March 1986, UFO lecturerandresearcher Robert Hastings visitedwithDr. Paul Bennewitzof the Kirtland 1980sightings (see Clear Intent, Epilog) athis home inAlbuquerque,NewMexico,very close to Kirtland,AFB. Duringtheinterview Hastings reported thatBennewitz .used the phrase"Extraterrestrial Biological Entities" todescribe the aliensinhis UFO activities.The. phrase is identical to the MJ-12Briefing Papers description of aliensand came a full year before the publicrelease of the MSF papers. How didBennewitz know this phrase withouthaving been told by someone?• CAUSDirector, Peter Gersten,ina visit with a military intelligence sourceat Kirtland AFB in 1983, was informedof a wide range of bizarre UFO stories.Included were comments on a.briefingpaper on UFOs for President Carter,the Cash/Lahdrum UFO being agovernment exploitation of UFOtechnology (something Bennewitz hasclaimed as well), Bill Moore being"righton" with Roswell, and an admissionthatthe original Project Aquarius cable (seeCAUS Bulletin, December 1985) onBennewitz and his UFO photos was"retyped" and not an original cable.This cable was the first mentionanywhere of MJ-12 and ProjectAquarius.What links these three incidentstoqether?• Linda Howes source was AirForce OSI Special AgentRichard Doty.• Peter Gerstens interview was withOSI Special Agent Richard Doty.• Bennewitz was the subject of OSISpecial Agent Richard Dotys16investigation of the 1980 Kirtland AFB,N.M., UFO sightings and the twomaintained contact thereafter.Consider also that.William Moorehas been associated with Doty from thetime after the original Kirtland sightingsin 1980. Dotys home base, Kirtland, isnoted several times in the various MSFpapers. Doty knew details of of MJ-12before the December 1984 receipt byMSF of the newly-publicized papers, asevidenced above. Doty was the OSIagent on duty at EllsworthAFB, SouthDakota during the period of the.November 1977, Ellsworth hoaxedIncident Report in which UFO alienswere said to have engaged in a gunbattle with Ellsworth security guards.This from Doty himself to PeterGersten in 1983.Question: IsRichardDoty Mooressource for much of the information weare now seeing? We think it is a virtualcertainty!We are also convinced of Dotysinvolvement ,in the notorious "CraigWeitzel" hoax letter, which we candiscuss sometime in the future.As a result of all this, we are nowforced to reassess the credibility of thenow-famous OSI report on the 1980Kirtland UFO sightings, authored inparty by Doty. We-had reproduced thisas a late entry inClear Intent (Epilog).FINAL WORP.UFOlogists comments on MJ-12have been to the effect that there is noevidence conclusively disproving MJ-12, when they should be saying thatthere is no evidence conclusivelyproving MJ-12. What has happened tocritical thinking on thisaffair? This is the .bottom line in any scientific or legalinvestigation. Questions must beanswered concisely and completely tosatisfy the rules of evidence. A claimmust be solidly supported by aninterlocking network of facts leading toa logical conclusion. In this case — wehave a mess!Our comments in this article arestrictly limited to the MJ-12 documentsand associated events of the last fewyears. We are making no comment orconclusion on the Roswell incidentitself. Something crashed there in July1947. We dont knowwhat.We werentthere! But in any argument about theincident, it must beconc/usiue/y proventhat a "spaceship" with aliens, orwhatever, came down.Therefore, we do not regard theMSF documents as convincingproofofthe MJ-12 group or the Roswell crash.There are too many hard questionswhich havent been .answeredeffectively and MSFs explanations, orin some cases excuses, are nowherenear being decisive. Friedman has usedthe phrase, "Absence of evidence is notevidence of absence!" in his defense ofMJ-12. But neither is it proof ofexistence!"To us, MJ;12 is a case of, "Youvegot to believe it to see it!"® 1987Just Cause(Postscript: Acknowledgements go toPeter Gersten, Robert Todd, RobertHastings, William Steinman, JohnLear, Jim Melesciuc, Peter Geremia,Dr. David Jacobs and MargeChristensen for valuable commentsand assistence.) , . - . . .Lawrence Fawcett and Barry J.GreenwoodINTENTTHE GOVERNMENTCOVERUPOFTHEUFOEXPERIENCEabout UFOs and why wont it tell us?With a foreword by Dr.J.Allen HynekMUFON103 Oldtowne Rd.Scguin, Texas78155
  • 17. LOOKING BACKBy Bob CribbleFORTY YEARS AGO-December1947: No significant reports on file forthis period.* * *THIRTY-FIVE YEARS AGO—December 1952: A B-29 bomber witha three-man crew was cruisingover theGulf of Mexico —about 100miles southof the Louisiana coast — just beforedawn on the sixth, when several UFOs.appeared on the bombers three radarscopes. The unknowns maneuveredaround the bomber at speedscomputed at 5240 MPH. All threemembers of the crew had visual contactwith the objects as they streaked pasttheir aircraft. After several minutes ofmaneuvering around the B-29, the fiveUFOs, still moving over 5000 MPH,merged with a larger object whichappeared on radar as a half-inch blip.Instantly the huge blip began toaccelerate and flashed across the threeradar scopes at a speed computed to beover 9000 MPH.Two pilots of an F-94 made visualand radar contact over Odessa,Washington, on the tenth with a large,round white object larger than anyknown aircraft. A dim reddish-whitelight came from the object as it hovered,reversed direction almost instantan-eously and then disappeared. Theobject appeared.to be level with theintercepting F-94at 26,000 feet.Airbornradar and visual contact weresimultaneous and lasted for 15minutes.Time of incident was 7:15 PM.On the 19th, a large UFO wassighted by ground crew personnel atAnderson Air Force Base, Guam, aNaval officer 14milessouth of the base,and from an .incoming B-17 115 mileswest of Guam. The object appearedcylindrical in shape, of silvery colorwitha bright flame trailingfrom the rear. Thespeed was considered to be inexcessofthat of a conventional jet and in eachcase the sighting did not exceed 45seconds.An RB-36 reconnaissance aircraftwas flying northeast of Puerto Rico onthe 31st at 8000 feet when the three-man crew observed a large UFO in aclear moonlit sky. The object, whichappeared to be a reddish-orange ballofflame, was seen on the horizon andapproached the aircrafts left side,passed over the wing at a distance ofabout 300 feet, and then moved awayfrom the tail and climbed out of sight ina fewseconds.