Mufon ufo journal 1989 3. march

380 views
308 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
380
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Mufon ufo journal 1989 3. march

  1. 1. MUFON UFO JOURNALNUMBER 251 MARCH1989Founded 1967 ^^^*" % $2.50OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF JWC4FOJVV MUTUAL UFO NETWORK,THE COMPLETE REPORTCOMMISSIONED BTTHEU.S.AIR FORGESCIENTIFICSTUDYOFUNIDENTIFIEDFLYING OBJECTSCONDUCTED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADOUNDER RESEARCH CONTRACT NUMBERF44620-67-C-0035 WITH THE U. S. AIR FORCEDR. EDWARD U. CONDONPROJECT DIRECTOR
  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 EditorROBERT H. BLETCHMANPublic RelationsPAUL CERNYPromotion/PublicityMARGE CHRISTENSENPublic EducationREV. BARRY DOWNINGReligion and UFOsLUCIUS PARISHBooks/Periodicals/HistoryT. SCOTT CRAINGREG 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 1989by 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 EDITORIts been more than 20 years ago today that Sgt. Peppertaught the band to play, and coming up now on a generationsince the U.S. Air Force officially exited the public end of theUFO business. Some of you will remember the incident as if itwere yesterday, others will be too young to recall it at all. Bothparties may profit from attorney DellAquilas lead article thisissue, which examines the pivotal role the University of ColoradoCondon Report played in the Air Forces fateful decision.For those who really want to stretch their minds we presentthe (mad? paranoid?) musings of Bob Girard, proprietor ofArcturus Books in Stone Mountain, Georgia. His article, "This IsA Test..." may itself be considered a test of sorts. If you wouldlike to see more articles in a similar speculative vein, now is thetime to stand up and be counted, or tested, as it may be.Finally, aside .from our regular departments, we have BuddHopkins with some caustic observations on what he refers to asstewpot thinking, and Joseph Nyman with some intriguingsuggestions about the latent encounter experience.In this issueCONDON: TWENTY YEARS LATER Richard P. DellAquila 3STEWPOT THINKING:OBSTACLE TO SCIENCE . . . Budd Hopkins 8FAMILIAR ENTITY & DUAL REFERENCEIN THE LATENT ENCOUNTER Joseph Nyman 10THIS IS A TEST Bob Girard 13FRINGE COVERAGE: A REVIEW Dennis Stacy 16UFO POLL Teresa Brito 17LOOKING BACK Bob Gribble 18NEWS N VIEWS 20LETTERS Oberg, Jacobs, Maccabee, Etc. 20MARCH NIGHT SKY Walter Webb 22DIRECTORS MESSAGE Walt Andrus 24Copyright 1989 by the Mutual UFO Network, Inc. (MUFON), 103Oldtowne Road, Seguin, Texas 78155-4099 U.S.A.ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDNo part of this document may be reproduced in any form by photostat,microfilm, xerograph, or any other means, without the written permissionof the Copyright Owners.The Mutual UFO Network, Inc. is exempt from Federal Income Taxunder Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. MUFON is apublicly supported organization of the type described in Section 509(a)(2).Donors may deduct contributions from their Federal Income Tax. Inaddition, bequests, legacies, devises, transfers, or gifts are deductible forFederal estate and gift tax purposes if they meet the applicableprovisionsof Sections 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 ofcontributors 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 thewordage used in the authors reply, etc. Allsubmissions 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 1989 by theMutual UFO Network, 103Oldtowne Rd., Seguin, Texas 78155" isincluded.
  3. 3. Condon: Twenty Years LaterBy Richard P. DellAquilaAttorney DellAquila is an Ohiostate section director.This is the 20th anniversary of theU.S. Air Force decision to close itspublic UFO data gathering effortknown as "Project Blue Book" whichwas terminated soon after the Janu-ary 8, 1969 release of the Air Forcecommissioned study at the Universityof Colorado under the direction ofEdward U. Condon, Ph.D. A profes-sor of Physics and Astrophysics atthe university, Dr. Condon had animpressive history of scientific andpublic sector accomplishments, includ-ing membership on the committeewhich established the top secretatomic bomb program during WorldWar II. Twenty years later, the Colo-rado study is now remembered as ablemish on this eminent scientistsotherwise distinguished career.Condons summary of the lengthyproject is merely an outline of policyprescriptions, unsupported by theconclusions of staff members primar-ily responsible for actual case investi-gations. Although he was a highlyqualified expert in the areas of hisscientific competence and had beenemployed by the government in posi-tions requiring high security clearan-ces, his biases made him an inap-propriate choice to direct the studyunless the Air Force wanted a nega-tive conclusion. His transparent ref-usal to apply scientific professionalismto the performance of his responsibili-ties on the panel confirms Condonsparticipation in a scheme to reachjust such a predetermined conclusion.In the lexicon surrounding the newBush administration, "if it looks like aduck, swims like a duck and quackslike a duck, then it is a duck." Con-dons "quacking" was part of an offi-cially sanctioned disinformation pro-gram and the "duck" was the discharg-ing of what he saw as his patrioticMUFON UFO Journal, No. 251, March 1989duty.The Condon commit-teefindingsparroted thoseof the 1953 Robertsonpanel study and the opin-ions of Harvard astron-omer Donald H. Menzel.The Condon committee findingsparroted those of the 1953 Robertsonpanel study and the opinions of Har-vard astronomer Donald H. Menzel.Having now become largelyirrelevantto modern UFO investigation, thediscredited opinions set out in thesestudies, and the individuals behindthem, nonetheless retain historicalsignificance by reason of the resultingdisservice done to the nation indelay-ing scientific progress and/or solu-tions to the continuingUFO mystery.Given the Air Forces obvious vestedinterest in the outcome of the pro-ject, it now appears rather naive tohave ever expected any programwhich it funded and commissioned,"coincidentally" selecting Condon asdirector, would be any more objectivethan the CIA-funded Robertson panelfifteen years earlier. As CongressmanWilliam F. Ryan (N.Y.) correctly pre-dicted on the House floor soon afterrelease of the Condon study, "Publicinterest in UFOs cannot be wishedaway and reported sightings will persist."When it became evident that UFOswould not obediently "go away" inthe post-Condon years, and facedwith the unravelling of his work,Condon grew so frustrated with theavalanche of criticism he received forhis botched study that he claimed tohave destroyed all project files in hispossession. He remained curiouslyunapologetic for the damage he caused,until his death in March 1974, bywhich time he had withdrawn fromfurther debate or defense of his opin-ions. During the first huge flap afterrelease of the report, his final publicstatement concerning UFOs, printedin the October 19, 1973 issue of thePensacola News, quoted him lamelyas calling the continuing UFO reports"pretty much fantasy stuff."Biases, Prejudice and RidiculeAt the very conception of thisregrettable chapter in American his-tory a "ticking bomb" was unwittinglyplaced in the projects files by RobertLow (the eventual project coordina-tor), who wrote his now infamousmemo to university administrators inAugust of 1966, while they were con-sidering whether to accept the AirForce contract. Describing how theproposed program would be struc-tured, Low said "...the trick would beto describe the project so that, to thepublic, it would appear a totallyobjective study but, to the scientificcommunity, would present the imageof a group of non-believers tryingtheir best to be objective but havingan almost zero expectation of findinga saucer." (Emphasis added.)Low suggested that the best way toaccomplish this would be to emphas-ize the investigation of psychologicaland social factors of persons whoreported UFOs, rather than examin-ing the potential physical reality ofthe stimuli for the reports. He felt thescientific community would "quicklyget the message," and clearly, thiswas exactly the methodology adoptedby Condon. Emphasizing the "kook"cases typically written off by seriousinvestigators, Condon simply ignoredthe truly puzzling hard core of reportsand chose rather to approach histask with an unscientific attitude ofbias, prejudice and ridicule. The fouror five cases he personally investi-3
