MUFON UFO JOURNAL(USPS 002-970)(ISSN 0270-6822)103 Oldtowne Rd.Seguin, Texas 78155-4099 U.S.A.DENNIS W. STACYEditorWALTER ...
The CUFOS PositionA Response From Gulf BreezeINTRODUCTIONDear Walt:I was startled to read your recentarticle in the MUFON ...
refrained from admitting the bluebeam in my first letter to the Sentinel.Answer: Being a very traumaticevent and one that ...
The InvisiblesBy Lindy Whitehurst and Hal CrawfordPROLOGUFOs present a splendid paradox.They simultaneously put forth thea...
the "lower floor" of regulated air-space lifts up to a higher level as dis-tance from the airport increases.Thus transpond...
sent meteor ionization trails, re-enter-ing satellites and electrical atmos-pheric effects. Infra-red sensors aboardthe Sa...
there. We can speculate an "out-sider" would certainly use its fullcomplement of decoys and electroniccountermeasure Steal...
Dangerous Game ReviewedBy Walter N. WebbWebb writes our monthly "NightSky" column. UFO-Abductions: ADangerous Game, by Phi...
including Kathie, suffered radiation-like symptoms when they walkednear the traces; (5) also on the samenight, a neighbor ...
he was "ordered not to discuss anyof what was seen or discussed duringthe screenings. I only passed myorder, as the rankin...
Fund For OFO ResearchQUARTERLYREPORTOctober - December 1987During the last quarter of 1987, theFund continued appeals for ...
will continue to quiver and hide intothe night, after a balloon has been inthe area.My daughter likes the small, helium-fi...
What The Air Force Knew In 1947Sider is a French MUFON mem-ber and Journal contributor. Weare indebted to Dr. Thomas E.Bul...
Roswell crash, not before. Air Forceintentions were quite clear. It wantedto ridicule and trivialize everythingrelative to...
motely [11].No mention is made of the Roswellcrash in this document or any othersobtained by FOIA requests. This is inkeep...
applied to a different context.Sight should not be lost of the factthat President Trumans note waswritten two days after G...
18. Ruppelt, op. cit., 74-75.19. Fund, op. cit., 1-59, II-6; letterfrom Dr. Robert I. Sarbacher to Wil-liam Steinman, Nov....
Mufon ufo journal   1988 9. september
Mufon ufo journal   1988 9. september
Mufon ufo journal   1988 9. september
Mufon ufo journal   1988 9. september
Mufon ufo journal   1988 9. september
Mufon ufo journal   1988 9. september
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Mufon ufo journal 1988 9. september


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Mufon ufo journal 1988 9. september

  2. 2. MUFON UFO JOURNAL(USPS 002-970)(ISSN 0270-6822)103 Oldtowne Rd.Seguin, Texas 78155-4099 U.S.A.DENNIS W. STACYEditorWALTER H. ANDRUS, JR.International Director andAssociate EditorTHOMAS P. DEULEYArt DirectorMILDRED BIESELEContributing EditorANN DRUFFELContributing EditorPAUL CERNYPromotion/PublicityMARGE CHRISTENSENPublic RelationsREV. BARRY DOWNINGReligion and UFOsLUCIUS PARISHBooks/Periodicals/HistoryROSETTA HOLMESPromotion/PublicityT. SCOTT GRAINGREG LONGMICHAEL D. SWORDSStaff WritersTED PHILLIPSLanding Trace CasesJOHN F. SCHUESSLERMedical CasesLEONARD STRINGFIELDUFO Crash/RetrievalWALTER N. WEBBAstronomyNORMA E. SHORTDWIGHT CONNELLYDENNIS HAUCKRICHARD H. HALLROBERT V. PRATTEditor/Publishers Emeritus(Formerly SKYLOOK)The MUFON UFO JOURNAL ispublished by the Mutual UFONetwork, Inc., Seguin, Texas.Membership/Subscription rates:$25.00 per year in the U.S.A.; $30.00foreign in U.S. funds. Copyright 1988by 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.FROM THE EDITORSometimes the reader has to put things together for him orher self. In this case, that means you should be aware of JohnSchuesslers short Alaskan UFO/radar note (p.11) before orafter reading "The Invisibles" by Whitehurst and Crawford (p. 5).Also note Donald Wares short Gulf Breeze Back-up (p. 20) inassociation with the longer article that opens this issue.Were late again, as must be evident, but also hope to beback on schedule with the October number. Either it orNovember will be devoted to on-going developments in the con-troversial field of UFO abductions. Wed like to thank artist HalCrawford for providing this issues cover drawing, as well asthose of you who continue to submit exciting, thought-provokingarticles. We hope to get to all of them in time. Meanwhile, ourapologies for any delays that might be incurred.In this issueCLIOS GULF BREEZEPOSITION: A RESPONSE . . . CUFOS & Mr.Ed 3THE INVISIBLES Lindy Whitehurst & Hal Crawford 5DANGEROUS GAME REVIEWED Walter N. Webb 9UFO FILMED CIRCLING ROCKET T. Scott Crain, Jr. 10NEWS ff VIEWS 12WHAT THE AIR FORCE KNEW IN 1947 JeanSider 14LOOKING BACK Bob Gribble 18IN OTHERSWORDS Lucius Parish 19GULF BREEZE Donald Ware 20LETTERS 21THE SEPTEMBER NIGHT SKY WalterN.Webb 22DIRECTORS MESSAGE Walt Andrus 24(COVER ART courtesy Hal Crawford)The Mutual UFO Network, Inc. is exempt from Federal Income Taxunder Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. MUFON is a pub-licly supported organization of the type described in Section 509(a)(2).Donors may deduct contributions from their Federal Income Tax. In addi-tion, bequests, legacies, devises, transfers, or gifts are deductible for Fed-eral estate and gift tax purposes if they meet the applicable provisions ofSections 2055, 2106, and 2522 of the code.The contents of the MUFON UFO JOURNAL are determined by the editor, anddo not necessarily represent the official position of MUFON. Opinions of con-tributors are their own, and do not necessarily reflect those of the editor, thestaff, or MUFON. Articles may be forwarded directly to MUFON. Responses topublished articles may be in a Letter to the Editor (up to about 400 words) or ina short article (up to about 2,000 words). Thereafter, the "50% rule" is applied:the article author may reply but will be allowed half the wordage used in theresponse; the responder may answer the author but will be allowed half the wor-dage used in the authors reply, etc. All submissions are subject to editing forstyle, clarity, and conciseness. Permission is hereby granted to quote from thisissue provided not more than 200 words are quoted from any one article, theauthor of the article is given credit, and the statement "Copyright 1988 by theMutual UFO Network, 103Oldtowne Rd., Seguin, Texas 78155" isincluded.
  3. 3. The CUFOS PositionA Response From Gulf BreezeINTRODUCTIONDear Walt:I was startled to read your recentarticle in the MUFON UFO Journal.The article completely misrepresentsthe CUFOS position on the GulfBreeze events, as well as the viewsof CUFOS officers, such as DonSchmitt and George Eberhart. It alsomakes several odd assertions thatare false, including the statementthat "After passing two polygraphtests on February 18 and 23, 1988,CUFOSs Scientific Directorand Inves-tigator Coordinator publicly insultedthe witness ..." This sentence impliesthat Bob Boyd and I took andpassed the tests, not Ed. the effect isto puzzle a non-studious reader.To clarify matters, I am enclosingthe CUFOS position statement onGulf Breeze. We ask that you publishit in the Journal, just as we publishedDennis Stacys rebuttal in IUR.CUFOSwill consider failure to publish thisstatement prima facie evidence thatMUFON is not committed to anobjective and unbiased report of allpossible viewpoints on Gulf Breeze.Please give me a call if you haveany questions or comments concern-ing the matter.Sincerely,Mark RodeghierScientific Director, CUFOSAugust 14,1988CUFOS POSITIONReaders of the article by-linedWare, Flannigan,and Andrus (thoughapparently written by Andrus) in theJuly 1988 issue of the MUFON UFOJournal may get a misleadingimpres-sion of CUFOS current stand on theGulf Breeze, Florida, CE3/photogra-phic episode. Our concern here isnot with what we consider the authorserrors in reporting privately-statedviews. We wish simply to make clearwhy we feel it is wise to take a cau-tious view of this difficult case and toMUFON UFO Journal, No. 245, September 1988By Mr. Edawait the results of the still unfinishedinvestigation.CUFOS considers Gulf Breeze apotentially significant UFO case, butone that remains unproven. It isessential that research into everyaspect of both photographs and tes-timony continue. Important questionsare yet unanswered and necessaryavenues of inquiry yet unpursued.FOUR EXAMPLES(1) On November 19, 1987, theGulf Breeze Sentinel published Edsoriginal (anonymous) letter accom-panying his first five photographs. Hisletter stated that there were "nobeams coming from (the UFO)." OnDecember 7, in his first MUFONreport form, he mentions no beam inhis account of this November 11 inci-dent. It is not until his third accountof the incident, completed on January8, 1988, that Ed reports a blue beam.In fact, the blue beam — whichwould come to figure prominently inEds claims — was first reported by aGulf Breeze resident on November11, according to a November 25 Sen-tinel article. Critics are bound to sug-gest that Ed retroactively incorpo-rated a blue beam into his lateraccount of the November 11incident.(2) Ed has given three differentversious of his activity at the initiationof the November 11 sighting. Why?(3) Questions have been raisedabout the relationship of the MUFONinvestigators and Ed and his family.Some observers have complainedthat Ed was kept fully informed ofongoing inquiries, including those thatwere turning up leads that might haveproduced disconfirming evidence. Sinceall photographic cases should beconsidered at least potential hoaxes,it is essential that investigators oper-ate independently from those who(sic) claims they are checking. Anoperation that gives claimants suffi-cient advance warning to cover theirtracks (if there are tracks to becovered) is seriously flawed. We arenot accusing the MUFON team ofcommitting this kind of methodologi-cal blunder, but the charge has beenmade by others and so far has notbeen answered.(4) We applaud Bruce Maccabeesadmirable analysis of the Gulf Breezephotographs. He deserves nothingbut praise for the care and thorough-ness he has brought to the problem.But his analysis is only a first step. Inscience replication of findings is anecessary part of the process ofinquiry. It is now time for anotherscientist as skilled and conscientiousas Dr. Maccabee to examine the pho-tographs and to report his conclusions.We feel that the Gulf Breeze casehas generated too much needlessheat. We hope that in the futureufologists will devote their energiessolely to sober consideration of thepromises and problems of this extraor-dinary series of events. Since all ofus, we hope, have only one concern— that the truth, whatever it is, befound — we can put behind the emo-tion that has so far played far toolarge a role in the debate and con-centrate on the work that needs tobe done. Whatever the answer turnsout to be, ufology can only benefitfrom adherence to the strictest stan-dards of scientific study.ED RESPONDS"CUFOS CONSIDERS GULFBREEZE A POTENTIALLY SIGNIF-ICANT UFO CASE BUT ONE THATREMAINS UNPROVEN."I welcome this new CUFOS posi-tion and recognize that proof is sub-jective. The four unanswered pointsused to qualify the CUFOS positionare duly noted and I am pleased toshare with CUFOS and the Journalreaders my answers to each point.Question No. 1 points out that I3