* * *THIRTY YEARS AGO—December1957: Howard Hendricksen wasdriving near Scenic, South Dakota at5:40 AM on the 18th when a UFOpassed directly over his car at analtitude of about 200 feet. He said thecraft was tipped on its side, and thebottom which was the only illuminatedportion, lit up the area in line with thebottom of the craft "as bright as day.".Hendricksen said the craft was hugeand "filled the windshield" of his car ashe followed it along the badlands road.The top was dome-shaped, as on afrying pan, with what looked like thebody of a big bomber sitting on top.Immediately in front of this portion wasa dome. He said nothing wasilluminated except the bottom, and hecouldnt be sure ifthere were windowsin the "bomber body" portion or not.With the exception of the lightedportion, the craft was silver colored.There was no sound. Hendricksen wasable to attract the attention of otherwitnesses who saw ,the craft briefly asthe lighted area turned to a deep orangeand in less than 60 seconds rosevertically and disappeared.TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AGO—December 1962: A UFO landed at theEzeiza International Airport nearBuenos Aires, Argentina on the 22nd.In the early morning darkness a DC-8airliner was making its landingapproach when the pilots spotted.adisc-shaped craft sitting at the end ofthe runway as the airport lights cameon. When the captain notified the towera controller told him the craft had justdescended to the ground. The discremained on the ground for a fewminutes then ascended and moved outof sight.* * *TWENTY YEARS AGO—Dec-ember 1967: Ashland, NebraskaPolice Officer Herb Schirmer spotted astrange lighted object near Highway 6about 2:30 AMon the second. "Assoonas myheadlights, which were on bright,struck the object," he said, "I knew itwas no truck, and what I saw scaredme." He described the craft as ellipticalin shape, about the size of a room"perhaps twenty feet long and as muchas 14feet thick," surrounded by lightedportholes. The craft was hoveringjustafew feet off the ground. It wassoundless. The craft soon shot up toabout 50 feet, stopped, then wentstraight up and disappeared.Under hypnosis Schirmer statedthat when he came upon the craft abeam of light was turned on him andalso litup the front end of the patrol car.He also observed a human form (four orfive feet tall) emerge from beneath thecraft and approach him. He stated theform was shaped like aman. Four otherwitnesses in the Ashland area reportedthey saw an object earlier the samenight similar to what Schirmer said hesaw."I felt sick all over and my car wasbeing pulled off the road to the right.Itcame to a standstill and the enginewould not turn over. Isaw a round disc,and heard voices coming from it."The Ithaca, New York woman (namewithheld) was driving on Route 34 withher five-year-old son about 6:45 PM onthe 12th. "At first I observed red lightsin the rear-view mirror. The lightspassed my car and I saw a large discabout the size of a box-car hovering atan altitude about the height of atelephone pole. It lit up the inside of mycar with a blood-red color. It was soeerie; there was no sound. I becamehysterical and shouted to my son, buthe wouldnot move and seemed to beina trance."At this point her car was pulledoffto the side of the road and would notstart; the horn did not work and her17
  • 18. lights dimmed. It was a domed,elliptical-shaped object with square redand green windows, awhitedomeanda. bright white light which shone from thecenter of the object to the ground. "Wewere in this position for about 10 to 15minutes. Im sure it wasnt any longerthan that, but it seemed like aneternity." Then she heard a hummingsound,she said, although the carwindows were closed. "Iheard voices. Ibecame completely hysterical and feltlike Iwas beingwatched. My son wouldnot respond to my cries. I knew theradio was not on.""Your son will not rememberanything, only the fact .that the carstopped and then started again," thevoices said. After repeated efforts mycar started and I fled down the roadwithout lookingback. "My child wouldnot respond, but Ifelt whateverit was, itwould not harm me," she said.