  4. 4. gated all involved contactees or out-right hoaxes.The committees policy against anystatements to the press before releaseof the final report seemed not toapply to Dr. Condon. However, hisseveral abuses of the privilege havefortuitously provided history with aclear picture of his predispositionsand hint at the motivations behind hissabotage of the Colorado study. Forexample, in a speech made January25, 1967 to the American ChemicalSociety and quoted in the next issueof the Elmira, New York, Star-Gazette, Dr. Condon announced: "Itis my inclination right now to recom-mend that the government get out ofthis business. My attitude right now isthat there is nothing to it ... With asmile he added, but Im not supposedto reach a conclusion for anotheryear ... This just isnt a military prob-lem; I cant see where the nationalsafety is at stake ... Maybe it wouldbe a worthwhile study for thosegroups interested in meteorologicalphenomena." (Emphasis added.)Here was the presumably "unbi-ased" director of a panel of scientists,contracted by the Air Force and paidwith our tax dollars, smugly recitingthe major points of the projects finalreport which would ostensibly not bewritten for "another year" a) UFOsare not worthy of further seriousstudy except as a "meteorological" orsocial problem, b) there is no threatto the national security from UFOsand c) the Air Force should removeitself from publicly admitted UFOresponsibilities.The failure to dismiss Dr. Condonfrom his position of authority in theColorado study despite the obviousbiases revealed by his many prema-ture negative statements raises seriousquestion as to the actual purposesand motivations behind his selectionto direct the project. In hindsight,there was little or no reason toexpect an objective evaluation fromCondon and it is now clear that hisappointment to head the study wasmotivated by Air Force awareness ofhis prejudices.His admission that he had reacheda negative conclusion before thestudy was really underway belied his4EDWARD U. CONDONlater claim that his primary concernwas to staff the study with "personnelof adequate scientific training, ratherthan with persons emotionally com-mitted to extreme pro or con viewson the subject," (Emphasis added)since this restriction apparently didnot apply to Dr. Condon. Predictably,the interpretations in Condons finalreport were identical to his originallystated opinions, as he s u m -marily dismissed the subject in thefirst two paragraphs of the first sec-tion, writing, "nothing has come fromthe study of UFOs in the past 21years that has added to scientificknowledge ... further extensive studyof UFOs probably cannot be justifiedin the expectation that science will beadvanced thereby."He recommended that scientists inagreement with this opinion turn theirattention to other pursuits and sug-gested that those who disagreedwould find in his report areas whereexisting studies are incomplete andrequiring more accurate study. How-ever, Condon cautioned against estab-lishment of any new agency of thefederal government for the scientificstudy of UFOs, although hedging, "...this conclusion may not be true forall time." He recommended thatnor/img be done with UFO reportscontinuing to be received from thepublic "in the expectation that theyare going to contribute to the advanceof science." Condon was silent as towhat, if anything, should be donewith UFO reports continuing to bereceived from other sources, includ-ing the military.Joint Army Navy Air Force Publica-tion-146 (JANAP-146)required reportsto be made of UFOs which continuedto be sighted by military personnel.Important UFO sightings and reports,even before 1969, were not processedunder Project Blue Book, but werecollected and investigated elsewhereby the military under JANAP-146.The Air Force document which pro-posed termination of Project BlueBook stated, "Reports of UnidentifiedFlying Objects which could affectnational security are made in accor-dance with JANAP-146 or Air ForceManual 55-11, and are not part of theBlue Book system ... reports ofUFOs which could affect nationalsecurity should continue to be handledthrough standard Air Force proce-dure designed for this purpose."(Emphasis added.)Condons obvious negative biasesabout UFOs which he found so diffi-cult to conceal ultimately erased what-ever real credibility the Condon studymay have had. In a letter of October11, 1967 to the Denver Post, forexample, Condon pronounced, "Whatcan be learned from the UFO projectcan make valuable contributions toknowledge of atmospheric effects,"adding almost laughably, "Many peo-ple find it extremely difficult not topass judgment before all the facts arein." (Emphasis added)His prejudices paralleled those ofHarvard astronomer Donald H. Men-zel, who also held a top secret clear-ance. In 1952, Menzel, the self-styled"man who shot Santa Claus," beganto debunk UFOs in nationally pub-MUFON UFO Journal, No. 251, March 1989
  5. 5. lished magazine articles. As Condonwould later, he attributed the sight-ings to mirages caused by an assort-ment of natural phenomena. Menzelpredicted that "these saucers willeventually vanish — most approp-riately, into thin air, the region thatgave birth to them." Thirty-sevenyears later, UFOs have not onlyfailed to vanish, but the reports havebecome more puzzling.Although neither held a medicallicense or degree in psychology, Men-zel and Condon claimed sufficient"expertise" in these disciplines topronounce that the problem wasessentially psychological, in that Amer-icans were suffering from "interna-tional jitters," and reported anythinganomolous observed in the skies as aUFO because they worried about anatomic war. Menzel even "diagnosed"those persons who gave credence tothe extraterrestrial hypothesis as "luna-tics, cultists, religious fanatics, or, atbest, frightened and confused." Con-dons belief was that, "the problem ismore difficult than finding a needle ina haystack; it is finding a piece ofextra-terrestrial hay in a terrestrialhaystack, often on the basis ofbelievers in extra-terrestrial hay."(Emphasis added) Yet, Condon wasalso forced to admit that inevaluatingthe calibre of witnesses making UFOreports, he determined that they areprimarily normal and responsible indi-viduals (Emphasis added) who aremerely puzzled about what they sawand looking for explanations. "Only avery few are obviously quiteemotion-ally disturbed, their minds being filledwith pseudo-scientific, pseudo-religiousor other fantasies." He found "ratherless than some people may haveexpected in the way of psychiatricproblems related to belief in the real-ity of UFOs as craft from remotegalactic or intergalactic civilizations."Scientific MethodologyIn November 1970, a committee ofthe American Institute of Aeronauticsand Astronautics examined the Con-don study and found it "difficult toignore the small residue of well-documented but unexplainable casesMUFON UFO Journal, No. 251, March 1989Condon claimed that his study found "no evi-dence of secrecy concerning UFO reports," andthat, "What has been miscalled secrecy has beenno more than an intelligent policy of delay inreleasing data so that the public does not becomeconfused by premature publication of incompletestudies of reports."which form the hard core of the UFOcontroversy" and found "no basis forCondons opinion (Emphasis added)that nothing of scientific value couldcome from continued UFO research."Citing the difficulty of reading theCondon report due to its poor organ-ization, the committee said:"It is not enough to read the sum-maries, such as those by Sullivan andCondon, or summaries of summarieson which the vast majority of readersand news media seems to rely. Thereare differences in the opinions andconclusions drawn by the authors ofthe various chapters, and there aredifferences between these and Con-dons summaries. Not all conclusionscontained in the report itself are fullyreflected in Condons summary." (Em-phasis added)The final report is a compilationofseveral sections written by differentpersons and padded with superfluoustechnical material of little or noapparent relevance to the UFO prob-lem. Although the panel consideredonly a small fraction of the truly puz-zling cases and did not discuss indetail most of the significant cases itlisted, a total of ninety-one cases arereviewed, including sixty-one "identi-fieds. The remaining thirty cases areunexplained, leaving a significantlyhigher percentage of unexplained casesthan even the Air Force found andwhich presumably created the needfor the Condon study in the firstplace.Among the rather incredible casestudies buried in the text there areseveral startling conclusions by theinvestigators, such as, "The apparentrational intelligent behavior of theUFO suggests a mechanical device ofunknown origin as the most probableexplanation of this sighting ... (and) ...the probability that at least onegenuine UFO was involved appearsto be fairly high." (Emphasis added)In another case, the analysis reportsthat the sighting, "defies explanationby conventional means," and in another,"This is one of the few UFO reportsin which all factors investigated, geo-metric, psychological and physicalappear to be consistent with theassertion that an extraordinary flyingobject (Emphasis added), silvery, me-tallic, disk-shaped, tens of meters indiameter and evidently artificial, flewwithin sight of two witnesses." Per-haps the classic "double-speak" eva-luation in the report is the conclusionthat one "unusual sighting shouldtherefore be assigned to the categoryof some almost certainly natural phe-nomenon which is so rare that itapparently has never been reportedbefore or since." (Emphasis added)Accepted scientific procedures forevaluation of unexplained data typi-cally require the forumlation of ahypothesis to explain observed dataand test whether the hypothesis istrue. Obviously, this assumes that thetesting procedure applied is capableof also determining whether the hypo-thesis is false. Condon chose toinstead test whether UFO reportswere evidence for extraterrestrial vis-itation — an "unfalsifrable" hypothe-sis, since a number of other hypo-theses could also account for theunexplained cases. The failure of thepanel to identify about one-third ofthe cases it examined establishednothing about the validity of the ETH.Rather, what the failure to adequatelyexplain these cases did establish (and