  4. 4. refrained from admitting the bluebeam in my first letter to the Sentinel.Answer: Being a very traumaticevent and one that I consideredbeyond belief, indeed, I intentionallyomitted any mention of the beamwhile representing myself as a friendof Mr. X. The quote "no beams com-ing from the UFO", was taken from adescription of the UFO as it approach-ed which said in full, "There wasnothing colorful about it — no flash-ing lights, no beams coming from it was just a dull gray-blue thing."The second part of question #1 issimply incorrect. There was no men-tion of a blue beam anywhere in theNov. 25th Sentinel (copy attached).The newspaper quoted Mrs. Zammitto say, "And there was a stream oflight which came down into ourcanal."Question No. 2 seems to pose aquestion as to why I claimed to be afriend of Mr. X and later cameforward.The answer is very clear. By sayingI was a friend of Mr. X, I could pro-tect my identity. After realizing theinvestigators would withhold my iden-tity, I reported fully. While known tomany in MUFON and CUFOS, evento this day I withhold my identityfrom the public to protect my family.An effort to judge the Gulf Breezecase by examining the anonymousletter I wrote as Mr. X is unrealistic.That letter was written in an effort toconceal the fact that I was Mr. Xand, of course, withhold some detailsof the staggering event. Try to keepin mind the real life actions one mighttake in order to alert your neighborsyet protect your family from ridicule.Question No. 3 asserts that somekind of collaboration between theinvestigators and myself has beencharged "by others".Answer: By reading the April 88CUFOS "Special Bulletin" it is clearto me who the "others" are. No oneother than the investigator who passedalong the unfounded reports on whichthe "Special Bulletin"was based.The MUFON investigators questi-oned me for hours in an effort toexpose a hoax. They have spenthundreds of hours interviewingand cross-checking. I was being investigatedwithout knowing the details. Only4when this same south Alabama CUFOSinvestigator wrote a slanderous lettercalled "The Other Side of the Coin"did my wife hear of it and demand acopy. She responded with a 27-pageletter of real facts.While on the subject of this discre-dited investigator — before his biaswas obvious, he was given a sampleof the liquid which had fallen from theUFO on Dec. 17, to have analyzed.Nineteen days later the liquid was stillbubbling vigorously. A prompt analy-sis could have discovered the cause.The person never had the analysisdone and instead issued a statementthat the liquid was run-off groundwater. Later, a laboratory report (inthe hands of MUFON) establishedthe liquid was not ground water.Because of personal bias this personchose to close his eyes to the scien-tific method and try to discredit phys-ical evidence.Question No. 4 is an intelligentrecognition of the superior researchand investigative skills of Dr. BruceMaccabee. Computer image tapescan copy the Polaroids exactly andeliminate further damage to the origi-nals. Unbiased, serious and qualifiedphoto experts will be welcome tostudy the computer image tapes oncethey are prepared.If the case is "unproven", then letme suggest that we take a step backand look at the broad scope of theevidence. If the photograph called the"road shot", taken with the old 108Polaroid, which shows the UFO 185feet away is not proof, then lets con-sider the photo taken with the newSun 600 Polaroid or the shots takenwith the sealed Nimslo 3-D 35mm,plus the 1.63 minute video. Thenthere is the SRS camera (Self Refe-rencing Stereo) which was used tocalibrate the size and distance of theUFO to be almost 15 feet in diameter(the bottom ring) at over 400 feetaway (May 1, 1988 photos). If all thephotographs are strangely enoughdisregarded, then I would suggest weconsider the 135 witnesses of whomfour reported alien beings, six reportedblue beams, and nine reported miss-ing time.If you disregard all of the photo-graphs, physical evidence, and theother witnesses, what about me?I have taken two lie detector testsduring which the examiner had metell several intentional lies to checkfor drugs which can make all answersappear to be truthful. Result — I toldthe truth.I have been tested by voice stressequipment which also detects lies.Result — I told the truth.I have spent eight hours in psycho-logical examination by a ForensicPsychologist. Result — I told thetruth.I extend an open hand to CUFOSbut first I must comment on the des-cription of me in the CUFOS "Bul-letin". Mr. Rodeghier, how would youfeel if I described you (sight unseen)as sociopathic, agitated, manic, crazy,prankster, and hoaxer? I can onlyassume that one day we will meetand discuss this in private like gentle-men.The new CUFOS position seemsto divorce itself from the "SpecialBul-letin" which conflicts with Marks finalstatement that calls for "adherence tothe strictest standard of scientificstudy." So, disregarding the nature ofthe earlier CUFOS "Special Bulletin,"I support the new CUFOS positionstatement, even with their questions,but lets not lose sight of the mostimportant questions. Who are thealiens? And — what are they doing?MUFON ResponseThe MUFON UFO Journal is privi-leged to publish the "CUFOS Posi-tion on the Gulf Breeze Case" assubmitted by Mark Rodeghier onAugust 14, 1988. It is enlightening tolearn that the case has changed radi-cally from a "probable hoax" as pre-viously published by CUFOS to a"potentially significant UFO case."CUFOS officers must be commendedand congratulated for their new scien-tific insight.MUFON, as an organization, hasnot committed itself .to a statementon Gulf Breeze because the investiga-tion, study, and research has notbeen completed. There is still exten-sive analysis that must be performedbefore this case may even be consi-dered as one of the most incredible(Continued on page 8)MUFON UFO Journal, No. 245, September 1988
  5. 5. The InvisiblesBy Lindy Whitehurst and Hal CrawfordPROLOGUFOs present a splendid paradox.They simultaneously put forth theaspect of A) a purely subjective setof psychological or archetypal pro-cesses trying to exert measureableeffects upon objective reality, and B)that of an immensely sophisticatedtechnological intelligence that hidesdeliberately behind elaborate cloaksof projected illusion. UFOs leap thebarrier between subjective and objec-tive experience with enigmatic ease,displaying a mentality that bespeakssimultaneously of incalculable sub-tlety and utter idiocy.When considered as a whole, thedata negates itself: any generalizationabout UFOs is invalidated by subse-quent reports. Nevertheless, reportsof high reliability and high strange-ness continue to arise despite a blasepublic to whom UFOs are yester-days news, and the increasingly shrilldenunciations of a small group ofprofessional skeptics who pursue arigid view of rationality with all thefanatically obsessive irrationality of aregiment of flat-earthers.That UFOs are here seems unden-iable, paradox not withstanding. Andyet, what we are to make of repeatedreports of high strangeness unknowns—each fulfilling the criteria necessaryto deny mundane cause — summar-ily demolished from on high by thepronouncement that the local radarfailed to lock on? This paper dealswith the relevance of radar to thequestion of outsiders ... and invisibles.Since its inception, radar has usurpeddirect visual observation to becomevirtually the sole instrument of air-borne detection. The military hascome to rely upon it exclusively in allareas from domestic and military airtraffic control to orbital surveillanceand missile detection ...An enormousvested interest in the system exists:potential enemies must see it as animpenetrable deterrent to atack whileMUFON UFO Journal, No. 245, September 1988allies must feel confident behind aleakproof shield. For any self-styledUFO expert to make the upstartsuggestion that the radar screen hasholes big enough to throw a flyingsaucer through serves only to furthercement the pejorative "UFO-Nut"label more firmly in the skepticalmind. Clearly, a careful analysis ofthe facts is in order.ANGELS OF RADARAltogether too frequently, multi-witnessed, high-quality American UFOsightings carry the postscript "...neither civil nor military radar con-trollers reported anything unusual ontheir scopes during the time of thesighting." Frustrating for so manyhighly-regarded cases to have thatblot on their records, and yet so reas-suring to the skeptical mind. Theufologist complains that the samepoor, gap-filled radar .system whichlets drug smugglers penetrate allowsETs to fly under as well. But whatabout those incidents when UFOsare observed visually high in the sky,presumably within radar coverage,still with nothing ufological appearingon radar scopes? No debating pointsare given by merely accusing radarofficials of lying.Between World War II and the1960s, during radars development,large numbers of UFOs appeared onradar screens, the "non-sleeping eyesof the nation," yet were rarely observedvisually. These spurious targets, termed"angels," were most often caused bytemperature inversions, birds, changesin humidity and steep gradients of airpressure; enough to cause apparentlysolid objects to perform the mostamazing maneuvers in the sky. Theproblem in discriminating betweenthe "real" and the radar "angel" wasdifficult even for trained operators,although not impossible.Modern airport radars today, usingMoving Target Indicator (MTI) filtersselectively eliminate non-aviation objectswhich appear to travel many thou-sands of miles per hour, and objectswhich "hover" or fly as slowly asflocks of birds. While filters also elim-inate ground clutter and high terrainfrom scopes, any slow-moving orhovering UFO would not show upeither, nor would a legitimate ETcraft flying through the atmosphere atspeeds far greater than our fastestjets. Certain radars are designed todisplay only specific altitudes, therebyignoring all others. These air trafficcontrol procedures are vital to thesafe operation of thousands of air-craft daily and were not designed toengage in aerial research.Because areas under the jurisdic-tion of big city airports are relativelysmall, radar facilities there prove tobe ineffective aids to ufology. Smallprivate airstrips have no radar at all.Controlled airspaces around commer-cial airports are irregularly-shapedwith the amount of traffic dictatingthe kind of radar deployed, altitudeselections, radial expanse, and regula-tions present. Allaircraft flying throughthese Terminal Control Areas (TCAs)of Americas largest cities must havetransponders to electronically enhancetheir often-poor radar returns soradar operators can safely control theair traffic.Small private planes flying nearcommercial airports of most smallerU.S. cities are allowed to fly throughtheir airspaces Terminal Radar Ser-vice Area (TRSA) without transpond-ers and without contacting the tower.Edward J. Sullivan, the Air TrafficManager at the Bangor, Maine towersays, "Ifunknown targets are observedin the TRSA, we would call them astraffic to the other aircraft. We wouldnot attempt to identify non-participatingaircraft." Automated radar displayscan seem to show countless non-transponding (unknown) aircraft onthe screen within the TCA or TRSAnot violating restricted airspace at all.