* * *FIFTEEN YEARS AGO-Dccem-ber 1972: Mr. & Mrs. Charles Williswere driving near Millville, New Jerseyat 8:50 PM on the seventh1when theysaw a large cylindrical light, about thesize of a small airplane,flying high overthe road ahead of them. The lighthovered, came down to the tree lineand remained in that position for a brieftime. When they sped up the road toinvestigate further, it crossed from oneside of the road to the other anddisappeared intothe woods on the rightside of the road. The next day StatePolice uncovered a cleared siteapproximately two feet in diameterwhere the object had reportedlylanded. Police said the area was bareofall vegetation and pine needles and inthe center was a round hole two incheswide and four inches deep. "Itwas arealwild area and I dont see how anythingcould have gotten in there except fromabove," Trooper Leonard Andersonsaid.On the 10th Irene Collins ofSkelton, West Virginia, observed "ahuge light that came down throughthesky," about 9:30 PM. "I just happenedto look out and saw it," she said. "Itlooked like a huge ball 10feet indiameteror even more that seemed to driftdown. I watched it for three or fourminutes before it fell to the ground."She said the object shined with a18whiteish-yellow glow. The next day ashallow crater, eight feet in diameter,was found at the site where the balllanded. It resembled a miniature mooncrater with material piled up around theperimeter.* * *TEN YEARS AGO—December1977: "Theres no doubt in my mindthat this craft was intelligentlycontrolled. It seemed to be playinggames with us," declared veteranCharlotte, North Carolina, PoliceOfficer Ronald K. Arey, recalling hisharrowing close ecnounter with adome-shaped UFO. As Arey, 39,maneuvered his police helicopter intotight turns, trying to outflank the UFO,the craft responded. — to hisamazement — by staying directlybehind the choppers tail. "It scared hellout of me," Areys partner> patrolmanHoward Douglas Dellinger, 32,admitted. And Arey recalled: "Itevidently knew what I was doing,because it appeared to be trying to geton my tail as I was trying to get on itstail." Arey and Dellinger were onroutine helicopter patrolover Charlottewhen they spotted, about 10:55 PM,two lighted objects they believed to beaircraft flying in formation. "But as wegot closer I observed there were nonavigational lights, no rotatingbeacons,no strobe lights...no anything," Areysaid. Climbing for a closer look, theofficers were stunned to see one of thecraft suddenly vault from about 1700feet to about 4000 or 5000 feet intwo orthree seconds." The second craft was"silver-looking." Bigger than thehelicopter, it radiated a strange, brightorange glow and had "a kind of domeover it,"Dellinger said. Inan instant,theUFO swungpast and took up apositionbehind the chopper."I was circling to the left and itstarted circling to the left, about 150feet behind me," Arey said. "We werejust standing up there doing tailspins,and it looked like it was playing games.But as soon as Icould get a look at it,itwas right back on my tail." As heboldlyplayed cat and mouse with the UFOs,Arey radioed air traffic control atnearby Douglas Municipal Airport.Traffic Controller Ray Bader,27, confirmed he had the helicopter onradar, plus a light plane—as well as twounknown objects. Two of the (radar)targets, he noted, were very close toeach other. Dellinger, aveteran ofmorethan eight years as a policeman, wasfighting a growing sense of panic."Theres some things you foolwith...and I dont think this is one ofthem," he shouted to Arey, whowhipped the chopper around inseveralcomplete 360-degree turns in a periodof 20 to 30 seconds, hopingfor anotherchance to view the craft close up. Thatthing bothered me," Dellingerremembered later. "I wanted to get thehell out of there."But Arey, determined to confrontthe UFO, suddenly wheeled thechopper around in the oppositedirection. He caught a brief glimpse ofthe craft again, but the game was over."A ball offire as bigas your fist came outfrom underneath and dropped down,and the object headed off," Areyrecalled. "I gave chase at about 140MPH, but the object ran off and left me.Then all of a sudden the light went outand we couldnt see anything else."Bader confirmed that when Areychased the UFO, it disappeared on theradar screen. Moments later, air trafficcontrol radioed that they hadsomething else on the screen. "Weturned and there was an object in thesky...same thing we had sightedbefore," Arey said. As the helicopterclosed fast, the UFO simply vanished."When (Arey) said he had lost thesecond (unknown) aircraft, we didntsee it any longer on the radar, either,"Bader said.MUFONYEARSLONGENOUGHFund >r CJFO> Kmarch
  • 19. CENTRAL EUROPEAN STUDIESBy Illobrand von LudwigerThe following paper was readby Dr. H. Theodore Auerbach,MUFONs representative forSwitzerland, at the MUFONInternational Meeting in London,July 13, 1987. Mr. Von Ludwigeris MUFON-CES director.The German speaking groupMUFON Central European Section,MUFON-CES for short was foundedin1975. It now numbers about 40 activemembers in Germany, Switzerland,and Austria. Membership is byinvitation only and presently consists of15 physicists and mathematicians, 11engineers, and 13 astronomers,biologists, chemists, medical doctors,and other scientifically trainedindividuals from 10 universities andfrom industry.Our chief aim is to raise thediscussion of UFOs to a level of seriousscientific inquiry. For this purpose it isnecessary to get other scientistsinterested in the topic. We do notofficially engage in public information,since this activity iscarried out by othergroups in our countries.The papers presented at ourannual meetings are worked out indetail and published in the form ofproceedings, each volume containingsome 200-500 pages. Altogether wehave publishedmore than 2700 pages oftext in German so far. In addition,members give public talks and writearticles and books on an individualbasis.UFOs should be analyzed fromboth physical and psychological pointsof view, but only the physicalexamination can be conducted in anobjective manner free fromcontradictions. Unfortunately, amongthe more than 50 UFO sightingsinvest-igated byus so far there were hardly anyelectromagnetic cases. Ina first stepwesearched the available literatureand setup special data catalogs, comprising:• 1319 cases of electromagneticand gravitational interactions in thevicinity of UFOs.