  6. 6. Condon ignored) was that the pres-ent state of our scientific develop-ment is insufficient to permit us toadequately explain reported UFOphenomena.This failure of methodology is cen-tral to the ultimate unacceptability ofCondons conclusions. He failed toproperly define the nature of theproblem to be studied. This failingwas not inadvertent, but rather theresult of Condons admitted predis-position to skew the projects resultsin a direction consistent with hisbiases and, not conicidentally, to thebenefit of the Air Force which waspaying for the project. The AIAAcommittee also found that:"Condons (summary) ... disclosesmany of his personal conclusions ...(we) did not find a basis in the reportfor his prediction that nothing ofscientific value will come of furtherstudy ... We have already expressedour disenchantment with argumentsabout the probability of the extra-terrestrial origin of UFOs since thereis not sufficient scientific basis at thistime to take a position one way or•another ... (the ETH) introduces animassesscrb/e element of speculation;but ... it is unacceptable to simplyignore substantial numbers of unex-plained observations and to close thebook about them on the basis ofpremature conclusions ... (we) seethe only promising approach as thecontinuing moderate level effort withemphasis on improved data collectionby objective means and on a highquality scientific analysis." (Emphasisadded)In defining the problem as "that oflearning the various kinds of stimulithat give rise to UFO reports," Con-dons working assumption was thatUFOs are all misperceptions of natu-ral phenomena. His working definitionfor UFO reports to be studied by thepanel only required that the objectnot be identifiable by the obseruer,rather than studying only those caseswhich could not be eliminated bycompetent analysis by qualified per-sons other than the observer. Thisforced the panel to waste time study-ing a variety of unscreened misper-ceptions of natural objects whichThe panel recommended that UFOs be "debunked"so as to remove the aura of mystery surroundingthe subject and a "public information campaign" beinstituted to produce a "better" understanding ofthe subject.were not representative of the trulyanomolous cases reported and whichany competent investigator wouldhave immediately dismissed.Comparing Condons final recom-mendations and conclusions with theremainder of the study, one questionswhether these are parts of the samereport. Apparently,Dr. Condon reliedonly in part on the team studies andrather more heavily on his own per-sonal opinion as expressed the prioryear. Gratuituously sprinkledthrough-out Condons final report are anumber of unsupported opinions con-cerning matters such as the ETHwhich were outside the scope of thestudy. In setting up the ETH "straw-man" he appeared to be followingsome hidden agenda by slanting thestudy toward examination of an unprov-able hypothesis for which no exami-nation had been publicly requestedby the Air Force. Condon acknowl-edged that although unequivocal proofthat UFOs were extraterrestrial wouldbe the greatest scientific discovery inthe history of mankind, he claimedthat the study found "... no directevidence supporting the claim thatany UFO reports studied representspacecraft visiting Earth from anothercivilization." He facetiously qualifiedthis conclusion, saying, "... no predic-tion is made for the future ... If newevidence appears later, this reportcan be appropriately revised in asecondprinting."CovcrupCondon also claimed that his studyfound "no evidence of secrecy con-cerning UFO reports," and that,"What has been miscalled secrecyhas been no more than an intelligentpolicy of delay in releasing data sothat the public does not become con-fused by premature publication ofincomplete studies of reports." Again,notwithstanding that the Condon Com-mittee was also not contracted tostudy, and did not study, whetherthere existed any governmental secrecyin UFO matters, Condon expressedhis unsupported opinion that, "... Itwould be impossible to keep a secretof such enormity for over two decades... no useful purpose would be servedby engaging in such an alleged con-spiracy of silence. One person withwhom we have dealt actually main-tains that this super-secret matter isin the hands of the Central Intelli-gence Agency which, he says, installedone of its own agents (i.e. Condon)as scientific director of the Coloradostudy. This story, if true, is indeed awell kept secret.",In tacitly acknowledging the exist-ence of other programs and proce-dures (such as JANAP-146) for col-lection of UFO data outside BlueBook, he offered another unsupportedpersonal opinion that the defensefunction should be continued withinexisting intelligence and surveillanceoperations "without the continuanceof a special unit such as Project BlueBook." Clearly aware of these otherexisting intelligence and surveillanceoperations for collection of UFOdata, Condon then announced, "Since1953 the results of UFO study havebeen unclassified, except where tan-gential reasons exist for withholdingdetails, as, for example, where sight-ings are related to launchings of clas-sified missiles, or to the use of classi-fied radar systems- ..: During theperiod from March 1952 to the pres-ent, the structure for handling UFOreports in the Air Force has beencalled Project Blue Book."... We are assured that the federalgovernment would withhold no infor-MUFON UFO Journal, No. 251, March 1989
  7. 7. mafion on the subject, and that allessential information about UFOscould be included in this report."(Emphasis added)Condon knew this was not true,for had he been correct, it wouldthen be fair to expect that all "com-plete studies of reports" to date(including JANAP-146 materials) wouldhave been released by now. Instead,those documents which have beendiscovered have not been voluntarilyreleased by the federal governmentand efforts to force further disclo-sures through the FOIA confirm thatthousands of pages of other UFOrelated documents, many several de-cades old, continue to be withheldfrom the public behind a wall of obs-cure, sometimes contrived, "nationalsecurity" excuses.Likewise, the CIA long maintainedthat it also had no interest or invol-vement in the collection and/or anal-ysis of UFO data. Once classifiedCIA documents have established oth-erwise and confirm Condons knowl-edge of, and participation in, theCIAs pretense of noninvolvement inUFO studies. Documents obtainedthrough the federal courts confirmthat CIAs National Photographic Inter-pretation Center (NPIC) even ana-lysed photographs studied by theCondon Committee with Condonsguarantee of secrecy and his promiseto "make no reference to CIA inregard to this work effort."A "Better Understanding"Official policy concerning UFOschanged dramatically in 1953, primar-ily due to the recommendations ofthe CIA-sponsored Robertson paneland possibly motivated by considera-tions set out in the MJ-12 documentswhose authenticity remain an openquestion at this time. In describingthe history of UFOs to that point,Condon admitted that "early investi-gations were carried on in secrecy bythe Air Force" and other foreigngovernments, but that the large 1952Washington D.C. flap and resulting"clogging" of military communicationschannels with sighting reports, a studywas commissioned under the chair-MUFON UFO Journal, No. 251, March 1989manship of H.P. Robertson, professorof mathematical physics at the Cali-fornia Institute of Technology and aCIA classified employee. Interestingly,the panel also included physicistLloyd V. Berkner, at the time a direc-tor of the Brookhaven National Labora-tories, and reputed member of MJ-12.On the last day it met, the Robert-son panel spent a few hours analyz-ing the UFO phenomenon beforeadjourning with the finding that UFOspresented no direct threat to nationalsecurity and warning that having amilitary source foster public concernin what it called "nocturnal meander-ing lights" was possibly dangeroussince the public might be encouragedby military involvement to believe inthe existence of some potential threat.The panel recommended that UFOsbe "debunked" so as to remove theaura of mystery surrounding the sub-ject and a "public information cam-paign" be instituted to produce a"better" understanding of the subject.These findings are identical tothose of the Condon Report fifteenyears later, and served a similar pro-paganda function with regard to promot-ing a "better understanding" of UFOsand assisting the Air Force with itspublic relations problem bypermittingit to point to an "exhaustive" studyby an "impartial" panel of prominentscientists who had fully examined theUFO phenomenon and found nothingof scientific interest nor any directthreat to national security. It is note-worthy that some of the panelistsjoked about the subject and expressednegative biases toward the subject,one member calling it "a completewaste of time," requiring investigationby "psychiatrists rather than physi-cists." Clearly, within fifteen years,when the Condon Committee wasconvened, the conclusions and recom-mendations of the Robertson panelwere no more credible or valid thanare those of the Condon Committeetoday.Repeating and expanding upon therecommendations of the Robertsonpanel, and again without supportingstudies for any of his conclusions,Condon proposed that the debunkingeffort be taken up by the educationalsystem as well:"Teachers who find their studentsstrongly motivated in this directionshould attempt to channel their inter-ests in the direction of serious studyof astronomy and meteorology, andin the direction of critical analysis ofarguments for fantastic propositionsthat are being supported by appealsto fallacious reasoning of false data."Presumably, these suggestions alsoextend to critical analysis of Con-dons methodology and his failure tocorrelate the patterns in the trulypuzzling reports studied and formu-late hypotheses to account for them,but instead fitting each individualreport into a prosaic, sometimes far-fetched, explanation. This methodol-ogy was crystallized in his directive tothe panel:"If an (sic) UFO report can beplausibly explained in ordinary terms,then we accept that explanation eventhough not enough evidence may beavailable to prove it beyond all doubt...the problem (is) that of learning torecognize the various kinds of stimulithat give rise to UFO reports...Weplaced very little value for scientificpurposes on the past accumulation ofanecdotal records, most of whichhave been explained as arising fromsightings of ordinary objects. Accord-ingly, I have recommended in SectionI against mounting a major effort forcontinuing UFO study for scientificreasons."ConclusionsIt is no coincidence that Condon,Menzel and members of the Robert-son panel, all scientists with highsecurity clearances who worked undercontract with the military and intelli-gence agencies repeatedly parrotedofficial Air Force and CIA statementsabout UFOs. The old saying, "hewho pays the piper calls the tune," isno less true because of- its age. TheRobertson and Condon studies werearranged and paid for, respectively,by the CIA and Air Force at times ofintense public and congressional pres-sure for "something" to be doneContinued on page 17