  6. 6. the "lower floor" of regulated air-space lifts up to a higher level as dis-tance from the airport increases.Thus transponderless aircraft cansafely fly beneath some commercialflight patterns. Encoding transpond-ers which report their altitudes arerequired for all commercial, military,and private aircraft flying into con-trolled airspace within 20 miles (32km) of Americas 14 largest city air-ports as of December 1, 1987 whilelarge numbers of private aircraftappearing on radar at all other air-ports not in radio contact with thetower, seldom are equipped and arenot required to electronically showtheirs. In the past all private aircraftwithin and under the TCA/TRSAappeared to have the same altitudeand showed up on radar scopes as ifthey were all within the control zone.This situation commanded controllersfull attention in separating aircraft,leaving little time to study any distantUFO tracks.Still lacking collision-avoidance on-board radar, commercial pilots mustkeep a constant visual watch forunauthorized flights crossing theirpaths, and radar controllers mustconcentrate on any transponderlesstarget converging upon a commercialflight. Light plane collisions with PSAand Aeromexico airliners in busySouthern California skies and withSkywest Airlines over Salt Lake Cityattest to the severity of this problem,while FAA officials admit they neversaw the small planes on their radars.An aircraft must want to be con-trolled before the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA) can control it,and other more distant non-conspicu-ous blips on the scope must beignored. A UFO is like a small planeflying without a transponder or radiobeyond the radar range, below theminimum altitude, or outside theimmediate interest of an air trafficcontroller.COVERAGEWithin the continental U.S., thereis almost complete radar coverage atand above 14,500 feet (4420 m); theso:named Continental Control Areaand domain of commercial, military,and private jet traffic. Lower altitudes"Many factors such as local terrain, type of radar,,altitudes selected, direction from antenna, aircraftspeed and direction of flight, atmospheric condi-tions, type of airborne equipment, and aircraft typeall play a role in radar coverage at a given time atany point in space."have spotty coverage around moun-tainous terrain, and large sparsely-populated areas require aircraft to flyat altitudes over 10,000 feet (3050 m)before they can be detected on radardue to widely-spaced antennae. As ev-very pilot knows the further you flyfrom the antenna, the higher youraltitude must be to be seen on aradar scope due to the curve of theearth. This is the "line-of-sight" rule.Derril B. Bergt, Air Traffic Managerat the Fairbanks, Alaska tower reports,"Many factors such as local terrain,type of radar, altitudes selected,direction from antenna, aircraft speedand direction of flight, "atmosphericconditions, type of airborne equip-ment, and aircraft type all play a rolein radar coverage at a given time atany point in space."At high altitudes; 18,000 feet (5480m) and up, FFA controllers located atover 20 Air Route Traffic ControlCenters (ARTCC) in the 50 statesemploy several screens that eachsearch a radius of 200 miles (320 km).Bound by selectivity considerations ofspeed and altitude, ARTCCs priori-ties lie in keeping instrument (IFR)flightsseparated and are unconcernedwith the usual constant array of dis-tant non-transponding targets, be theyaircraft, atmospherics, or UFOs, whilejob considerations provide ARTCCsupervisors with an unwillingness toreport anything out of the ordinary.Despite all ARTCC radar imagesbeing stored on magnetic tapes forweeks before being erased, signalstrength problems, lack of man-hoursand computer time normally preventUFO researchers from checking pastUFO visual sightings which may havebeen recorded and preserved on tapeat ARTCC centers.Well guarded "Prohibited" and "Re-stricted" areas surrounding sensitiveair bases and nuclear weapons stor-age facilities only account for about3% of U.S. airspace and present noserious obstacles to free-roaming UFOswho have ample space to fly aroundthem. Those low-flying UFOs whohave chosen to visit such militaryareas had little trouble with baseradar, witness the many visits in themid 1970s along the US-Canadianborder, i.e. Malstrom, Loring, Minot,Wurtsmith, and Falconbridge AFB.The North American AerospaceDefense Command (NORAD), whoseradar function is to preserve a surveil-lance system capable of tracking andidentifying high-performance vehiclesin our atmosphere and outer space,purposely aim their radars toward thenorthernmost portion of the conti-nent and outward, along the Atlanticand Pacific coasts to provide aperimeter defense against Sovietbombers and ballistic missiles.NORADfreely admits these northern radars ofthe Distant Early Warning (DEW)Line are vulnerable to low-flying bomb-ers and hence could have beenunderflown since their inception inthe 1950s. Plans for the new NorthWarning System to secure minimallyattended long-range and unattendedgap-filler radars providing an all-alti-tude detection capability wont gointo operation until the 1990s.The southern border is left rela-tively undefended. Highly mission-oriented NORAD radars of the SpaceSurveillance Network (SSN) automat-ically reject any object not on a ballis-tics or orbital trajectory. This satelliteand missile monitoring system, a vastradar interferometer, acts as a tall,fan-shaped, 15,000 mile (24,000 km)high "fence" through which orbitingor ballistic objects must pass and betracked. However, it may also allow aUFO on a steep angle of descenttoward the earth, skirting the fence,to arrive undetected. Althoughempha-tically denying any tracking of UFOs,NORAD admits to "Uncorrelated Tar-gets" (UCTs) on their screens fromtime to time. Normally, UCTs repre-MUFON UFO Journal, No. 245, September 1988
  7. 7. sent meteor ionization trails, re-enter-ing satellites and electrical atmos-pheric effects. Infra-red sensors aboardthe Satellite Early Warning System(SEWS) only monitor known foreignballistic missile launch areas with nosatellite network providing "look-down"coverage of potential UFO tracks.All aircraft flying above 18,000 feet(5480 m) are required to file a flightplan. If they dont file one and crossinto U.S. airspace at higher altitudesfrom outside, they will probably beintercepted. NORADs Joint Surveil-lance System, using military and FAAjoint-use radars around the peripheryof the United States until late 1987,provided only mid to high-altitudecoverage out to about 200 miles (320km) offshore and could do preciouslittle for surveillance of lower alti-tudes. Those objects navigating throughthe large volumes of airspace overthe seas, near our coasts, and downon the deck attracted no particularaction from civil or military radarcontrollers. Distant low-altitude objectsare difficult to spot because conven-tional radar impulses are transmittedin straight lines not following the cur-vature of the earth.Over-the-Horizon-Backscatter (OTH-B) long-range radars searching pro-jected enemy bomber and cruise mis-sile routes only recently have begunalleviating this problem on the EastCoast until deployment of newly-constructed OTH-Bs in the 1990ssupposedly cover all approaches tothe continental U.S. Airborne radarplanes (AWACS) capable of "lookingdown" on low-altitude airspace viola-tors have been used sparingly alongthe Florida coast to locate suspecteddrug traffickers. While their successrate at catching slow-moving air smug-glers has been poor, their successrate in catching high-performanceUFOs is zero. The public has no wayof knowing whether their limited usehas recorded anything truly ususualon their scopes. John Early, head ofHoustons Custom Service air branchsaid, "We catch maybe 10 percent,no more (of air smugglers). Ourprimary deficiency is lack of detectioncapability. For our purposes, ground-based radar is not adequate to detectlow-flying aircraft."February, 1987 saw a new radarMUFON UFO Journal, No. 245, September 1988The shape of the Stealth aircraft is of prime impor-tance in determining the resultant Radar CrossSection (RCS), a measure of the actual exposedarea on the aircraft available to reflect radarbeams.system begin operation in Houstondesigned to cover allmarine and low-flying aircraft along the Texas GulfCoast. The U.S. Custom Serviceradar center plans to be tied into astring of tethered balloon-borne rad-ars called aerostats along a 2000 mile(3200 km) Texas-to-California landborder by 1989, barring threatenedbudget cuts. Operation Alliance as itis called, may also suffer from thepast lack of cooperation betweenfederal agencies. High performanceaircraft crammed with down-looking,pulse doppler radar and infra redsensors and directed by ground basedradar, now chase slow-moving,low-flying aircraft suspected ofsmuggling.The Freedom of Information Act(FOIA) will probably be needed to tryand locate any high performancetracks which may result; a dubiouseffort as most radar records andtapes are normally kept only forlimited periods. UFOs may be quiteprevalent in U.S. skies, but may sel-dom cross into civil or military spheresof responsibility which arent apt topick up out-of-the-ordinary objectsanyway.Inbound UFOs first entering radar-thin Mexican airspace, may have thetendency to-overfly the U.S. southernborder at low altitudes anywherealong a 1500+ mile (2400 km) expanse,fly among many valleys of the RockyMountains which stretch north tosouth forming an effective shieldagainst radar, and then filter out-wards on routine reconnaissance assign-ments. Overall lack of low altitudecoverage and mission-oriented radarsmake the need to use the westernmountains unnecessary, neverthelessthe temptation to use them may stillremain. Detecting and "mapping" ofU.S. radar coverage has long been aviable terrestrial science and wouldpresumably be an easy task for moreadvanced "outsiders," armed with adesire to avoid continental radar. Inaddition, slow-movingdrug smugglingaircraft crossing over U.S. southernborders, often with lights out, tryingto avoid detection, can scarcely beequated with fast, erratic, brightly-litUFOs which put on spectacular displays.Another UFO-finding complicationis being brought to light as more islearned about Stealth technology, thesuper secret radar-invisible generationof American fighters and bombers.The shape of the Stealth aircraft is ofprime importance in determining theresultant Radar Cross Section (RCS),a measure of the actual exposed areaon the aircraft available to reflectradar beams. A smaller RCS will pro-duce a smaller blip on the radarscope. For example, an idealizedhead-on radar view of an old B-52bomber has an RCS of about 100square meters, the smoother B-lbombers RCS is about 10 squaremeters, and the newer B-1B ver-sions head-on RCS will reportedly bemuch less when defective electronicsare corrected. By contrast, the RCSof a pickup truck has been estimatedat about 200 square meters! Sharpedges, abrupt angles, and flat areasexisting on aircraft wings and controlsurfaces produce large, conspicuousradar blips. The Stealth program aimsto produce vehicles of smooth curvedsurfaces, no flat areas, no protrudingcockpit, and no highly-reflective hotexhaust engines hung out on wings,but rather recessed within the fusel-age to scatter and diffuse radarenergy; a low-profile radar shapeinherent in most UFOs.. Stealth technology employs avionicadvances in Electronic Counter-Mea-sures (ECM) and Radar AbsorbantMaterials (RAM) to further reducethe size of radar returns. Stealth-typeaircraft carrying new ECM gear wouldidentify a radar location, and depend-ing on the stations frequency, trans-mit the correct low-energy signal tofurther diminish the radar signature.If just enough energy is used to foileach radar, they may never know its