• 552cases ofstrange behavior ofanimals.• 350 cases of different typesofUFOs.• 150 psychological effects.• 128 solid light cases.• 85cases ofUFOs accompaniedby intense light emission.• 117 UFOs observed byastronomers.SOLID OBJECTNext, we analyzed thephenomenological spectrum ofsightings and reached the conclusionthat a solid object, interactingphysically with its surroundings, is atthe core of the UFO phenomenon.Luminous phenomena like balllightning, will-o-the-wisps, andparanormal light effects on the onehand, and CE-IV experiences andpsychological projections according toC.G. Jung on the other are borderlinecases which should be attributed toUFOs only after thoroughinvestigation. Accordingly, we haveconcentrated our efforts on thephysical aspects of the phenomenonand less on the psychological reactionof witnesses.Theoretical studies were carriedout for the purpose, among otherthings, of finding answers to questionssuch as:• What physical mechanism canlead to the extreme brightness intheairsurrounding UFOs? (1977, 1983)• Is it possible for laser or particlebeams to produce solid light?(1978)• Does todays physics allow thegeneration of antigravity?(1975, 1983)• Is it theoretically possible forsolid objects to appear and disappear?(1978)• Which physical theories permitthe displacement of objects betweenwidely separated points? (1978)One result was that there indeedexist unified field theories of matterand gravitationable to provide at least aqualitative answer to these questions.This implies that from an astrophysicalviewpoint the extraterrestrialhypothesis can no longer be excluded,provided the theories mentioned areverified by experiments on elementaryparticles.We also tried to find answers toproblems of historical interest, such as:• Can one find a technicalinterpretation of the "air wars"mentioned in old Indian manuscripts?• Do Sumerian writings containreports on extraterrestrial visitors?• AreUFOs shown inillustrationsof medieval single leaf printings?• How frequent were UFOsightings in the 17th, 18th and 19thcenturies? (1976, 1983)• What were the "foo-fighters" ofWorld War II? (1978)These investigations reveal thatobjects, whose characteristics weresimilar to those of todays unidentifiedlight phenomena already wereobserved in the 17th century (1976).However, sightings were fewer innumber than those of will-o-the-wispsand paranormal light phenomena.We carefully analyzedonceagain asample containing 17%ofthe Blue Bookmaterial (1981) and came to theconclusion that the reportswere clearlydistorted by the generally prejudicedattitude prevalent among investigators.All documents are, characterized bylack of carefulness, lack of familiaritywith scientific methodology, and byimproper application of statistics. Thenumber of case histories remainingunevaluated due to allegedlyinsufficient information is five times asgreat as the number of objects claimedto be unidentifiable. The material iswellsuited for not confirming anyhypothesis.SOVIET DATA19
  • 20. Through variouschannels wewereable to secure about 600 manuscriptpages of Russian Samisdat materialabout UFO sightings and theories,including full names and addresses ofwitnesses. The most interesting reportswere translated by us intoGerman andpublished in our conference reports(1981). The documentation shows thatEM-cases, CE-III events, andabductioncases with hypnoticregression occurinthe USSR, too.In contrast to witnesses in theWest, Russians seem to be lessconcerned about ridicule than they areabout being questioned by the secretpolice. It might be mentioned that thePetfosawodsk sighting in 1977 cannotbe interpreted as a rocket launchedatabout that time in Plesetsk, 125milesaway, as James Oberg has contended,because the phenomenon wasobserved for 5 minutes under a lowcloud ceiling.In a medical study,physiologicaland psychological effects of UFOradiation were compared to those ofelectromagnetic irradiation. Statisticalmethods for electronic data analysiswere developed and suggestions weremade for an automatic registration ofUFOs (1981). A number of reliabilitystudies were concerned with dataevaluation and the credibility ofwitnesses. The following topics wereinvestigated:• The value ofpsychological testsfor obtaining objectivestatements fromwitnesses.• Methods ofphotoarialysis forthediscovery of hoaxes (1976).• Possibilities and limitationsofhypnotic regression as a source ofinformation.New methods of checking on thereliability of witnesses. .• The psychological effects of aculture shock initiated by suddencontacts, as demonstrated by theexample of the Melanesians andTasadays.Throughout our work we haveemphasized the applicationof scientificmethods of investigation. We coulddemonstrate the correctness of thesemethods when they were appliedto theinterrogation of witnesses and to thetheoretical treatment of problems.Criticism by sceptics is, in general,psychologically motivated and not theproduct of scientific considerations. Aprocedure may be termed unscientificor pseudoscientific only if the methodemployed iswrong,not merely becauseit is applied to "strange" phenomena,such as UFOs.At present we are engaged incompleting the tenth MUFON-CESconference report and in variousotheractivities, including the analysisof UFOcase histories with the aid of IBM PCspersonal computers and an H.P. 9000computer with colored, real-timegraphics, the investigation of anabduction and solid light case inGermany, and the setting up of aconsistent terminology for the mostfrequent UFO types.A number of abduction witnessesawait beingquestioned