  8. 8. Stewpot Thinking -An ObstacleTo ScienceBy Budd HopkinsHopkins is the author of MissingTime (1981) and Intruders (1988).A basic tenet of the scientificmethod holds that progress can occuronly when the problem to be ana-lyzed has been isolated as thoroughlyas possible from all irrelevant sur-rounding factors. This principle is asessential to UFO research as it is toany other scientific endeavor, and toillustrate this point I will use anexample from the field of medicalresearch — the isolation and discov-ery of Legionaires disease (LD). Theproblem of LD first came to lightwhen a number of people attending aconvention at a Philadelphia hotelbecame seriously ill with pneumonia-like symptoms; several of them died.Since the symptoms were particularlyvirulent and not identical with anyknown form of pneumonia, varioustheories were presented: poison wassuspected, or noxious fumes in theairconditioning system, or a verystrange form of mass hysteria — andeven a previously unrecognized andtherefore "new" disease. (The lasttheory turned out to be the correctone.)An investigation began, part ofwhich proceeded in this manner: Letus say that a well-known, similar dis-ease, lobar pneumonia, has five spe-cific symptoms. Scientists studyingLD find that in many cases LD alsopresents these same five symptoms.More significant is the discovery thatin every case LD has other symp-toms that neuer occur in lobarpneumonia. These recurring differen-ces, both subtle and dramatic, betweenLD and all other known forms ofpneumonia, helped to establish thefact that LD was a new phenomenon,a heretofore unrecognized disease.This crucial information together withdramatic bacteriological discoveriesenabled pathologists to retroactively8diagnose a number of other cases ofthis newly designated pathologicalcondition. Progress towards a curefor LD was now possible.What I have been describing is astandard scientific method, which inthis case insisted upon the isolationand study of any unique symptomsthat Legionaires Disease may havepresented. By contrast to the scrupu-lous researchers of my example,however, let us consider a type ofwould-be researcher that I call a"stewpot thinker." Essentially thiskind of person prefers to stress thethe reassuring similarities among var-ious phenomena and to ignore theirdifferences. He habitually tosses intothe same pot all available informationabout superficially related situations,assuming that this process adds some-thing to the world. "It looks likepneumonia," a stewpot thinker mightdeclare. "Nothing new. Forget the dif-ferences in symptoms. Weve seen atleast some of these symptoms beforein lobar pneumonia, so why botherwith an investigation?"New InputStewpot thinkers have trouble deal-ing with new phenomena. After all,its real work to study the medicalreports closely, to be especially atten-tive to what the victims are actuallysaying. Stewpot thinkers are essen-tially lazy thinkers, conventional intheir outlook and eager to blur anyinconvenient differences among thesubjects they are ostensibly examin-ing. Yet virtually all scientific discover-ies of new phenomena have occurredwhen someone, somewhere resistedthese impulses and attempted to iso-late an imperfectly understood prob-lem or condition. They understandthat it is the handful of differencesbetween the known and this poten-tially new, unknown phenomenonwhich must be examined, regardlessof whether these differences are dra-matic or subtle. If there are no differ-ences then there is no new pheno-menon. But if close examinationreveals the existence of specific andrecurring differences, then we have atleast two phenomena, not one. Scien-tific examination demands the carefulisolation of the object under study,teasing it away from all entanglingirrelevancies.The lesson to be learned here hasprofound relevance for UFO research,and specifically for the investigationof UFO abduction reports. As anexample of two different phenomenathat stewpot thinkers have confused,let us consider the contact-abducteereports. In the Nineteen Fifties andSixties, many self-proclaimed contac-tees took to the lecture circuit, pro-claiming the beauty of their trips toVenus or to the back of the moon inthe company of kindly, long-hairedSpace People These angelic beingsusually passed on innocuous mes-sages of love and friendship whichthe contactees promised to revealduring their lectures. (The Billy Meiersaga currently represents this self-aggrandizing contactee phenomenon.)But beginning with Betty and Bar-ney Hill and continuing in everincreasing numbers, many people haveclaimed to have been abducted, takenaboard UFOs and subjected to some-times painful and demeaning physicalprocedures. No Venus, no back ofthe moon, no lovely Space Beingswith long flowing hair. Abducteesmostly prefer to remain anonymous,avoiding publicity and living in a con-stant climate of subtle fear. A scient-ist would recognize two distinct pheno-mena here, but a stewpot thinkerprefers to ignore all the glaring differ-ences and to throw both types ofreport into the same overloaded pot.Recently, two UFO researchershave specifically stated that the dif-MUFON UFO Journal, No. 251, March 1989
  9. 9. ferehces between contactees and ab-ductees should not be recognized.Obviously, if these stewpotters weredoctors they would not recognize anydifferences between, say, malaria andmegalomania. (Accepting their reme-dies might turn out to be risky.) If, asin the case of LD and lobar pneumo-nia, we have different phenomena,each is likely to have its own cause,and the treatment for each would bedifferent. In the UFO examples Ivegiven, the contactees placid expe-rience appears to be internally gener-ated while the abductees traumaticmemories seem to be externally caused.Obviously, this is a crucially impor-tant distinction for science and onethat can only be made if we preventlazy thinkers from arbitrarily tossingthe two phenomena into the samepot. Investigators must begin with astudy of the differences between thetwo kinds of experience.Virgin Mary vs. ETLet us consider another pairing ofsuperficially related phenomena. Inone instance a lonely young girl in apoor, rural Sicilian town reports see-ing the Virgin Mary on a nearby hill.She is, herself, deeply religious,unhap-py, and describes the Virgin asexactly resembling her image in apainting in the local church. In theUnited States a research scientist forNASA describes a strange humanoidcreature gliding across the floor of hisbedroom. The experience, which involv-ed physical paralysis, is terrifying, andthis highly intelligent scientist cannotsleep for months after the eventwithout the lights turned on and theTV playing. Baffled by his sighting, hebegins a process of research to try tofind out what this and other, equallyfrightening personal experiences mightmean.Another similar incident involvestwo men, conventionally religioussouth-erners, who describe virtually thesame type of figure appearing andfloating them into a landed UFO. Theexperience created enormous prob-lems for them — one of the men suf-fered a series of nervous breakdowns— and adversely affected their pre-viously comfortable religious beliefs.There are religious visions reported by truebelievers, and there are UFO-related humanoidsightings in which religion plays no role whatever.Only the stewpot thinker confuses the two.Enter now one of our most con-fused stewpot thinkers, who confi-dently announces that the Siciliangirls vision of the Virgin and the twoUFO humanoid cases are essentiallythe same. All three, he informs us,are caused by mans hunger for reli-gion! A more cautious investigatormight counter by saying that this islike telling a cloistered teenager and aterrified, bloodied rape victim thatthey both daydreamed the same thingin a mood of romantic longing. Thereare religious visions reported by truebelievers, and there are UFO-relatedhumanoid sightings in which religionplays no role whatever. The onlycourse for science is to make carefulnote of all the differences betweentraditional religious visions and theclearly secular and usually frighteninghumanoid sightings — which, as wehave seen can cause problems toones previous religious beliefs — andto proceed from there.Other stewpot thinkers have throwndifferent types of contradictory infor-mation into the same capacious oldpot. One man with an interest inUFOs became curious about the tra-ditional folkloristic stories of fairiesand leprecauns. Though these talesare extremely vague in origin andinvolve toadstools and magic treesand other nice things not present ineasily investigated UFO accounts,they do sometimes include descrip-tions of small "humanoid" creatures.Naturally, this stewpotter assumed,these elusive and ever-changing folktales must somehow be connected tocurrent, fully-investigated UFO reports-ground traces, physical evidence, pho-tographs and all. (Unfortunately UFOaccounts dont have the leprecaunspots of gold to give them an enliven-ing point, but what does it matter?)And so this stewpotter, happily immers-ed in Magonia, goes about his busi-ness "solving" mysteries by willfullymixing myth and religion and fictionand psychosis and carefully investi-gated UFO reports into one thick,glutinous, indigestible mass. The lead-en batter is then served up to thepublic as if it has somehow helped toclarify things. Since any stewpotthinker by definition disdains analysison a case by case basis, anyoneschance of arriving at truth by follow-ing this path is virtuallynil.Hershey BarsThe confusion of stewpot thinkingis glaringly obvious in the case ofanother author who writes nearlysimultaneously on what he refers toas visions, apparitions, alien visitors,gods, spirits and cosmic guardians.