  8. 8. there. We can speculate an "out-sider" would certainly use its fullcomplement of decoys and electroniccountermeasure Stealth techniques tomask and confuse our sensory sys-tems. Due to the observable lack ofmost UFOs having any sort of hotengine exhausts, infra red sensorswould be of marginal use.The occasional flat-bottom UFOwould lend itself to reflection of radarbeams, and there have been a numberof radar-directed UFO jet chases inthe literature, as well as ground-witnessed, radar/visual sightings, butfew have had adequate followupinvestigation, i.e. the recent 1986Brazilian chases.The pilot of a Japan Air Lines 747cargo jet crossing the Arctic Circlereported being followed for morethan 30 minutes by an extremelylarge, walnut-shaped object with a rimabout its circumference, accompaniedby two smaller objects emitting yellowand white flashing lights. At a dis-tance of five to eight miles (8-13 km),they approached and moved in for-mation with the jet as it descendedtoward Anchorage, Alaska. This No-vember 17, 1986 encounter was trackedonly briefly by FAA controllers inAnchorage, admittedly by the U.S.Air Force, and by the 747 itself.The FAA claims a split image ofthe 747 caused a UFO erroneously toappear on their radar, while the AirForce says electronic clutter wasresponsible for their "false" image,irrespective of the fact the 747s on-board radar also picked up the UFOat the same time and whose crewspotted it visually. Their visual dis-tance estimates matched the radarreturns. A large sphere or egg-shapedcraft is not a perfect radar invisibleform, as long constant curves and itssize alone can cause a radar blip. Abetter way is to continually changethe curve radius in a wave-likemanner.The reported long curve features ofthe walnut-shaped UFO couldve pro-vided at least a partial radar returnfrom that surface area before curva-ture changed at the central rim.One may speculate a "Stealth-shaped" craft of unknown manufac-ture followed the 747, causing only anintermittent radar lock-on;experimen-tal U.S. or Soviet Stealth aircraft8hardly being a reasonable choice tobe following a civilian jet when radartesting could be better carried out insecret nearer their own proving grounds.From 1950 to present day we findmany such seemingly radar-proof UFOsfollowing civil air traffic, all our effortsfailing to produce a positive ID.Outsiders can arrive here unde-tected. They can operate almostwherever they choose with impunityand can depart without interference,deliberately hiding behind earths owngeographical, organizational, and tech-nological limitations. UFOs flying underand through U.S. radar not geared totrack them without transponders anddisplaying a "natural" Stealth design,are unlikely to generate substantialradar evidence to support their exist-ence. Still, the lack of radar confirma-tion to a major UFO sighting cannever again be considered a blot onits record, nor as cold water beingthrown onto the fire.Notes and References1. Randies, Jenny and Peter War-rington; UFOs — A British View-point. St. Edmundsbury Press, Ltd:1979.2. Skeptical Inquirer; "Radar UFOs:Where Have They Gone?" PhilipKlass, Vol.IX. No. 3, Spring, 1985.3. Sullivan, Edward J., Air TrafficManager: Bangor, Maine. Reply fromsurvey of 80 Federal Aviation Admin-istration towers conducted by authors.4. Hendry, Allan; The UFO Hand-book. Doubleday & Co., 1979.5. Bergt, Derril D., Air TrafficManager: Fairbanks, Alaska. Replyfrom survey of 80 Federal AviationAdministration towers conducted byauthors.6. Air Traffic Control Manual.Department of Transportation, Fed-eral Aviation Administration; October25, 1984.7. Greenwood, Barry J. and Law-rence Fawcett: Clear Intent. Prentice-Hall, 1984.8. Hynek, Dr. J. Allen; The UFOExperience: A Scientific Inquiry. RegneryPress, 1972.9. NORAD Fact Sheet; PetersonAFB. Colorado Springs, Colo. October,1986.10. Dal/as Morning News; "CHETis Latest in Aerial War on Drugs,"February 8, 1987.11. Houston Chronicle; "Radar Cen-ter Aimed at Contraband Gets Going,"February 3, 1987.12. Sweetman, Bill; Stealth Air-craft. Motorbooks International,1986.13. MUFON UFO Journal; "StrangeAlaskan Encounter," Walter Andrus,February 1987.Special thanks to Captain JohnLear, commercial airline pilot, forchecking the aeronautical accuracy ofthe manuscript.Continued from page 4cases in UFO history. Present evalua-tion of the evidence.and documenta-tion by competent investigators haseliminated the probable hoax alternative.One of the principal investigatorsproposed that the MUFON Board ofDirectors issue a position statementon Gulf Breeze at its Annual Corpo-rate Meeting on June 26, 1988. TheInternational Director declined to placethe subject on the agenda, because itwould have been premature. TheBoard utilized their time in a moreconstructive manner by interviewingboth Ed and his wife Frances on theirexperiences.In retrospect, the statements madeby Walt Andrus in the July andAugust 1988 issues of the MUFONUFO Journal in regard to GulfBreeze constitute his personal opin-ion as one of the team of investiga-tors. In the same context, statementsmade by MUFON representatives innorthwest Florida to the media arealso their personal viewpoints. Noneof us are speaking for the MutualUFO Network, since MUFON hasopted not take a premature positionon this important case.Walter H. Andrus, Jr.International DirectorSUPPORTUFORESEARCHMUFON UFO Journal, No. 245, September 1988
  9. 9. Dangerous Game ReviewedBy Walter N. WebbWebb writes our monthly "NightSky" column. UFO-Abductions: ADangerous Game, by Philip J.Klass, 200 pp., hb, $18.95, waspublished this year by Prome-theus Books, Buffalo, New York.Philip Klass, former Senior Avio-nics Editor of Aviation Week andSpace Technology magazine and aFounding Fellow of the Committeefor the Scientific Investigation ofClaims of the Paranormal (CSICOP),has written his fourth book on theUFO topic. Anyone interested in thecurrent runaway UFO abduction crazeshould read this book. I have alwaysfound that Klass does have somevalid points to make; if nothing else,he does all of us a service by makingus question our investigative proce-dures and keeping us honest!The books title comes from theauthors view that UFO believers,unskilled in proper hypnotic tech-niques, may actually be creatingabduction stories in the minds oftheir subjects — a "dangerous game."Klass comes down hard on someprominent personalities in the field.For example, Budd Hopkins is brandedthe "Typhoid Mary" of the "abduction-ists."The author relies heavily upon theimpact that the Hill case had ingenerating future abduction stories.UFO kidnap reports began in earnestfollowing the 1966 release of theFuller book, and a fresh crop appearedafter the 1975 TV film about Hills. (Acouple of the 75 episodes, however,were known to investigators beforethe TV program aired.) Later RayFowlers The Andreasson Affair "pro-vided a rich source for other abduc-tion stories that followed in the1980s."Klass credits fellow CSICOPer Rob-ert Scheaffer with explaining theinitial Hill UFO and bright planet seennear the Moon as actually two planets,Jupiter and Saturn. In the June 1976MUFON UFO Journal, No. 245, September 1988APRO Bulletin, I pointed out the glar-ing omissions in this theory: (1) BettyHill said she watched the object crossthe face of the Moon; (2) the UFOgrew from a distant point source to aclearly structured flattened disc witha double row of windows that filledthe field of view of Barneys binocu-lars; (3) the object moved erratically,stopped in mid-air, glided across thehighway from right to left, and hoveredagain — at least 90° from Juiptersposition; (4) despite Scheaffers claimthat Saturn should have been seen,that planet was 12 times fainter thanJupiter and would have been consid-erably dimmed by the nearby gibbousMoon. In short, that the Hill UFOwas anything more than "starlike"was conveniently left out by Klass.(The same APRO rebuttal also respond-ed to arguments that the Fish/Hillstar map represented merely randomstar alignments.)Every UFO researcher should care-fully digest Dr. Ornes cogent com-ments on the pitfalls of hypnosis inChapter 6. The hypnotic state produ-ces a mixture of true memories andfantasized material, and thus informa-tion retrieved in this way must becarefully sifted and evaluated. Thefact that "abductee" Christy Dennis(Chapter 17) later recanted, sayingher story under hypnosis was a hoax,proves that it is possible to feignhypnosis and to deceive the operator.Despite the difficulties, I believehypnotic regression can be helpful inprobing multiple-witness close encoun-ter/abduction claims. Independent veri-fication of specific details in thesecases by witnesses who have under-gone hypnosis separately is not easilydismissed — especially in the rareinstances where the observers havenot communicated with each othersince their experience. (See "Pursu-ing the Ultimate Encounter" in theMay 1988 Journal.) Klass virtuallyignores this category of cases.The author also seems unawarethat a surprising number of abductionscenarios are recalled without the useof hypnosis. Thomas Bullard, in hisComparative Analysis of UFO Abduc-tion Reports, states that 29 percentof 103 high-information, high-reliabilityabduction cases surfaced without hyp-nosis. And in another study DavidWebb found that 33 percent of 129ofthe better documented abduction re-ports arose naturally.Klass devotes a chapter to the"imaginary abductee" study of Law-son-De Herrera-McCall where eighttest subjects were hypnotized andasked to imagine being abducted by aUFO. While there were some paral-lels between "imaginary" and "real"abductees, perhaps even more strik-ing were the differences — facts thatthe author almost reluctantly men-tions on the last page of the chapter.("Real" abduction narratives reportedphysical, physiological, and psychiceffects; memory/time lapses; dreamor nightmares; fright reactions; con-scious memories of at least part of thesightings; and the subjects belief thattheir experiences actually occurred.The volunteers in the Lawson studyattested to none of these manifesta-tions.)To this reviewer, it is what Klassleaves out that irks so many well-informed UFO researchers. A case inpoint is the June 1983 physical-traceepisode reported by "Kathie Davis."In implying that the circular patch inthe yard was due to fairy ring mush-rooms, he neglects to mention a hostof pertinent factors: (1) Four equid-istant holes were discovered sur-rounding the eight-foot circle; (2) ittook only several days for the grassto wither and die, implying a suddenevent, not the much slower processproduced by the yearly expansion ofa fairy ring; (3) Kathie later recalled,without hypnosis, an egg-shaped craftresting on four legs above the spotwhere the circle was found; (4) onthe night of the event, three persons,9