underhypnosis.Unfortunately, the medical hypnotistand head of a clinicwith whose help weinvestigated the CE-III case ofLangenargen (1977) is no longer at ourdisposal due to chronic lack of time.Lack of time of our members is, in fact,the main obstacle in our research. Italso is the reason for my failure to bepersonally present at thismeeting. Bestregards to allMUFON members.UFOs SCIENTIFICALLY LEGITIMATEBy Irena ScottIrena Scott is a MUFONconsultant in physiology." No scientific investigation of theUFO problem has been carried outduring the entire twenty-two yearperiod between the first extensive waveof sightings of unidentified flying objectsin the summer of 1947 and theconvening of this symposium. Theabove statement was made by the lateDr. James E. McDonald at the UFOsymposium held by the AmericanAssociation for the Advancement ofScience (AAAS) in 1969. Even now, 17years later, it is still true. Why?"(MUFON UFO Journal, August, 1986.)The above quotation is similar tonumerous others which indicate thatUFO studies are not accepted by20science. This purported lack ofscientific acceptance results in theimpression that anyone who believesthis phenomenon is odd, illogical,crazy, a mystical believer, or perhapssubject to worse aberrations. Thisattitude is demoralizing to thoseengaged in sound studies of thephenomenon.Is this perception correct? Howcan one establish whether or not thestudy of the UFO phenomenon isacceptable to science? First, one needsto establish criteria.One suchcriterionis to determine whether there arereviewed papers of original research onthis subject in scientific journals (thescientific literature), which consider thepossibility thatUFO phenomena can bea distinct class rather than an IFOsubclass. A general guide to whatconstitutes scientific literaturemight bethose publications listed in the ScienceCitation Index. In order to test thepremise that UFO observations are notscientifically acceptable, I submittedone original research paper on UFOobservations to a reviewed scientificjournal and two abstracts aboutaspects of the UFO phenomenon totwo scientific societies. All wereaccepted with little trouble.By this criterion (a reasonableone), statements that the study of UFOphenomenon is unacceptable toscience are false. Not only is it possibleto publish studies which "explain" theUFO phenomenon in the scientificliterature, it is also possible to publishthose which suggest its further
  • 21. examination/ UFOldgists, then, shouldthink of their subject as,of interest toscience and publishable in scientificjournals.METHODSThe scientific method, whichincludes observing nature, classifyingdata, and forming and testinghypotheses, obviously includes study ofthe UFO phenomenon. Acceptablereasons for collecting UFOobservations are:1) In accordance with the empiricalmethod of science, it is permissible tomake and record anyobservation, evenif it is unexplained, not in agreementwith current theory, and no onebelieves in it. For example, there werewritten descriptions of supernovaebefore their current scientificexplanation existed.2) Observations can be made ininstances when ho hard evidenceexists. "Hard evidence" is defined bycurrent paradigms. For example,neither a meteorite nor a meteoritecrater would have been accepted as"hard evidence" in the 1700s, becausescientists did not believethat rocks fellfrom the sky. Similarly, the argumentthat UFOs cant exist because no onehas captured one is not convincing,because no laboratory rat has captureda scientist. There is no reason toassume that all phenomena are underhuman control. Exploring an unknownbecause... of scientific curiosity isjustifiable scientifically0and is not thesame thing as believing in it.3) It is-illogical to say that becausesome UFO pbservations , areexplainable by prosaic means, all are.One .should not."solve" ah unknown bybelieving" that .if;;is known;^pr byextrapolating knowncasesto includeit.Each case shouldbe scilved individually.•.;.. 4) The. scientific method has notnecessarily been used in purportedscientific studies of UFO observations.For example,the Condon CommitteeReport lists 23 of the 59 cases theystudied as unexplained. However, theyconcluded, "Our general conclusion isthat nothinghas come from the studyofUFOs in the past 21 years that .hasadded to scientific knowledge." Thisdoes not follow scientific methodologybecause, the conclusion is not inagreement with the results nor with the95% confidencelimit generallyused for(explained) data.5) Proving that UFOs exist, orlooking for a perfect casemay bea poorway to examine the UFO evidence,because the phenomenon might existbut not provide evidence that peoplecan understand. The currentmethodology of science is based uponstatistical examination of manyexamples. One data point has littlechance of standing by itself. Forexample, before the concept that rockscould fall from the sky was accepted, asurvey might have shown differencesbetween the population of peoplewitnessing events matching meteorobservations and those regularlyseeingpink elephants.6) Itwouldnot necessarily cost toomuch to finance UFO research. Thegovernments 1988 budget proposalsshow the militarys share of the R&Dbudget to be 72% (Feb. 6, Science1987). This money includes funds fordevelopment of such controversial"advances" as Star Wars.After the initial observations of aphenomenon, additional scientificmethods may be used dependingonthedata and the state of current expertise.For example, the human race isbelieved to have accepted the idea ofaspherical earth revolving around thesun during the last few hundred of itspurported 40,000 years of existence.Since people