(One is tempted to counter with anequivalent medical text to be titled,"Cancer, The Vapors, Systemic LupusErythematosus, Languor and Pyro-mania".) And still another stewpotthinker writes about the UFO phe-nomenon in such a way as to invokefolk tales, the goddess Ishtar "glidinghigh above the Mesopotamian savanna,"and an alien suggestion that he giveup eating Hershey bars.The more muddled the thinking,unfortunately, the bigger the pot. It isa sad truth that the very nature ofthe UFO phenomenon makes thiskind of intellectual confusion inevita-ble. Though scientists and medicalprofessionals are being drawn intothese investigations in ever increasingnumbers, so are the stewpot thinkersand the proponents of every kind ofbizarre theory.A surprisingly large number ofpeople are apparently prepared tomutilate the data in order to supportone or another private "explanation"of a particular UFO phenomenon.Continued on page 12MUFON UFO Journal, No. 251, March 1989
  10. 10. The Familiar Entity and Dual Referencein the Latent EncounterBy Joseph NymanIn the aftermath of the continuingpublicity about latent encounters (aterm meaning unremembered encount-ers with UFO related entities that Ifind more appropriate than "abduc-tions"), my colleague Martha Munroeand I, as well as other researchers,are contending with increasing numbersof individuals who are coming for-ward with feelings that they too mightbe latent encounter experiencers.While the publicity is proving aboon to case numbers, it is also apotential bane to the quality of infor-mation that may come out in anyinvestigation. In the suggestible statethat experiencers are asked to enterand in their potential willingness toplease, anything picked up amongfriends, or in the UFO conferencesthat are nearly as common as bingogames, or in the persistent media din,is fair game for regurgitation.Anyonewho has investigated a number ofthese cases is aware of this contami-nation potential and how much moredifficult it makes investigation.Also inthe wake of the continuing CarnivalCruise of UFO authors there is anunfortunate trail of disturbed individ-uals who must be screened out andreferred to mental health professionals.In the face of these difficulties, wehere in Massachusetts have tried toshift our main focus from emphasison the details of the images reported(although these are pursued vigor-ously) to the abstracting of overallpatterns which have not been public-ized and are unique to our owninvestigations.Now, at this point, let me say thatthe following material may seem quiteextreme, to those who are nuts-and-bolts oriented. However, I stronglybelieve it represents a faithful andconservative representation of ourwork. It reflects what is being reportedto us by experiencers and it is beingrelated by completely independent10witnesses.PatternsIn a previous paper we have dis-cussed the pattern represented byour latent encounter model (Orbiter,Feb. 88 and MUFON Journal, June,1988) and, in a following note, themodels predictive value (Orbiter,Jun/Jul 88, published by Jim Meles-ciuc, 43 Harrison St., Reading, MA,01867).Another outstanding pattern is ap-parent in all the people we haveworked with; viz. there is no expe-riencer (a person who has reportedimages of an encounter with UFOassociated entities) who has reportedone and only one latent encounter. Inevery instance multiple experienceimages, trailing back to early child-hood, have emerged during regres-sion or in subsequent flashbacks.Reasoning inductively,we have adopt-ed the viewpoint that if an individualhas reported one latent encounter,that individual will eventually reportmultiple encounter images extendingthroughout life. This has proven validin all cases. We have found that thereis no experiencer who will report, inthe ultimate course of an investiga-tion, the adult genesis of his or herlatent encounters, even though, whenbeginning the investigation the expe-riencer believes he or she has hadonly a single adult encounter.It has become clear that the experi-encers images are not the result of arandom process, for if that were thecase we would expect to see at leastsome people who, after investigation,have made only an isolated claim at arandom point in their lives ratherthan a series originating in earlychildhood and progressing well intoadulthood.Succinctly stated, we can say thatif people have not had a latentencounter by childhood they willnever have one. If they have had one,they will have or have had many.Pattern SourceWhat could be the reason for sucha pattern?From the perspective of what wouldmotivate an individual to report suchimages the above seems consistentwith the view that we might be deal-ing with fantasy-prone people stimu-lated by pervasive media focus onthis material. We could say that thesepeople need to prdject themselvesinto latent encounter scenarios as away of attracting attention to com-pensate for unmet needs, or as wishfulfillments, or perhaps as screens forother situations too difficult to facedirectly.Contradicting this point of view arethe following: that the experiencer ingeneral wants no publicity but is try-ing to solve a personal life puzzle,and in reliving the latent encounterimages, is invariably disturbed, embar-rassed, or both; that there is noobvious satisfaction from the relation,only an apparent lessening of anxietyand a feeling that certain gaps inones life have been filled; that inspite of a feeling of relief there stillremains a quality of wanting to keepthe relation at a distance because it isso difficult to incorporate.Interestingly, in support of thescreen argument, we have found thatour population of experiencers has adisproportionate number of peoplewho believe themselves the victimsofeither verbal or physical child abuse(30 to 40 percent compared to anational figure of 25 percent quotedto us by a psychologist). However,our sample is small and irregular andmay not be meaningful. Yet thosewho report no abuse still report thesame traumatic encounter imagery asMUFON UFO Journal, No. 251, March 1989
  11. 11. those who feel they have sufferedabuse. The screen argument is les-sened too by the fact that, once theencounter imagery is relived the emo-tions associated with it seem reduced.This shouldnt be the case if the lat-ent encounter imagery were really adisguise for something else.It is probably wise to not com-pletely dismiss the possible link betweenchild abuse and the fact of being anexperiencer, although I dont believethis is the ultimate source of theimagery.The above, combined with ourposition of not being prepared to pub-licize the experiencer in any way,eliminates any material motive forthe experiencer to continue the inves-tigation, i.e., there is no payoff for theclaimant in being repeatedly sub-jected to an embarrassing, anxietyprovoking recitation for a small groupof investigators who can neither verifythe reality of the images nor wish topromote them for gain or publicity.For the great majority of expe-riencers there must be a deeper,more urgent motive for pursuing theinconvenience and upset of an encount-er investigation; a motive that canhave little, if anything, to do withmoney or mediaattention.PossibilitiesIt seems to me that there are twopossibilities: either experiencers mustsomehow have a genetic predisposi-tion to report these kinds of images(the reports of family involvementthrough at least three generationswhich we also have here in Massa-chusetts is a strong support for thispoint of view), or that their images arethe result of intervention of somekind. If there exists a genetic predis-position to express this kind of imag-ery then we would expect it to haveappeared in a similar manner beforethe time of wide UFO publicity. Isthere a historicalparallel?If, as a working hypothesis, weconsider that the imagery is the rem-nant of true intervention we are leftwith the conclusion that the individualreporting the imagery must indeed bethe product of a predetermined selec-tion process with the selection havingMUFON UFO Journal, No. 251, March 1989occurred in earlychildhood.Experiencer SelectionStaying with our working hypothe-sis, an indication of the how and whyof selection has emerged in our workduring the last couple of years andstems from an overlooked detail ofthe encounterimagery.The key lies in a salient imagewhose nature is implied in the UFOliterature. It is the experiencers imageof an entity involved in the encounterwho stands out from all the otherencounter entities. This entity is des-cribed as the "leader" and, manytimes, has been given a name by theexperiencer. What has been recog-nized as important is that this leadentity is familiar to the experiencer,and, as we find, this same entityappears in nearly every encounterimaged by the experiencer. Further-more, this