  10. 10. including Kathie, suffered radiation-like symptoms when they walkednear the traces; (5) also on the samenight, a neighbor reported seeing aflash of light in the direction of theDavis yard, hearing a vibrating noisethat shook her house, and at thesame time experiencing EM effects.Chapter 13 is devoted to WhitleyStriebers bedroom adventures withbizarre life forms. The author tries todemonstrate that Striebers symptomsare consistent with temporal lobe epi-lepsy. Not arriving in time for men-tion in Klass book, Robert Bakersarticle "The Aliens Among Us: Hyp-notic Regression Revisited" in theSkeptical Inquirer, Winter 1987-88,should be required reading. Bakerbelieves Strieber is a classic fantasy-prone personality type. Such individ-uals test normal in every respectexcept that they have rich fantasylives, are subject to vivid dreamswhich may include bedroom halluci-nations and out-of-body experiences,and often are writers of the bizarre,physics, or religious visionaries. Thetheory might explain many "bedroomvisitations" by strange beings, espe-cially Striebers experiences where hewas the only witness. (His wife sleep-ing beside him was unable to supporthis entity/abduction claims.)Although Philip Klass does his bestto debunk UFO abductions, thesecontroversial claims cannot be sweptunder the rug quite so easily. True,there still is no conclusive physicalproof or artifact left behind, and therestill is no acceptable independent cor-roboration of an abduction by a neu-tral witness. Yet Bullards compre-hensive study indicates that abductionstories not only consistently follow acomplex sequence of events — thatis, elements of the episode stay in thesame order and place time after time —but also these accounts often includerecurrent insignificant details unlikelyto catch another storytellers atten-tion. "Faithfulness to one pattern,"states Bullard, seems too much toexpect of subjective experience spreadamong many independent people, butan assumption of real experience eas-ily accounts for the consistent order."(Bullard, by the way, has no finalanswer as to whether UFO abduc-tions are real or subjective experien-ces.) Hopkins adds that some abduc-tees "who have never met reportidentical details that have never beenmade public."• I think Jean Callahan perhaps putsit best in a Boston Globe Magazinearticle about the abduction pheno-menon: "No matter whats going onhere, or elsewhere in the universe,we need to open our hearts and ourminds and keep searching."UFO Filmed CirclingAtlas RocketBy T. Scott Grain, Jr.T. Scott Grain is a MUFONJournal staff writer and state sec-tion director for Pennsylvania.Getting the Air Force to admit theyhave on film a UFO encircling anAtlas F missile while in flight, is notan easy thing to do. For the betterpart of a year, this researcher tried totrack down a film taken by FirstLieutenant Robert Jacobs of a UFOthat interferred with a missile launchoff the coast of California on Septem-ber 15, 1964.The 1369th Photographic Squadrondispatched from Vandenberg Air ForceBase unwittingly filmed the UFOwhile tracking the missile some 60miles above the Pacific Ocean. Twodays later, Chief Science Officer atVandenberg AFB, Major Florenz J.Mansmann, summoned Jacobs to hisoffice to view the film. Among thosepresent in Mansmanns office weretwo CIA agents from Washington,D.C.As the men watched the rocketsoar high in the sky, an unidentifiedlight swims into the picture and10encircles the rocket, emitting brilliant,strobe-like flashes, around the missile.Upon closer inspection of the film,Mansmann confirmed later the lightwas definitely "saucer-shaped". Accord-ing to Jacobs, the warhead malfunc-tioned while in flight, and fell severalhundred miles short of its intendedtarget. Mansmann tells Jacobs tokeep quiet about the incident, andthe two CIA agents leave with thefilm, which has never been seenagain.NEW TESTIMONYWhen this researcher initially report-ed on this incident in the January,1987 issue of the MUFON UFOJOURNAL, Mansmanns testimonywas unavailable. Since then, he hasresponded to my inquiries, as well asOMNI magazine UFO writer, EricMishara, who was helpful in identifyinga spokesman for the Air Force whoclaims the rocket did not go offcourse, but hit its target.In a letter from Florenz Mansmann(May 6, 1987), he confirmed RobertJacobs account of the incident thatis described in detail in issue No. 225of the Journal. Mansmann states heordered Jacobs not to discuss theincident with anyone "... because ofthe nature of the launch, the failureof the launch mission and the probabil-ity that the optical instrumentation(the film) showed an interference withnormal launch patterns."Mansmann confirmed he studiedthe film, having screened it on fourdifferent occasions. Mansmann saidhe viewed the film "once in my qual-ity control review and editing for theGeneral and his staff; once in reviewwith the Chief Scientist and hisassistant; once for the CommandingGeneral with only one of his staff;and a fourth time with the ChiefScientist, his assistant, the threegovernment men and Bob Jacobs." IfMansmanns recollection is correct, anumber of military officials viewed thefilmbefore the CIA agents confiscatedit.When asked why he told Jacobs to"tell no one about this," that "it neverhappened," Mansmann explained thatMUFON UFO Journal, Number 245, September 1988
  11. 11. he was "ordered not to discuss anyof what was seen or discussed duringthe screenings. I only passed myorder, as the ranking optical instrumen-tation officer, on to LieutenantJacobs."Wouldnt the CIA agents have tosign out a military film before leavingthe Air Force Base with it, I asked.According to Mansmann, "No filmwas ever released from our archiveswithout a signature. I even signed outfilm when we had launch showings toVIPS in the Generals office on shortnotice. However, I released the filmto the Chief Scientist over his signa-ture, then they departed."I asked Mansmann to comment onan article about this case that appear-ed in OMNI, in which UFO writerEric Mishara quoted an Air Forcespokesman as saying, "We have nodocumentation of a UFO incident ...The dummy warhead hit the target."Mansmann claims the statementsmade by the AF spokesman "...makes no sense." If the Air Forcespokesman did review a close-datedlaunch and saw nothing, it could nothave been the launch that perpetuatedsuch quick security action."ANALYSISMansmanns past military credentialsare impressive, having served in spe-cial projects for the Air Force through-out his entire career. He worked onairborne radar during World War II,Air Defense Systems during the Kore-an War, and Airborne ReconnaissanceSystems during what could be calledthe Cold War. He also worked withphoto computerized systems of unpre-cedented utilization and intelligencegathering during the Vietnam conflict.Whatever happened to the filmboth these Air Force officers claimthe CIA took? I attempted to findout.Beginning on January 19, 1987, aseries of letters were forwarded toVandenberg AFB in California, re-questing under the Freedom of Infor-mation Act that copies of all filmstaken by the 1369th PhotographicSquadron on September 15, 1964, besent to me, along with any analysesthat may have been performed onMUTUAL UFO Journal, Number 245, September 1988these films. At the end of this tediousletter-writing campaign, I finally reach-ed Vandenbergs FOIA Manager,Wil-lie I. McCorvey, who responded tomy request. His last letter to medated March 10, 1987, ended with"The records you requested do notexist in our files."My associate in this investigation,Robert Todd of Citizens AgainstUFO Secrecy, also made similarFOIA requests to Vandenberg AFBfor the film. His response fromMcCorvey in a letter dated March 27,1987, ended with "... our recordsindicate that no Atlas F missiles werelaunched from Vandenberg AFB, CAon 15 September 1964." It wasobvious that McCorvey either wasnot aware of, or wanted not to dis-cuss with us the details behind thisincident.Another lead in our search forinformation was the article written byEric Mishara entitled, "UFO Cover-up," in the January 1985 issue ofOMNI. Mishara writes that an AirForce spokesman knew of this report-ed incident, indicated that there wasno UFO, and that the missile success-fully hit its target. Here was an Airforce officer who publicly admittedthat he had knowledge of what hap-pened, and could even report theAtlas F missile did not veer off coursebut completed its mission.Through the assistance of a senioreditor at OMNI, I was able to trackdown Mishara at his residence. "Whowas the Air Force spokesman youquoted in your article," I asked. Hisanswer surprised me. It was a Ser-geant Lorri Wray who worked inMedia Relations at none other thanVandenberg AFB, California. Needlessto say, a letter to Sergeant Wray onSeptember 7, 1987, went unansweredand unreturned.In the end, if it was not for thecourage of Robert Jacobs and FlorenzMansmann in coming forth and tellingwhat happened, we may never haveknown about the saucer-shaped UFOthat caused a missile to crash nearVandenberg AFB in 1964.Alaskan Radar and UFOsOn November 17, 1986 the crew ofa jumbo jet reported a UFO followingthem over Alaska. After they reportedthe visitor to the Anchorage FAAcontroller they received confirmationthat the object was less than one milefrom the plane (according to onereport). It was also reported by theFAA that -the Air Force had con-firmed the sighting.Months later the FAA released apackage of information covering theincident. Missing was any significantverification by the Air Force.It was speculated that the objectwas flying in an area that made radarconfirmation sketchy at best. How-ever, it would appear that the wrongquestions were asked or the com-plete story of radar confirmationmight have come out.Aviation Week & Space Technol-ogy magazine (July 11, 1988) providesan indepth look at the capability ofthe Alaska Air Command. Their mapidentifies total radar coverage of thewhole of Alaska, plus airborne radarto extend the range of coverage. Thethirteen radar sites, plus six DistantEarly Warning (Dew Line) sites aresupplemented by AWACS radar air-craft. This system is capable of androutinely protects our shores fromintrusion by Soviet aircraft. None getthrough because the system is allsatellite-linked. Therefore, there is nodoubt that UFOs are also "seen" bythe system whenever they fly overAlaska or anywhere near it.UFO investigators tried unsuccess-fully to identify the UFO reported bythe Japan Air Lines Flight 1628because all they had was the meagerdata package released by the FAA,plus the crews eyewitness report.They may as well have settled forwhat was reported in the newspapersif they were not ready or able to tapthe capabilities of the vast Alaskanradar network.- John SchuesslerUPON11
  12. 12. Fund For OFO ResearchQUARTERLYREPORTOctober - December 1987During the last quarter of 1987, theFund continued appeals for donationsto be applied to document verificationand analysis of "abduction traces"(chemical samples). The Fund alsoprepared to take an active part in theanalysis of the letters which BuddHopkins received as a result of thearticle on abductions which appear-ed in the December issue of OMNImagazine. So far, there are about2,000 such letters. The Fund hopesto develop a data base using as manyof these letters as time and expensepermits.A videotape has been compiledwhich provides a one-hour review ofthe events which occurred at theInternational MUFON Symposium lastsummer. This tape was produced byFred Whiting, Secretary-Treasurer ofthe Fund, from original tapes made atthe conference by Mark Friedlanderand Allen Benz. It provides highlightsof the conference, concentrating lar-gely on current research into crash/-retrieval cases and the abductionphenomenon. Four audio tapes arealso available, which provide informa-tion not offered anywhere else: thecomplete abduction panel discussions,Bill Moores dinner lecture on his MJ-12 investigations, the speeches byJuan Ballester-Olmos (Spain) and Jun-ichi Yaoi (Japan), and the completepanel discussion of government invol-vement in the UFO controversy inthe USA, Australia, Canada andEngland.In October, Dr. Bruce Maccabee,Chairman of the Fund, appeared onthe Geraldo Rivera TV program,along with Budd Hopkins and severalabductees. In December, he appearedon the "Larry King Live" TV show,hosted by Rona Barrett, along withWhitley Strieber (author of Commun-ion), Dr. Harvey Ruben (a psychia-trist who was quoted in the OMNIarticle) and Philip Klass. Thanks tothe psychological study of nine abduc-12tees supported by the Fund severalyears ago, Dr. Maccabee was able tocorrect Dr. Rubens suggestion thatabductees are mentally ill (Dr. Rubenrepeatedly stated that mentally illpeople