have only been exposedto the UFO concept for 40 years, wemay not be able to handle some of theconcepts needed to understand it. Asan example, the spread of the blackplaque might have been prevented hadpeople determined how the infestationwas transmitted; but, people had noconcept of life forms that they couldntsee, thrus, no laboratory manipulationtook place.HYPOTHESESHowever the testing andfalsification of hypotheses is possibleand much should be done with theabundance of existing UFO data. Forexample, ifUFO sightings are the resultof misidentification, there is no obviousreason to hypothesize a greatermisidentification rate in one place thananother. However, the results ofProject Blue Book Special Report #14,showed differences between sections ofthe countryand, in addition, Maccabeehas calculated that this distribution didnot correlate with population density(Hisforica/ Introduction to Project BlueBook Special Report #14, 1979). Thus,the hypothesis has been falsified.Another test can be made with thetime distribution of the number ofreports. One could hypothesize thatmisidentifications should occur at thesame rate during different years.However, the results of Project BlueBooks monthly summary of thenumber of reports received for theyears, 1950 - mid 1967 show largesignificant differences (chi square) canexist during random sampling ofdifferent sequential years. Thus, thehypothesis of misidentification isthrown into doubt. Sufficient data existfor the examination of many otherpossibilities:1) UFOs may be sensory and/orperception errors --In this instance thesubject should be studied because it isnecessary to find out why large groupssuch as the reported fifty thousandwitnesses at Fatima, the manyobservations by scientifically trainedpeople, and all the other goodobservations, occur. It is vital tounderstand this sort of phenomenonnow because of the possibility thatmilitary "advances" can destroyhumanity. Misidentification by only afew people could result in massannihilation. In addition, location ofmissiles and their computer controlsmay allow only a few minutes for life ordeath decisions.2) Not all UFOs are misidentifca-tions --Inthiscase an attempt should bemade to find out what unexplainedpossible UFOs are. This may comeabout by present day methods ofscience; however, it is possible thatobservations will be unexplained. Itshould also be considered that someUFO phenomena might represent lifeforms capable of manipulatingevidence.3) New theories, reasoning, andsocial and scientific changes may beimportant to the UFO phenomenon.The quantum theory, for example,21
  • 22. introduces people to such concepts asobserver-dependent phenomena,experiments suggesting thatinteractions can occur that are notlimited by the speed of light, the ideathat the human brain may producereality, .multiple universes, and aquestioning of the idea of cause andeffect. All of these ideas may beimportant to the UFO phenomenon.For example, the debunkers havealways maintained that possible extra-terrestrial life forms could not traveltoearth because the speed of light wouldbe a limitation.4) Biblical and other religious ideasmay be important or vital.CONCLUSIONSThere is an advantage toUFOlogists and to humanityin notingthat observations of the UFOphenomenon are acceptable toscience. Scientific acceptance willimprove the investigation of thephenomenon, result in widerdissemination of information, scientificand public scrutiny, and better datacollection. In addition, the study of thepossible group of unexplainable casesmay push forth the frontiersof science.UFOlogists should submit moreresearch to scientific publications. Ifpapers are rejected, the reviewerscomments should be published toascertain whether the rejections areforsound reasons. The idea that UFOlogyis scientifically acceptable should beconsidered as a viewpoint in UFOpublicity campaigns. It should be notedthat differences exist between thescientific and the debunker viewpointsand that UFOlogists have as valid aclaim to a scientific viewpoint asdebunkers do. With more scientificpublications, UFOlogy might haveincreased respectability, additionalgrant funding, and increased leveragefor obtaining information fromgovernment sources.MUTUALUFONETWORKMEIER, Continuedpigeonhole as opposed to a physicalone.Apples and oranges, as we know,cannot be added withouta fundamentalchange in category. And the taste ofone neither proves — nor disproves —the existence of the other.MESSAGE, ContinuedUFOIogyvwas published in theOctober 1987 issue number 234 of theMUFON UFO JOURNAL, since itwashot included in the publishedproceedings. In the future, we hope topublish the paper submitted byVincente-Juan Ballester Olmos,titled "Characteristics of CloseEncounters in, Spain," assisted byJoachim A. Fernandes.REVIEW, Continuedworks) admirably lives up to the Tomeshard earned reputation: timely, livelyand exhaustive.. UFOs 1947-1987 is equally suitableas an introduction to an inherentlyfascinating subject in all of itsramifications or as a handbook ofcontemporary ufological research andthought. Though possibly difficult totrack down, itsthe sort of publicationone wishes could become an annualaffair. If your bookstore cant find acopy, try contacting the publisher at 1Shoebury Road, East Ham,London,England, E6 2AQ,or Bob GirardsArcturus Book Service, 4431VillageSquare Lane, Stone Mountain, GA,30083. The price is about $25.SUPPORTTHESYMPOSIUMJUNE 24-261988UFO NEWSCL1PPINGSERVICEThe UFONEWSCLIPP1NG SERVICEwill keep you informed of all the latestUnited States and World-Wide UFOactivity, as ithappens! Our service wasstarted in 1969, at