familiar entity has a specialconnection to the experiencer!This, the familiar entity, is the sal-ient image and realization. It is sobecause it leads to further, emotionprovoking insight into why the sameindividuals have repeated encounterimages and others have none.ProcedureThe process of ultimate realizationstarts with the experiencer, havingbeen regressed, in the midst of theencounter imagery for a particularexperience. The experiencer has rec-ognized that there is an entity pres-ent who is familiar. Since familiarityimplies previous imagery, the expe-riencer is asked to go back to thetime implied by the sense of familiar-ity. This process is repeated to theearliest age at which the experiencerhas a sense of association or presence.In the last two and one half yearsnine experiencers have articulated asense of entity familiarity. Two ofthese experiencers have reported feel-ings of familiarity with a trio of enti-ties rather than with individual enti-ties. Six of the nine individuals havereported being infants in their cribsor bassinets with their special entitylooking down at them. Six of the ninehave reported feelings of pre-birthassociation with the special entity(ies).Five of the nine experiencers reportedfeelings of not belonging here and ofwanting to return to their place(s) oforigin. Pre-birth association is, per-haps, the most interesting connectionof all.As the experiencer recounts theimages of the crib encounter, concen-trating on the accompanying image ofthe entity, the feeling of familiaritypersists and with it a realization inthe experiencer that he or she is notonly aware of the nursery surround-ings but of another place and anothersense of being, a non-human sense ofbeing (thus the dual reference).Typically, this feeling of dualitybrings with it an overwhelming emo-tional surge and a sense of belongingsomewhere else, of belonging to a dif-ferent world. Close upon this is adeep longing for return attended byexpressions of having been aban-doned here (onEarth).Remember that in this crib encoun-ter the feeling of familiarity continuespersistent and strong. This is takenas a signal to the investigators tocontinue asking the experiencer whenpreviously have they seen the imageof the special entity, and to go backyet again to that time of association.Three experiencers have thus, inde-pendently, gone back to images ofthemselves as alien entities. In onetear-filled session, the experiencer atfirst experienced his consciousness,disembodied and contained, in thepresence of his special entity (this isthe second instance of this type ofimage that has been reported to us).The imagery continued with commun-ication taking place between the con-sciousness and the special entity.This was followed by another flash-back, a precursor to the containedconsciousness image, in which theexperiencer saw himself as "one ofthem" deciding whether his conscious-ness or that of the special entity wasto occupy a human form.The experiencers relationship withthe special entity was now very clearto him — the two were partners in aprocess in which the experiencersfuture human body was to be involvedand which the special entity was tomonitor.11
  12. 12. Dual ReferenceWe strongly suspect that the feel-ing of dual reference as describedabove is unconsciously present in allexperiencers. If that is the case, aword should be said about the approachtaken by some investigators inattempt-ing to have experiencers resist futureencounters.Whatever the source of these images,whether self-induced or otherwise,there is an unconscious conviction inthe experiencer of belonging to twoworlds. To fight this conviction whilenot being consciously aware of it islaying one conflict on top of anotherand can only lead to more anxiety.Better to expose these feelings attheir core so they can be consciouslydealt with. Our approach is to try tohave the feeling of dual referencebrought fully to mind so that theexperiencer can attempt to come toterms with it in a supportive envir-onment.Forward Time FrameIn moving forward in the timeimagery of experiencers we havefound that the feeling of dual refer-ence seems to disappear from theirimages at different ages.With most it does not seem to bepresent after about the age of four(as expressed in their imagery), butone experiencer reported this feelingof dual reference still present in anencounter at age nine.During the regression to that age,she had feelings that, at last, she wasgoing to return to where she belonged.She was disappointed that not onlywas this not to be the case but thatshe was to undergo a procedure thatwould considerably lessen her senseof dual awareness (the details arereserved as a check on other cases).She reported undergoing a test thefollowing day to determine the resultsof the procedure. Supposedly, itworked.SignificanceThe phenomenon of familiarity-entity-leading-to-a-sense-of-dual-reference isvery significant in that it has beenfound in nine experiencers indepen-12dently. In fact, it has been foundwhenever it has been looked for andin several cases it has appeared spon-taneously. It is a phenomenon that isscarce in the literature, if it existsthere at all, just about eliminating thepossibility of contamination as a source.One can postulate several sourcesfor such a deeply felt unconscious pat-tern — a pattern common enough to bequite significant yet so surprising toboth the experiencer and investigators:• A reflection of the psychologicalmakeup of the individual.• A reflection of something inducedin the experiencer by the investigativeprocess.• A reflection of something result-ing from an imposition on the experiencer.The first of these seems unlikely onthe basis of the many different per-sonalities evident in the group, but, ofcourse, this is only a subjectiveobservation. Testing in the manner ofthe study sponsored by the Fund forUFO Research might prove instruc-tive (see Final Report on the Psycho-logical Testing of UFO "Abductees,"1985, Fund for UFO Research, Box277, Mt. Ranier, MD 20712).The second of these seems moreviable as a possibility, although the in-vestigators believe great care hasbeen taken not to lead the experiences.The third possibility seems over-whelming. If it is indeed the source, itimplies the taking up of residence inthe human form at birth (or before)of a fully developed intelligencewhichfor a while is aware of both its humanand non-human nature and of thepre-arranged monitoring to be con-ducted throughout life.Finally, if, in our investigations,there are claims of alien intelligencetaking up residence in the humanbody, are there corresponding imagesin which the alien intelligence leavesthe human body?We have no evidence for this fromour investigations, but last year, inconversation, I was told by an indi-vidual that at his mothers death in1937, he and his two sisters were ter-rified to see a figure descending thestairs. The figure had a face that theman saw again years later — on thedust jacket of Communion.STEWPOT, continued(Abduction reports, unfortunately, bearthe brunt of these chronic misrepres-entations.) Most of these private"explanations" are classic examplesof stewpot thinking, and are basedupon real or imagined similaritiesbetween disparate phenomena. In myexperience, conspiracy theorists, nu-merologists and fanatic Jungians tiefor first place in their ability to findmysterious, hidden, and essentiallymeaningless connections between unre-lated phenomena. When any of theseunleash their skills in the service ofUFO investigations, science suffers.The essential lesson to be learnedfrom all this is a simple one: payscrupulous attention to the casematerial, search carefully for thebasic, recurring factors within thephenomenon under study, and avoidstewpot thinking. Superficial resemb-lances between different things canbe interesting — a flounder, a duck,and Mark Spitz are similar in thatthey all swim skillfully, so perhaps astudent of animal locomotion canlearn a great deal by comparingthem. But to a biologist inquiringinto their nature the crucial informa-tion proceeds from a study of theirinnate differences. There the truthresides.© 1989 Budd HopkinsUFO NEWSCLIPPING SERVICEThe UFO NEWSCLIPPING SERVICEwill keep you informed of all the latestUnited States and World-Wide UFOreports (i.e., little known photographiccases, close encounter and landingreports, occupant cases) and all otherUFO reports, many of which are carriedonly in small town or foreign newspapers.Our UFO Newsclipping Service issuesare 20-page monthly reports, repro-duced by photo-offset, containing thelatest United States and Canadian UFOnewsclippings, with our foreign sectioncarrying the latest British, Australian,New Zealand and other foreign pressreports. Also included is a 3-5 page sec-tion of "Fortean" clippings (i.e., Bigfootand other "monster" reports). Let uskeep you informed of the latest happen-ings in the UFO and Fortean fields.For subscription information and samplepages from our service, write today to:UFO NEWSCLIPPING SERVICERoute 1 - Box 220Plumerville, Arkansas 72127MUFON UFO Journal, No. 251, March 1989