report hallucinations, implyingthat abduction reports fall into thesame category). Dr. Maccabee alsowas able to correct the impressionwhich Mr. Klass attempted to leavewith the audience that the psycholog-ical study showed that the abducteeswere psychologically or emotionallydisturbed in a manner which couldexplain their abduction accounts. "Themost important finding of the psycho-logical study," said Dr. Maccabee,"was simply that a standard batteryof psychological tests of nine abduc-tees failed to find any psychologicaldeficit that could explain why theyreported abduction stories."In late January, a UFO inAustraliareportedly chased a truck, picked upa car with four passengers, and thendropped the car, leaving a residue ofblack ash on the roof. The objectalso reportedly buzzed a tuna boat. Itis rare to have a UFO sighting withso many witnesses, as well as theapparent levitation of an automobileand physical traces besides.The Executive Committee of theFund immediatelyauthorized the pay-ment of up to $500 to investigate thecase. We have contacted both WaltAndrus, International Director of theMutual UFO Network, and KeithBasterfield, the principal Australianinvestigator on the case, with ourcommitment of funds, to analyze thephysical evidence as well as to coverthe expenses associated with theinvestigation.This case points out the need for arapid response capability for UFOinvestigators around the world. Un-less investigators can act quickly —tointerview witnesses, conduct on-sitevisits and retrieve physical evidence—the UFO report remains just that: areport. The Fund for UFO Researchhas established a Rapid Response Fundto guarantee the expenses of investi-gators who are involved in cases suchas the one which took place in Aus-tralia. Unfortunately, our sources arelimited, and we must rely on you forsupport. Pleae remit any check forcontributions to the Rapid ResponseFund. Contributors of $50 or morewill receive a report on the Australianphysical trace case, as soon as it ismade availableto us.As the Treasurers report indicates,the Fund continues to spend a con-siderable amount for printing, postageand mailing. Much of this expense isa result of sending the QuarterlyReport to individuals who have request-ed it. However, we cannot continueto incur the costs of printing and pos-tage if it does not result in contribu-tions to support scientific researchinto the UFO phenomenon. There-fore, beginning with the 1st Quarterof 1988, the Quarterly Report will bemailed only to individuals who havecontributed at least $5.00 during theprevious year. There is a space tocheck indicating you desire to con-tinue receiving the Quarterly Report;please check it and enclose at least$5.00 to ensure you will continue toreceive information on new develop-ments in UFO research through1988. Contributors of $10 or morewill receive a special "I Support UFOResearch" button as an expression ofour appreciation for your support.Write the Fund at: Box 277, MountRainier, MD 20712.Animal ReactionsSome animal reactions to possibleUFOs might be explained by ananimals natural reaction to this typeof appearance and activity. For exam-ple, I live near a resort. Hot air bal-loons often pass over our house andland in the area. Since the time wehave had our dog, she has consist-ently shown terror (crawls underfur-niture, shivers, huddles, holds herhead down) of balloons. I dont knowif she is afraid of their appearance ortheir sounds. Sometimes when theballoons are so far away that shecant see them she still cowers. SheMUTUAL UFO Journal, Number 245, September 1988
  13. 13. will continue to quiver and hide intothe night, after a balloon has been inthe area.My daughter likes the small, helium-filled balloons that have a string witha weight on the end. Her balloonssometimes float around the houseabout head high, anchored by theirstrings. Both our cat and dog arequite fearful of these balloons and willnot go into a room with them.Also in regard to physiologicalreactions, a recent piece (Fate June,1988) mentions that during the 1988Australian observations, both theKnowles family and the shrimpboatcrewmen reported their speech wasaffected. The author adds that heliumaffects speech and is also used as acoolant to create electrical supercon-ductors. This might tie in with mymagnetic propulsion speculation (MU-FON UFO Journal, October, 1987),which mentioned research showing asuperconducting chip floating like aUFO when it is cooled and held overa magnet. In addition, in some possi-ble UFO abduction reports, peoplehave shown reactions suggesting theyhave been cold.— Irena Scott, Ph.D.MUFON ConsultantMUFONAMATEUR RADIO NETSSaturdays0800 EST/EDT - 7.237 MHzSundays1500 EST/EDT - 28.470 MHzNATIONALEMERGENCY CALLINGEST/EDT MHz0000-0015 3.9900400-0415 3.9900800-0815 7.2371200-1215 . 7.2371600-1615 7.2372000-2015 3.990LOCALEMERGENCY CALLINGSame times - 28.470MUTUAL UFO Journal, Number 245, September 1988OPEN LETTER FROM MUFONTo: Justice for Military Personnel (JMP)From: MutualUFO Network, Inc.(MUFON)Subject:Reply to the Anonymous Letter, "Request For AnExecutive Order," Addressed to President Ronald Rea-gan, dated 4 Sept. 1987.The Mutual UFO Network, Inc. (MUFON) declines to replyto anonymous letters as a standard operating procedure. Theonly signature or identification given in this instance is: "J.M.P.,San Antonio, TX". The reprinted copy that was widely distrib-uted is dated 4 Dec. 1987. The group or individual called"J.M.P." had no authorization whatsoever to ask PresidentReagan to reply via the MUFON UFO Journal. The 4-page let-ter suggested that the press contact five competent sources forverification, documentation and eyewitnesses to most of theallegations mentioned. These were (1) Just Cause, (2)MUFON, (3) APRO, (4) Major Donald E. Keyhoe, and (5)Gordon L. Cooper, former astronaut. None of these organiza-tions or individuals is aware of a group known as J.M.P., nordo they authorize or approve the use of their organizationsnames and addresses as references for the press in this matter.The Mutual UFO Network, Inc. (MUFON) will not respondunder any circumstances to the press on this issue except toadvise that J.M.P. is an anonymous group or individual thatused our name illigitimately as a reference. Until such time asthe writer or writers of this letter come forward and identifythemselves to one of the referenced organizations so that theircredibility can be authenticated, no further action will be taken.We would not have responded to the J.M.P. letter except forthe fact that the Presidents office or a government intelligenceagency might consider MUFON a subversive organization —that is, guilt by association. Therefore, we vehemently deny anyknowledge of the perpetrators of this anonymous letter andchallenge their integrity in distributing such accusations in theU.S. Mail, and associating MUFONin such an illegal manner.(Signed) Walter H. Andrus, Jr.International DirectorJanuary 26,1988Field Investigators ManualsA new supply of MUFON Field Investigators Manuals is now available. Theprice is $6.00 for members and $10.00 for non-members, plus $1.50 for postageand handling. Allback-orders have been filled. The manual is an integral part ofevery members reference library and field investigators kit.13
  14. 14. What The Air Force Knew In 1947Sider is a French MUFON mem-ber and Journal contributor. Weare indebted to Dr. Thomas E.Bullard for the following transla-tion.Documents released since 1977through the Freedom of InformationAct shed light on a period of greatsignificance for the history of ufology.The summer of 1947 is especiallyimportant for understandingthe strangebehavior of the Air Force when itconfronted a situation for which itwas unprepared. Official sources dem-onstrate that the authorities wereguilty of hiding physical evidence forthe existence of UFOs, and in factknew this truth even before UFOsbecame worldwidenews.HARRY TRUMANS SATELLITEI intend to focus my study on animportant detail which I personallydiscovered recently in a book aboutPresident Harry S. Truman. On Octo-ber 30, 1947, Truman wrote in hispersonal journal: To discuss with theSecretary of State: The military impli-cations of a satellite attack: a) Dowe need a plan to meet this, b)Should we proceed to make one [1].The term could refer to an orbitaldevice or a satellite country of theUSSR, but from a historical point ofview it is possible to eliminate thesecond hypothesis: In 1947 the Sovietsatellites were rebuilding after thedevastation of World War II, andwere not tied militarily to the USSRuntil the Warsaw Pact of 1955. Thesecountries posed no possible militarythreat.The first earth satellite, Sputnik I,was still ten years away. The twogreat powers did not begin to take aninterest in artificial satellites, untilNovember 1953 for the U.S. — afterrejection of the Rand Project in 1946— and January 1954 for the USSR.When the Committee of the Interna-tional Geophysical Year (IGY) recom-. 14By Jean Sidermended, on October 4, 1954, thatsmall scientific satellites be launchedduring the IGY (July 1957 - December1958), the U.S. and the USSR respond-ed favorably to the Committee at theend of July, 1955 [2].So what was this "satellite" towhich Harry Truman alluded? This iswhat I intend to clarify.ROSWELL CRASHOn July 7, 1947 the Roswell crashwas the subject of an official pressrelease signed by Lt. Walter Haut,public relations officer at the ArmyAir Base at Roswell, N.M. He saidintelligence officers at the base werenow in possession of a flying disc,and added:"The flying object landed on aranch near Roswell ... Not havingphone facilities, the rancher storedthe disc until such time as he wasable to contact the sheriffs office,who in turn notified Major Jesse A.Marcel ... Action was immediatelytaken and the disc was picked up atthe ranchers home." [3]This official message implies thatthe rancher transported most of thewreckage to the ranch buildings, thatMaj. Marcel gathered only minordebris left on the site. This fits in wellwith what researchers such as Wil-liam Moore have shown. For exam-ple, the "internment" of rancher"Mac" Brazel for a week at the Ros-well base becomes comprehensible.Would he have had to undergo thistreatment if he had seen only minordebris? It appears that he saw some-thing else which necessitated hissequesterment for some disinforma-tion sessions. The fact that the pressrelease speaks of a landing instead ofa crash points to major wreckagerecovered by a squad other than thatof Maj. Marcel, who admitted only toremoving debris from the supposedaccident site. Thus there seem tohave been two phases in this matter.One concerns the explosion of theouter hull of a machine into numer-ous pieces, the other the fall of theobject and subsequent removal ofdebris by two different teams.CURIOUS "COINCIDENCE"On July 9, 1947, 24 hours after thispress release, Gen. George F. Schul-gen, head of the RequirementsIntelli-gence Branch of the Army Air Corps,requested a meeting with an FBIagent. The agents account to FBIdirector J. Edgar Hoover stated thatthe Air Corps already had used all itsscientists to carefully investigate flyingdiscs, since they could be foreignobjects under remote control. Thegeneral also requested the aid of theFBI in making inquiries and interro-gating witnesses [4].Two days after the Roswell crash,the Air Force gave the impression oftaking a close interest in civilian wit-nesses, at least to all outward appear-ances. The truth of the matter wassomething else entirely. In fact, theAir Force used the FBI to trivializecrashes of supposed flying discs. FBIrecords from this period containmany memos about cases whichprove to be only tall takes related tofalse crashes.Hoover reacted with a letter to thePentagon on September 17, 1947:"My attention has been called toinstructions disseminated by the AirForce ... I have been advised thatthese instructions indicate that theAir Force would interview responsibleobservers while the FBI would inves-tigate incidents of discs found on theground, thereby relieving the AirForce of running down incidentswhich in many cases turned out to beash can covers, toilet seats, andwhatnot."...I cannot permit the personneland time of this organization to bedissipated in this manner." [5]It is notable that instances ofobvious false crashes occur after theMUTUAL UFO Journal, Number 245, September 1988