which time wecontracted with a reputableinternational newspaperrdippingbureau to obtain for us, those hard tofind UFO reports (i.e., little knownphotographic cases, close encounterand landing reports, occupant cases)and all other UFO reports, many ofwhich are carried only in small town orforeign newspapers."Our UFO Newsclipping Serviceissues are 20-page monthly reports,reproduced by p h o t o - o f f s e t ,containing the latest United States andCanadian UFO newsclippings, with• our foreign section carrying the latestBritish, Australian, New Zealand andother foreign press reports. Alsoincluded is a 3-5 page section of"Foftean" clippings (i.e. Bigfopt andother "monster" reports). Let us keepyou informed of the latest happeningsin the UFO and Fortean fields."For subscription information andsample pages from our service, write .today to:UFO NEWSCUPPING SERVICERoute 1 — Box 220Plumerville, Arkansas 72127Lawrence FawccU and BarryJ.GreenwoodINTENTMllUW.THEGOVERNMENTCOVERUPOFTHEUFO EXPERIENCEWhat does the government knowabout UFOs and why wont it tellus?With a foreword by Dr. J. Allen Hynek22
  • 23. UFOs: 1947-1987 REVIEWEDBy Dennis StacyThis review originallyappearedin "California UFO," 6 issues, $15,1800 S. Robertson Blvd., #355, LA,CA, 90035.Lovers of the odd and unusualhave long relished the lively, and oftenas not, irreverent Fortean Times ofLondon, co-edited by Bob RickardandPaul Sieveking.A graphically illustratedjournal of all things anomalous, fromspontaneous human combustion and"Nessie," to UFOs and toadsentombed in stone, the Times takes itname from the iconoclastic Americancollector of same, Charles Fort (1874-1932).The tightly-packed quarterly hasearned a reputation for its mordant,bordering on black, humor, anencyclopedic reach of subject matter,meticulous attentionto annotation(andattribution for credit wheres it due),and a list of regular contributors thatreads like a Whos Who of Forteanphenomena, or forteana, for short.Last summer the dynamic duobehind the Times ventured intofullscale book publishing, and for mostof us the results couldnt be morefelicitous. The new imprint is calledFortean Tomes, and its first publicationis a mammoth collection (384 pages ofclosely packed print and pictures)containing more than 50 essays onvirtually every aspect of the UFOphenomenon imaginable, from itsworldwide scope to its implications forboth individuals and society.Designed to commemorateKenneth Arnolds "first-of-its-kind"1947 sighting, the book has beendubbed UFOs 1947-1987: The 40-YearSearch for an Explanation. Compiledand edited by Hilary Evans (with JohnSpencer) for BUFORA, the BritishUFO Research Association, UFOs is atruly international compilation, withcontributors weighing in from Poland,France, the United Kingdom,Canada,Zimbabwe, Spain, Belgium,Australia,Sweden, and of course the UnitedStates. Contributions from China,Japan, the Middle East, and certainThird Worldcountries would havebeenappreciated, but the editors are to becongratulated for ranging as far afield asthey did, given the budget anddeadlineconsiderations underwhichtheyhad towork.As it is, readers will find the timeand expense of searching out a copyworth the effort. There is much herethat one would not normally expect tofind between two covers, and for themost part the attention to detail andquality is what weve come to expectfrom Forts heir apparents. Thevolumeitself is what we would call a trade-size,quality paperback, with stiff, glossycovers, front and back, depicting acolorful variety of other UFO book andjournal covers that have appeared overthe last forty years.Many of the contributors willalready be well known to Americanreaders, including John Keel on theMaury Island caper, Jacques Vallee onthe use of computers, LeonardStringfield on crash/retrievals, andothers. Others may already be familiarwith English ufologists like JennyRandies and John Rimmer, editor ofMagonia. Editor Evans contributesseveral pieces himself, including anintroduction, and fills in wheresomeone else probably missed adeadline.The result is a compendium ofapproaches and viewpoints thatmanages to avoid leaning too heavily infavor of any one editorial philosophy.Writers, chosen for their expertise in aparticular area, are simply allowed tohave their say. Contents are dividedinto five major sections, covering UFOphenomena, assessment of same,explanations, social implications, andthe role of skepticism. Appendicesinclude a list of current internationalUFO organizations and books aboutUFOs, rated as either "essential"reading, "recommended," or "animportant regional study." An indexwould have been an added delight,butits absence is hard to quibble about inlight of the overall project and the factthat separate articles are arranged bysubject matter in a more or lesschronological and comprehensive tableof topics.Under "The Phenomena," forexample, one finds sections aboutUFOs before 1947, UFOs and theAfrican tribal system, UFOs as a globalphenomenon, UFOs in the SovietUnion, UFO occupants, contacteesand abductions, and so on. "Assessingthe Phenomena" deals with how toinvestigate UFOs, how to define UFOs,physical traces, effects on humans,radar returns, witnesses and relatedtopics. The various hypotheses putforth to explain UFOs inalltheir myriadmanifestations are treated in a thirdsection. Here one encounters Swedish"ghost rockets," extraterrestrials,ufaraterrestrials, so-called "spook-lights," an analysis of theoretical UFO-propulsion systems, "space critters,"and all other sorts of "explanations"offered over the last four decades andbeyond. At the very least, one comesaway well educated to the realizationthat we are no longer talking about thesimple "daylight discs" and "nocturnallights" of years past.Section five, "UFOs and Society,"looks at the psychological and socialimplications inspired by the UFOphenomenon, including pieces onUFOs and scientists, UFO cults,comparisons with religious folklore,and even UFOs in the cinema.Selecting "favorite" selectionsfrom the above would be an exercise infutility. Suffice it to say, to coin a cliche,that there is something here foreveryone. The first of the ForteanTomes (at leasta half dozen volumesondifferent subjects are in the immediate(continued on page 22)23