  13. 13. This IsA TestBy Robert C. GirardBob Girard is the proprietor ofArcturus Books, a new and usedbook service specializing in UFOand related material. He can becontacted at Box 831383, StoneMountain, GA, 30083-0023. Theopinions expressed are of coursethose of the author.In the United States, there is aregulation with which all commercialradio and television broadcasters mustcomply. It consists of an unscheduledinterruption of programming, followedby about 10 seconds of an ear-splitting tone, followed by an explana-tion which states that this has been atest of the "Emergency BroadcastSystem;" that in the event of anational emergency, instructions andinformation from local civil defenseagencies would be broadcast overthat and all other radio and televisionstations. All broadcasters must main-tain their EBS equipment in constantreadiness — for real emergencies areas unscheduled as these tests of read-iness, and it makes sense to be pre-pared "just in case ..."A different kind of test took placenationally in the U.S. on the eveningof October 14, 1988. In an indirectway, it too was a test of an emer-gency system. And in a roundaboutway it has a bearing on the EBS test,for there may come a day in whichthe Emergency Broadcast System willactually be used, based on the infor-mation gathered and analyzed duringthis October 14 test. But unlike theEBS tests, whose explanation is re-peated verbatim each time so thatour memories of its purpose are rein-forced to the point of our beingbrainwashed with respect to what thetest symbolizes, there was no explan-ation at all following the October 14test. Few of the millions of Americanswho watched this test realized (thenor now) that they had been witnessesMUFON UFO Journal, No. 251, March 1989to something which may come tohave an extraordinary impact on theirlives in the not-too-distant future.This article is an attempt at anunauthorized, "free-lance" explanation.Despite some apparently reaction-ary political foot-dragging by the Rea-gan administration, the cold war ofthe superpowers is suddenly undergo-ing a super-thaw. An epidemic ofdetente has broken out, and there isa faint, but growing, perception amongAmericans that in a couple of years— and perhaps sooner — the SovietUnion will evolve into a better, freerLand of Opportunity than our ownUnited States. A revolution of peaceand harmony is suddenly in the air.There is a palpable drop in the ten-sion level associated with the threatof nuclear war — and the previouslyimplacable Soviets are apparently lead-ing the way.It is against this political backdropthat the test of October 14, 1988 wasconducted. It took the form of a two-hour television event titled "THEUFO COVER-UP: LIVE." Advancehype gave the impression that SovietUFO investigators were going toreveal to American viewers certainUFOlogical secrets which our owngovernment would not reveal to us.The actual "live" presentation cameoff as an over-rehearsed, clumsilywalked-through "amateur night," fea-turing a cast of characters who wereanything but natural on stage. It mayhave been the most un-spontaneous"live" broadcast in television history— as if its producers were terrifiedthat one or two members of the cast(whom they obviously did not trust inthe least) might suddenly veer fromthe script and launch into somelunatic diatribe or other about the"TRUTH" behind UFOs, inviting in-stant zapping from a superpowergovernment with the superpower tech-nology to obliterate such heresy fromthe airwaves on a moments notice.Nonetheless, the program did con-tain something extraordinary, whichvirtually nobody — not even at thehighest echelons of government —had ever seen before. This was avideotape which had been in the pos-session of UFO researcher and authorWilliam L. Moore, a tape whoseexistence was long known amongAmerican Ufologists, but totally un-known to the ordinary public (andwhich was updated to the momentespecially for this broadcast). Featur-ing two "insiders" whose faces andvoices were heavily altered, a seriesof revelations was made at strategicintervals during the two hours which.— if true — were nothing less thansensational.Birds of Prey"Falcon" and "Condor" were pre-sented as two of nine U.S. govern-ment employees whose careers involv-ed hands-on experience with a long-standing, covert U.S.-alien relation-ship. Concerned that the "greatergood" was not being served by thegovernments hyper-paranoid attitudeof secrecy about UFOs, these "moles"were risking their jobs and their verylives to leak "the truth" to the publicthrough serious, reputable Ufologistssuch as Moore, Linda M. Howe andRobert Emenegger. Among the stun-ning disclosures of "Falcon" and"Condor" were these:• Verification of crashed UFO re-coveries on several occasions• Verification of alien body recov-eries at these crash sites• Detailed description of a livingalien presently in U.S. custody• Revelation of a U.S.-alien "ex-change program" implying that atleast one human is an "alien" beingstudied on another planet or world• Disclosure of a place in Nevada(Area 51, or "Dreamland") wheretesting of alien hardware (UFOs)takes place under extreme secrecy.To be sure, such rumors havebeen flowing and ebbing for yearswithin the hermetically-sealed UFOcommunity. To many Ufologists (andsince that broadcast we have spokenwith many, throughout the U.S.), the13
  14. 14. program was a disappointment, failingto live up to (perhaps unrealisticallylofty) expectations. But among themillions of uninformed, everyday Amer-icans, that videotape ought to havecaused an uproar at the very least.What was made public on that taperepresented the most significant eventin at least the last 2,000 years ofhuman history: that there has admit-tedly been contact with intelligentbeings from beyond our solar system,contact which has been regularlymaintained for years and which con-tinues even now.But — despite our inquiries to allparts of the U.S. — we have yet tofind a single word of public reactionto this broadcast in any of the coun-trys video or print media. Nor was asingle word of public comment utteredby any U.S. government spokesmanor official! Was this seemingly inexpli-cable lack of reaction merely due tosome bad timing! Was it the U.S.presidential election campaign whichdrowned out the "newsworthiness" ofthis otherwise sensational event? Wasit our preoccupation with a host ofsevere 20th-century-type problems,which — unlike UFOs — are regu-larly kept in our field of vision as theyare paraded before us daily by themedia? Or was it simply that Ufolo-gists, driven by a unique sense ofurgency with which they alone viewthe UFO presence, are hopelesslymisguided in their belief in the impor-tance of the UFO Age among run-of-the-mill humanity? In reality, theanswer is one which very, very fewsuspect.How often we find outselves usingthe word "THEY" when we want toidentify actua| — but non-specific —persons whom we believe to beresponsible for doing something whichaffects us in some way. But it seemsthat there really is a "THEY" behindthe scenario with which we are deal-ing here. What THEY have done, formany long years, is to engage in aspecific program of indoctrination andconditioning of the masses; and onOctober 14, 1988, THEY conducted atest designed to determine how wellthat conditioning campaign had suc-ceeded.14IndoctrinationThis indoctrination effort is a veryconvoluted one, and is itself part of amuch larger effort which extends tothe control of every area presentlyencompassed by human conscious-ness. The aspect of this larger effortwhich concerns us here consists ofthe following elements:1.) Immediate recognition of a setof valid UFO phenomena beginningshortly after the explosion of the firstatomic bombs, and recognizing thatmajor changes would have to bemade quickly in THEIR existing psy-chological conditioning program.2.) Realizing that the sudden pres-ence of UFOs in the human frame ofreference represented an absolutegodsend: something literally "fromout of the blue" which would enableTHEM to cut years, perhaps evendecades, from THEIR plot to taketotal control of human civilization forthemselves.3.) Establishinga multi-faceted pro-gram which would combine variousand sometimes conflicting featuressimultaneously, with the overall thrustbeing aimed at eliminating all publicconcern and interest in the subject ofUFOs. These features included:• Cloaking government "sanction-ing" of the legitimacy of UFO phen-omena behind a curtain of "NationalSecurity," knowing that the greatmajority of the unthinking masseswould swallow that line in character-istically naive fashion.• Allowing "Free Speech" rights toUfologists (generally speaking), know-ing that only a tiny number of zealotswas truly devoted to understandingthe real nature of UFOs, and that assuch they represented no seriousthreat to awaken the sleeping massesto their discoveries.• The paying of debunkers anddis-information specialists, whose rolehas been and is still to counter anyrise in pro—UFO sentiment, and tocontaminate genuine UFO data, topatch "leaks" from within the system,and generally to discredit organizedUfology.• Encouraging an endless seriesoffilms, TV series and literature, allaimed basically at 1) making alienbeings appear as lovable, sympa-thetic, non-hostile creatures, or 2)jacking up our human "shock quo-tient" so that mass consciousness willgradually be hardened enough toaccept calmly, without disrupting thefabric of society, an eventual "NewsBulletin" involving UFOs and sud-denly hostile aliens. This unceasingbarrage of UFO fiction and UFO fact(through the "free speech" granted tothe non-fiction Ufologists) would leavethe masses totally saturated psycho-logically with the UFO motif, gluttedwith a surfeit of it.4. Periodic testing of the successor "temperature" of the conditioningprogram. The October 14 broadcastwas such a test.5. At the properly prepared mo-ment, to activate the penultimatephase of the master program: toannounce suddenly, through theworlds leading political figures, thatearth was being invaded from outerspace by hostile aliens. This announce-ment would be verified by showing"live" battle scenes, live aliens, anddowned UFOs. There would be anurgent appeal by all of the leaders ofearths superpowers for the layingaside of national and ideologicaldif-ferences, and the uniting of allhumani-ty into a global community under acentral control; this alone would giveus any chance of turning back thisalien threat to Earth. The full "specialeffects" capability of the superpowerswould be thrown into play, staging analien "invasion" so convincing thatwithout hesitation earths smaller na-tions, and all of its people, would joinin principle to save our species fromdestruction.6. Having achieved the voluntarysurrendering of national identities,THEY would move quickly to conso-lidate power into THEIR own hands.THEY would reassure all nations thatthe situation was a temporary onenecessitated by the grave situation athand, and that at the earliest possiblemoment national sovereignty and iden-tity would be restored everywhere onthe planet. But in the meantime,under a "War Powers Act," individualnations would cease to exist. And weMUFON UFO Journal, No. 251, March 1989