  15. 15. Roswell crash, not before. Air Forceintentions were quite clear. It wantedto ridicule and trivialize everythingrelative to observations of flying discs,using the reputation of the FBI to doso. Such an emphasis of false crashesindicates that the Roswell incidenthad so affected the detractors thatthey focused their efforts on thesame type of event. This says a lotabout the value accorded the Roswellcrash. The maneuver succeeded sowell that for the next 30 years, pri-vate researchers largely ignored thepossibility of such crashes.Gen. Shulgens words are equallyinstructive in another sense. Hiscomment that scientists were alreadyengaged in the study of flying discsindicates quite clearly that ProjectSign, initiated on December 30, 1947,was not the first Air Force programto seek an answer to the mystery. Asimilar program apparently existedeven before the Roswell crash.AMAZING TELESCOPEAgain on July 7, an FBI agent inNew Haven, Conn., sent J. EdgarHoover an account of a conversationwith a high-level scientist who hadworked on the Manhattan project atthe Massachusets Institute of Tech-nology. Revealing his personal opin-ions about flying discs, the manthought they might be radio-controlleddevices carrying atom bombs or bac-teria, and placed in orbit around theearth. A friend had confided that hiscompany was setting up a special tel-escope to seek orbital atom bombs inthe stratosphere [6].Here we have another indicationthat the authorities interest in "satel-lites" commenced prior to the Ros-well crash, no doubt even beforeKenneth Arnolds sighting on June24. This interest was great enough topromote the construction of a specialtelescope. The idea of Soviet orbitalbombs probably was used to justifythe instrument in an acceptable way.A picture of President Trumans satel-lite is now beginning to take definiteshape.Capt. Edward J. Ruppelt wrotethat "by the end of July 1947 theUFO security lid was down tight ...No one, outside of a few high-rankingMUTUAL UFO Journal, Number 245, September 1988officers in the Pentagon, knew what thepeople in ... the Air Technical Intelli-gence Center were thinking or doing."[7]Ruppelt does not specify "thinkingor doing" about what. The samesightings received by ATIC appearedin the press and circulated amongother special Air Force services, sowhat sort of top secret informationwas reserved for "a few high-rankingofficers in the Pentagon?" At the endof July only the Roswell crash couldconstitute this information.Every indication shows that the AirForce took flying discs very seriouslyeven before Kenneth Arnolds sight-ing. Moreover, confusion of devicesfrom a distant world with Soviet satel-lites apparently worked to the advan-tage of the authorities to keep thematter top secret. A radical change inthe manner with which this pheno-menon was perceived seems to haveoccurred around the end of July. Sodifferent an attitude is difficult toexplain without the likes of a wreckbelonging to a technology alien to thisearth underlying the change.A REVEALING ANALYSISOn July 30 an analysis of 18 obser-vations on record as of mid-Julypassed from the Air Force to the FBIcontaining thisevaluation:"Lack of topside inquiries, whencompared to the prompt and demand-ing inquiries that have originated top-side upon former events, give morethan ordinary weight to the possibilitythat this is a domestic project, aboutwhich the President, etc., know." [8]Ignorant of the Roswell crash, theauthor of these lines had no reasonto opt for an extraterrestrial hypothe-sis. He assumed, naturally enough,that an experimental aircraft tested insecret had been the cause of all theexcitement. What remains interestingabout this document is that an AirForce intelligence agent had alreadynoted by mid-July that the authoritieslacked eagerness to obtain well-foundedreports of substantial observations.He was not alone in realizing theimprobability of a situation where air-craft of unknown nature and originmight freely ply the skies of the U.S.,while those responsible for air defensedid not devote themselves to gather-ing a maximum of information aboutwhat was really going on — unlessthe Pentagon had already identifiedthe intruders.CONFIRMATIONAbout two weeks later, on August19, this strange behavior by high-ranking officers was corroborated ina memorandum sent to the FBI byagent Reynolds after a conversationwith Lt. Col. Garrett, of Air ForceIntelligence:"When flying objects were reportedseen over Sweden, the high brass ofthe War Department exerted tre-mendous pressure on Air Force Intel-ligence to conduct research and col-lect information in an effort to identifythese sightings ... [W]e have reportedsightings of unknown objects over theUnited States, and the high brassappeared to be totally unconcerned.[Lt. Col. Garrett] indicated this ledhim to believe that they knew enoughabout these objects to express noconcern." [9]Yet on July 9, Gen. Schulgen hadassured this same agent Reynoldsthat neither the Army nor the Navywas experimenting with flying discs.Then on September 5, Schulgen sentthe FBI a note confirming that the AirForce was doing no research on anysort of discoidal aircraft [10]. On theother hand, if the objects were Sovietthe Pentagon would surely have react-ed in predictablefashion.Since neither American nor Sovietexperimental devices were involved,something out of the ordinary hadhappened, alarming high military strate-gists. It was vital to conceal the situa-tion from the eyes of "uninitiated"persons, such as those in the media.This brings us to the famous mem-orandum from Gen. Twining, of Sep-tember 23, based on opinions express-ed during a conference by scientistsand intelligencepersonnel working forthe Air Force:"It is the opinion that ... the phe-nomenon reported is something realand not visionary or fictitious ... [and]the reported operating characteristics... lend belief to the possibility thatsome of the objects are controlledeither manually, automatically or re-15
  16. 16. motely [11].No mention is made of the Roswellcrash in this document or any othersobtained by FOIA requests. This is inkeeping with Ruppelts statement:Only a few high Pentagon officersmust have ben familiar with this mat-ter, and Gen. Twinings note wassimply intended to mislead his/unini-tiated" personnel — that is, to leavethe impression that the Air Force waslooking for a solution and was deeplyinvolved with the problem. With eve-ryone working for ATIC ignorant ofRoswell and its consequences, thisgoal could be achieved readily enough.SCHULGENS LAST "LEAK"On October 28, Gen. Schulgen cir-culated a note calling for informationabout flying saucers, detailing thetraits observed by witnesses. Thenote also referred to World War IIGerman experiments which might beexploited by the Soviets, again prob-ably to lead astray the uninitiated,and added some lines about materialsof construction. The materials couldbe metallic, plastic, "and perhaps bal-sawood or a similar material." [12]This note also states that while thepossibility of Soviet devices remains,some persons hold the opinion thatflying saucers are some kind of inter-planetary devices.This document was not declassifieduntil 1985. In 1979 William Moorefound Maj. Jesse A. Marcel, whoorganized the debris recovery opera-tion at Roswell, in retirement in Flor-ida. Marcel described the principaldebris collected on the site as resem-bling balsawood. [13]Schulgens note does not specifyany metal or other material by nameexcept balsawood. Why this out-of-the-ordinary exception? Why not favora light metal like aluminum? Balsa-wood, while an effective material formodels, lacks the strength for full-scale aircraft. As a consequencethere is not the slightest chance thatsuch a precise reference resultedfrom mere coincidence. Quite thecontrary, this reference tends to cor-roborate the claims of Maj. Marcel onone hand, and to indirectly confirmthe Roswell crash on the other.16OFFICIAL DEBUNKINGSThe era of official projects beganon December 30, 1947. These pro-grams were intended to mislead AirForce personnel as well as membersof the public who asked questions.Within the confines of this policy,other leaks must have occurred. Forexample, at the end of July, 1948, aninitial "Estimate of the Situation" writ-ten by Project Sign experts states inblack and white that "flying saucersare interplanetary vehicles." The chiefof the Air Force, Gen. Vandenberg,rejected this conclusion on the pre-text of a lack of proof. The expertswho authored the estimate demandedto be received by the general toexplain their reasons. Their requestwas in vain. [14]This sort of behavior by the AirForce chief is incompatible with hisresponsibility for national air security.Therefore his implausible attitude canbe explained in only one way — healready knew what he was rejecting.In high places it was also known tobe necessary at any price to keepsecret the hypothesis of interplane-tary spaceships.In January 1949 the intelligenceservices of G2, OSI and the FBI metand learned that the Army and AirForce considered flying saucers topsecret. [15] That same month, groupsof small lights regularly flew over asecret Army installation. Ruppelt saysthat ATIC was informed but took noaction, so the Army commanderorganized rapid-deployment patrolsequipped to gather concrete data onthe objects. When the Army attemp-ted to coordinate its plan with the AirForce, "The Air Force didnt O.K.the plan. I dont know where the planwas killed, or who killed it, but it waskilled ... [T]he official attitude towardUFOs had drastically changed duringthe past few months. They didntexist, they couldnt exist." Ruppeltcould not explain this change of atti-tude. "I, like many other people,wondered if there was a hidden rea-son for the change. This period ofmind-changing bothered me ... Maybe I was just playing the front man toa bigcover-up." [16]Again in January 1949, an FBIagent McSwain sent Hoover a reportof a conversation with an AirMaterialCommand engineer, a leading Armytechnician in nuclear engineeringwork-ing in aircraft propulsion at OakRidge. This specialist was convincedthat the Air Force intelligence servi-ces had collected a quantity of impor-tant information about UFOs. Greatefforts had been expended to deter-mine the nature of UFOs and whethera suitable defense could be designed.[17] This brings us back to PresidentTrumans satellite.SATELLITE EMERGESWhether or not the idea of anextraterrestrial satellite was on themind of President Truman or hisclose counsellors in October 1949,this hypothesis was in fact developingin certain scientific circles at thistime. Ruppelt tells of a long conversa-tion with scientific and technical stafffrom Los Alamos that autumn.Manyhypotheses were discussed, but "whenthe possibility of ... interplanetaryvehicles came up, the whole groupgot serious." These men theorizedthat some UFOs "could be sometype of unmanned test vehicle thatwas being projected into our atmos-phere from a spaceship hoveringseveral hundred miles above theearth. Two years ago I would havebeen amazed to hear a group of rep-utable scientists make such a startlingstatement. Now, however, I took it asa matter of course."If we were trying to land onanother planet, the experts argued,the reentry phase would be the mostdifficult. Direct trials would sooner orlater be necessary, and the simplestway to carry them out would be tosend down instrumented test vehiclesfrom an orbital station several hundredmiles up. "If we didnt want the inhab-itants of the planet ... to know whatwe were doing we could put destruc-tion devices in the test vehicle, orarrange the test so that the test vehi-cle would just plain burn up ... due toaerodynamic heating." [18]Something enormous seems to havebeen going on here. Either the coin-cidence was amazing, or the LosAlamos scientists knew there hadbeen a crash: Because they explainedthe event, even if their explanationMUTUAL UFO Journal, Number 245, September 1988