  • 24. DIRECTORS MESSAGEbyWalt AndrusThe MUFON Board of Directorsand Staff take this opportunity toconvey Seasons Greetings to ourmembers throughout the world bywishing each and everyone a MerryChristmas and a Happy New Year.While weare celebratingthe conclusionof a memorable year in Ufology, ourmonthly magazine, the MUFON UFOJOURNAL (formerly SKYLOOK)observed its 20th anniversary ofpublication during Septmeber 1987.This isa tributeto Norma E.Shortandthe dedicated editors who followed inher footsteps, elevating thepublicationinto the finest monthly UFO magazinein the world.Several State Section Directorshave been reassigned to new countiesafter changing their residences.RalphSavarese, a retired MethodistMinister, is now responsible forHarrison, Jackson and HancockCounties in Mississippi; Jack Poor-bough, living inJensen Beach, Florida, hasbeen assigned to St. Lucie and MartinCounties; Norma J. White, formerlyliving in West Virginia, is the newSection Director for Wicomico,Worcester and Somerset Counties inMaryland; and Don Mason, formerState Director for Idaho, has returnedto the U.S.A. from Canada to acceptthe position of State Section Directorfor Ada, Boise, Canyon, ElmoreFayette and Gem Counties in Idaho.John Lear, State Director forNevada, has appointed MorganClements as the new State SectionDirector for Lincolnand Nye Counties.Mrs. Judith M. Diliberto hasrecommended that Kevin Lammensof Babylon, New York replace her asState Section Director for SuffolkCounty on Long Island. KennethRing, Ph. D., a professor at theUniversity of Connecticut, hasaccepted the position of Consultant inPsychology.* * *State Directors have beenreceiving copies of the FieldInvestiga-tors Examinationto administer to theirmembers, attached to a cover sheetofinstructions, and a blank answer sheet.Mrs. Shirley A. Coyne, 73 Borman,Flushing, MI 48433-9239 will grade allexaminations and submit the results tothe individual, the State Director andMUFON headquarters.The MUFON 1988 UFOSymposium will be held on June 24, 25and 26, 1988 at the Nebraska CenterHotel, University of Nebraska inLincoln, hosted by MUFON ofNebraska. Ray W. Boeche andScottColburn will chair the host committee.Walt Andrus, in conjunction with thehost committee, has started extendinginvitations to the featured speakers.Special hotel rates for the symposiumwill be $35for singleoccupancy and $38for double occupancy plus tax pernight. The Nebraska Center will hold90double hotel rooms for symposiumparticipants. Should additional housingaccomodations be required, they canarrange for overflow in adjacenthotel/motel properties.With the promotion of DanWright to Deputy Director ofInvestigations on the MUFONExecutive Committee, a vacancy nowexists for Central Regional Director onthe MUFON Board of Directors. Danwill continue to fill the position ofInvestigative Coordinator in his newcapacity. An election will be conductedin early 1988 to elect a Central RegionalDirector by the members inthe CentralStates, composed of the followingstates: ND, SD, NE, KS,OK, TX,MN,IA, MO, AR, LA, WI, IL, IN, MI, KY,TN, AL and OH. Anycurrent membersdesiring to be a candidate shouldcontact your State Director so thathe/she may submit your name innomination. Allcandidates names mustbe received by MUFON headquartersby January 30,1988. Aprimary electionwill be held if over six candidates arenominated with the ballots beingenclosed in the MUFON UFOJOURNAL. The term of the new BoardMember will be 4 years. (StateDirectors are eligible and maynominatethemselves if they so desire.)Npminations are now being accepted.Edward F. Mazur, State Directorfor Arkansas, has nominatedBill Pitts,former State Director forArkansas andpresently a State Section Director forthe above post. Mr. Pitts was thesponsor and chairman of the verysuccessful Fort Smith (Arkansas) UFOConference held in 1975. Please givethis matter serious thought and adviseyour State Director.* * *The Fund for UFO Research, hostfor the recent MUFON 1987International UFO Symposium held oncampus at The American University inWashington, DC, has a variety ofimportant publications, books, videotapes (VHSor Beta), audio tapes of thesymposium speakers and researchpapers that are availablefor purchase.Please request "Reply Form 2Q87" forthis extensivelist by writing to: Fund forUFO Research, P.O. Box 277, Mt.Rainier, MD 20712.The Fund for UFO Research hasonly two sources of income to supportits activities: contributions and salesofdocuments and other educationalmaterials. Contributions to the Fundare 100% tax deductible; the price ofdocuments is 50% tax deductible.The MUFON 1987 InternationalUFO Symposium Proceedings (222pages) is available from MUFON for$15 plus $1.50 for postageand handling.It contains all of the papers presentedby the featured speakers that werereceived before the proceedings wentto press on June 1,1987. The theme is:"International Symposium onUnidentified Aerial Phenomena: 1947-1987." Stanton T. Friedmanssymposium paper titled "Canadian(continued on page 22)