  17. 17. applied to a different context.Sight should not be lost of the factthat President Trumans note waswritten two days after Gen. Schul-gens memorandum about the needfor information about flying saucers.A coincidence is possible but notlikely. I think that at the end ofOctober those "few high-ranking offi-cers in the Pentagon" had in handthe final reports drawn up by variousexperts who analyzed the debris, andperhaps the main wreck, of the Ros-well UFO. A copy went to PresidentTruman, the original to the Pentagon— this would explain the difference ofthe two days between the Schulgenmemo of October 28, 1947, and Tru-mans note of October 30.Several other bits of evidence tooimportant to ignore will now be cited:On March 22, 1950, FBI agent GuyHottel stated in a memo that an AirForce investigator claimed that threeflying saucers had been recovered inNew Mexico, each occupied by threebodies of human form but three feettall. Canadian engineer Wilbert B.Smith claimed on November 21, 1950that the Canadian Embassy in Washing-ton found out for him that UFOswere real, classified higher than theH-bomb, under investigation by agroup headed by Dr. Vannevar Bush,and considered of tremendous impor-tance. In 1983 Dr. Robert I. Sarb-acher confirmed Smiths claims to anAmerican investigatorand added thatthe crashes happened, the pilots werealiens, and they had bodies like someearthly insects. In 1953 Air Forcetests of a new long-range radarpicked up a huge object orbiting600miles above the equator at nearly18,000 m.p.h., and a little later, asecond object approached and tookup an orbit about 400milesout [19]SECRET GROUPSThe Roswell crash necessitated theperpetuation of total secrecy. A highlysecret organization was set up, sub-ject to various changes over theyears, to operate as the need requiredin other circumstances of the sametype. Duties of this organization includ-ed scientific research, security mea-sures, camouflage, diversion and dis-information. One part of the organiza-MUTUAL UFO Journal, Number 245, September 1988tion probably had no contact with orknowledge of the others and alldepended directly on a secret nationalsecurity commission.Some of these "parts" have beenidentified: a scientific group directedby Dr. Vannevar Bush as indicatedby Dr. Sarbacher; a group of nuclearphysicists, rocket experts and intelli-gence agents; a military unit attachedto the 4602nd Air Intelligence ServiceSquadron, since July 1957 the 1006thA.I.S.S., becoming the 1127th FieldActivities in 1960; an InterplanetaryPhenomenon Unit attached to theArmy and dissolved at the end of1950; a special national security com-mission called Majestic 12;a researchprogram named Moondust, designedto recover Soviet space probes andUFOs; and a research program namedAquarius, indicated to two Americansenators by the NSA. [20] Reliable,often official sources confirm thesegroups, unitsand programs.CONCLUSIONSThis mass of evidence indicatesthat by the time flying saucers becamenews in June 1947, the intelligenceservice of the Army Air Corps hadalready used their scientists to pene-trate the mystery.The prevailing ideaat this time among the militaryauthorities was that a satellite vesselin the upper atmosphere sent outsmall remote-controlled discs. Beforethe Roswell crash, the idea that thiscraft was interplanetary was only ahypothesis and not a certainty. After-wards the Air Force was certain, butwas unprepared for this eventualityand committed many blunders. Thecrash qualified as a greater secretthan the H-bomb, and necessitatedthe establishment of an organizationin which no one part knew more thana little of the truth. Only an ultra-secret special commission knew every-thing.This situation led the Air Force toadopt an "anarchistic" policy at thetime and much later as well. TheRoswell crash had to be kept abso-lutely secret, so successive explana-tions were fed to the public and evento the Air Forces own personnel inorder to keep them ignorant of whatreally happened and thereby avoidpanic and social destabilization. Whenthe discrete groups of scientists research-ing the event had a real need forinformation, internal service noteswere regularly given out. Since it wasnecessary to inform those who neededto know and disinform those who didnot, these demands can only haveappeared unrelated, if not contradic-tory, to "uninitiated" persons.The "satellite" cited by PresidentTruman on October 30, 1947 proba-bly referred to an orbiting craft whichlaunched small reconnaissance devi-ces. Reliable and often official sourcescorroborate this interpretation, and ofcourse presidential confirmation isnothing to ignore. If nothing else, hadthe analyses of these phenomenaproved devoid of interest, the highestauthorities would have said so them-selves, and energetically, to end curi-osity about the matter. Is not theirvery silence a proof that they hadsomething to hide?REFERENCES1. Hillman, William. Mr. President.New York: Farrar, Straus and Young,1952: 150.2. Dupas, Alain. La Lutte PourLEspace. Paris: Seuil, 1977: 12, 36,38; Reboux, Richard. Spoutnik. Paris:La Chronique de France, 1957: 65.3. Berlitz, Charles, and William L.Moore. The Roswell Incident. NewYork: Grosset and Dunlap, 1980:22-23.4. Fund for UFO Research (comp.).Government UFO Documents. Mt.Rainier, MD: Fund for UFO Research,1985:1-5.5. Ibid., 1-28.6. Ibid., 1-7,1-8.7. Ruppelt, Edward J. The Reporton Unidentified Flying Objects. NewYork: Ace Books, 1956: 34.8. Fund, op. cit., 1-17.9. Ibid., 1-22.10. Ibid, 1-5,1-27.11. Ibid.,II-4.12. Memo from Gen. Schulgen toLt. Col. Garrett, July 28, 1947 (FOIA,Jan. 29, 1985).13. Berlitz and Moore, op. cit., 65.14. Ruppelt, op. cit., 58-59, 64.15. Fund, op. cit., 1-42,1-43.16. Ruppelt, op. cit., 80.17. Fund, op. cit., 1-39,40, 41.17
  18. 18. 18. Ruppelt, op. cit., 74-75.19. Fund, op. cit., 1-59, II-6; letterfrom Dr. Robert I. Sarbacher to Wil-liam Steinman, Nov. 29, 1983; Key-hoe, Donald E. Les Etrangers deLEspace. Paris: France-Empire, 1975:179-180.20. Memo by Wilbert B. Smith,Nov. 21, 1950, obtained by ArthurBray; Ruppelt, Edward J. Face auxSoucoupes Volantes. Paris: FranceEmpire, 1958: 142; Air Force note,ref. AFCIN-1E-0, Nov. 3, 1961, obtainedby Richard Todd (Robert Todd?); let-ter to Sens. John Glenn and PeterDomenici from National SecurityAgency, obtained by Clifford Stone;Keyhoe, Donald E. The Flying SaucerConspiracy. New York: Henry Holt,1955: 214-215; letter from Army Intel-ligence Service, Sept. 25, 1980, signedby Col. William B. Guild, to RichardHall; letter from Army Counter-Espionage Service, Dec. 21, 1987,signed by Col. J.R. Linnen, to JeanSider; letter from U.S. scientist wish-ing to remain anonymous, Nov. 17,1987, to Jean Sider.LOOKING BACKBy Bob GribbleTHIRTY YEARS AGO - Sep-tember 1958: Terrified and shakenby their experience, a Sheffield Lake,Ohio housewife and her 10-year-oldstepson related a weird account of a3 AM a UFO on the 21st.Mrs. William H. Fitzgerald said shewatched an object for more than fiveminutes at close range after a brilliantlight roused her from bed. Tears filledher eyes as she told ofunsuccessfullytrying to wake her husband to helpher through the ordeal. "I had justgone to bed," she said, when a bril-liant white glare filled the bedroomthrough closed window drapes. Blindedat first, she hid her head under thepillow until the light subsided. Thenshe stood on her bed, looked throughthe window and watched the UFOglid over her driveway. It hovered afoot above a neighbors lawn, sud-denly glowed, and discharged a cloudof "heavypinkish-grayish-purplishsmoke from its back and sides," shesaid.The UFO then swept in a curveonto Mrs. Fitzgeralds front lawn androse to about seven feet above theground. After it completed two shortcircular maneuvers she lost sight ofit. It next sped straight up in the skyover the top of her home. Mrs. Fitz-gerald, 28, said her daughter, ChristyLynn, 7, and her husband sleptpeacefully while she watched "themost horrible looking thing" she hadever seen.18Her stepson, John, was in the nextbedroom and happened to be awakewhen the UFO made its appearance.Since his small bedroom window wasabove eye level, he could not see theobject until he stepped on a wall heatregister. By that time, it was emittingthe cloud of smoke.Both said the object made a whir-ring noise, was round from a top orbottom view, and oval from a sideview with a rounded cap on top,about eight feet in diameter andabout three feet high.***TWENTY YEARS AGO- Sep-tember 1968: The Spanish Air Forcesaid an "Unidentified Flying Object"eluded one of its supersonic jetfighter-bombers on the 5th, as a rashof UFO reports spread from LatinAmerica to Europe. The sighting of abright object in the night sky overMadrid caused a monumental trafficjam and sent a U.S.-built F-104 jetscrambling. An Air Force announce-ment said the pilot climbed to an alti-tude of more than 50,000 feet andreported the object was still abovehim when he had to return to basefor fuel. The pilot of another plane at36,000 feet reported seeing the sameobject. Radar screens tracked theUFO and said it was flying at 90,000feet and moving slowly.Thousands of Spaniards jammedthe streets of Madrid to get a look,traffic backing up for miles. Onereporter, sent to the Madrid astro-nomical observatory for a look throughits powerful telescope, said the UFOgave off a "blinding light". A phototaken through the telescope revealeda triangular-shaped object. The AirForce said it had no scientific expla-nation for the phenomenon. TheMadrid weather bureau said it had nolost balloons.***FIFTEEN YEARS AGO- Sep-tember 1973: Two military police-men at Hunter Army Airfield, nearSavannah, Georgia, reported that aUFO swooped out of the sky, dovetoward their vehicle and forced themoff the road during a routine patrolaround the perimeter of the base.The UFO hovered near the police-men as they worked to remove theircar from a ditch and then pursuedthem as they returned to MP head-quarters to report the incident. Thepre-dawn sighting marked the thirdday of UFO sightings reported inChatham County.A Savannah policeman reportedseeing a UFO in a residential area afew hours after the two militarypolicemen encounter. Police Cpl. JohnKitchell said a police officer sent toinvestigate a UFO sighting by localresidents reported seeing "a large cir-cular craft something like a flyingdisc." Kitchell said the officer des-cribed the craft as having "a largespotlight which changed color fromred to green," as well as smaller blueflashing lights.On the 14th, University of Georgiasoil scientists said they found unex-plained high concentrations of copperand chromium in soil taken from thealleged landing site of a UFO. Testresults announced by Dr. OscarAnderson and Dr. Larry Shumanindicated copper concentrations 2,000times above normal and chromiumlevels elevated 200 times. The find-ings appeared to support an eyewit-ness account of a small, hot metallicobject landing and slightly imbeddingitself in the soil. Although Shumanand Anderson speculate the objectMUTUAL UFO Journal, Number 245, September 1988