  15. 15. would be told that the situation,giventhe alien invasion, dictated that indi-vidual human rights would be abro-gated as well, with provision for elim-ination of "nonconformists" physicallyor intellectuallyhindering the struggleto preserve humanity on earth.7. With power completely estab-lished, nevermore to be returned toformer regimes or nations, a processof stripping the unproductive andunhealthy elements of humanity wouldbegin, perhaps camouflaged as "warcasualties." The human populationwould be thinned of its unfit and itsexpendably unprofitable segments: thewretched, underfed billions of theThird World and the criminally,men-tally and socially unfit of the indus-trialized world. This would leave atiny ruling elite, a healthy producingclass and enough healthy lower-gradehumans to perform the most degrad-ing or menial tasks. This remnantwould be maintained as a zero-growth population thereafter. TheOne World would be achieved at last.Since the days of World War II,more than 40 years ago, the firstphase of this indoctrination has beenslowly, patiently fed into mass humanconsciousness. This is testimony tothe enormous scale on which thispanorama of world domination is tak-ing place, and of the time scaleinvolved. The master domination planbegan centuries ago, during the laterMiddle Ages and the Renaissance,with the first real attempts at consoli-dating wealth among the great earlytrading and banking families of Europe.Little by little, pushing ahead threesteps and being forced backwardtwo, through many generations ofpatient and purposeful manipulation,THEY have surrounded the worldand its people. A few short years, oreven months, and the final bolt willbe thrown; all of humanity will finallybe trapped in a situation whose onlyescape is death itself. From then on,if you are still alive, you will work forTHEM and THEM alone. You willthink, and breathe and Huefor THEMalone.You will have no thoughts of yourown, no individual rights, no methodsof expression which do not conformto THEIR code. You will neitherstudy, nor learn, nor teach. You willMUFON UFO Journal, No. 251, March 1989be limited to a life of doing, onTHEIR terms. You will be told whatto do and you will do it. Physical orintellectual resistance will be met withpunishment and death. It will be theprice humanity will have paid forbeing seduced as it has by theinduced sensual stimulations and addic-tions of the outer material world(provided by THEM to keep youfrom discovering what was reallygoing on, unknown to you). All of it:the politics, the religions, the falsifiedhistories, the. literature, and everyother single facet of everyday life —all of it — kept always in front of youby the media so that the undiscerningeye saw only what THEY had arrang-ed for you to see, hear, touch, smell,taste, and LIKE — all of it was just aclever ruse designed to trap dumbsuckers by the billions. And it worked,perfectly.That is the context in which theOctober 14 test was conducted. Avery important phase was shown tobe complete, when nobody said aword about that broadcast.UFO phenomena are completelyreal. They are not our subject here,but they have been seized upon byTHEM and assimilated cunningly intoTHEIR plot. THEY knew that thissudden surge of genuine UFO activityin the mid-1940s spelled Big Troubleto THEIR existing plans. THEY actedimmediately. It has taken THEM over40 years, but THEY have succeeded.THEY created and fed humanity somuch high technology, so much SpaceAge and so much extraterrestrialstimulation that finally — on October14, 1988 — we no longer knew howto distinguish between the real andthe unreal. We no longer even caredwhether it was the real or the unrealwhose image hypnotized us for the50,000th hour of our lives as westared at the colored TV picture.*And when it was over, we simplywent on to begin gazing blankly atwhatever program came on next.We are now ripe for the nextphase of THEIR scheme: the stagingof the UFO Invasion, and the appealfor the dropping of national identities,* A figure obtained by multiplying the 7-hourdaily U.S. per-capita TV Viewing average overa span of 20 years. This yields 51,100 hours infront of the set.so that global political coordination(first) and (second) unification cantake place. It could happen at anymoment — although it does appearthat the test-flight program in theNevada desert ranges (Area 51) isstill not free o} bugs. More work andtime are apparently needed, but thiswill involve only a minimal delay. It isnot known i} the holographic projec-tion techniques which are needed tocreate the "special effects" of theUFO invasion have been perfectedyet, but the basic technology hasexisted for some years already. Isuspect that the "Alien TechnologyDivisions" real role has not been toanalyze crashed extraterrestrial discs,but to perfect THEIR own craft, sothat six or seven centuries of patientplanning may at last be brought tofruition.I suspect further that the eeriesilence kept by the U.S. governmentcan now be understood for what it is:a reflection of the brazen contemptwhich THEY harbor toward the mass-es. Time was — until very recently —that some spokesperson would haveto step in and save the day when themasses showed signs of paying toomuch attention to a flurry of UFOactivity. But the last twelve monthshave seen a steady barrage of leaksof highly sensitive UFO information(or dis-information — actually, it nolonger matters which), and a series ofbooks which just a few years agowould have been soundly suppressedin the "interests of National Secur-ity." Enough threat to make any legit-imate government take the mostintense action possible against thesebetrayers of its most secret secrets.And yet ... not a squeak! It is con-tempt. THEY are totally confidentthat THEY have won. THEY knew howthe test would turn out, for THEYknew human nature and they tookadvantage of its gross weaknesses.THEY were apparently correct. THEYwill never again have to deal with theUFO problem — and THEIR silenceindicates that the next phase is likelyvery close to being sprung.So watch carefully, Urologists, andplan carefully, you sovereign individ-ual thinkers who are contemplatingthis advisory. That was a test, andsoon enough it will be very dangerousto be discovered as a Ufologist, or asan individual. Prepare now for theNew Inquisition.15
  16. 16. Fringe Coverage: AReviewBy Dennis StacyInevitably, something odd or unto-ward occurs whenever any "outsider,"however well intentioned, turns his orher attention to the UFO literature.Biases blossom, emphases are mis-placed, or material of a significantnature is simply omitted withoutexplanation. Certainly this is the casewith The Fringes of Reason, editedby Ted Schultz and subtitled "A FieldGuide to New Age Frontiers, Unus-ual Beliefs & Eccentric Sciences."This page-size, glossy paperback (Har-mony Books, 224 pp, illus, $14.95,paper) is brought to you by the ordi-narily reliable and thorough people atthe Point Foundation, Sausalito, Cali:fornia, who produce the quarterlyWhole Earth Review and irregularaccess catalogs such as this one.Fringes consists of six sections,each composed of the standard ple-thora of original articles and reprints,as well as combined review/noticesofbooks, journals, and where applica-ble, organizations. Whole Earth found-ing father figure Stewart Brand, notnormally known for frivolity, contri-butes a throwaway introduction.Thefirst chapter, "The New, ImprovedAge," treats such topics as apocalyp-tic awareness, the new generation of"shamans" sprouted out of the con-tinental woodwork, crystalmania and"spiritual" capitalism, eg, the mostrecent version of the pyramid scam,the Airplane Game, which fleecedwould-be frequent flyers."Inner Frontiers" deals with psy-chic "channeling," dowsing and para-psychology as a whole. "EverythingYou Know Is Wrong!" examinesSpontaneous Human Combustion,ram-pant conspiracy theories, flat-earth-ers, the tabloid press and studentsofforteana (anomalous phenomena)."Weird Science" features that inve-terate encyclopedist of anomalies,William Corliss and his Source BookProject, dreams of perpetual motion16and cryptozoologists, people who in-vestigate Bigfoot, the Loch NessMonster and other related rumors ofanimate reality. "Not Of This Earth"is devoted wholly to UFOs and ufol-ogy, while "What Is Reality?" focuseson professional skepticism and thecult-to-end-cults, the decidedly eccen-tric Rev. Ivan Stang and his Churchof the SubGenius of Dallas. Probablyneither party will be pleased with thisparticular pairing.But it is with the UFO segmentthat we are primarily concerned here.And how does the outside worldfare? The most obviously inexcusableomission is that of Jacques Vallee,still widely regarded as one of thefields foremost thinkers and theoreti-cians. Bad enough that none of Val-lees numerous books are referencedor reviewed; worse still that he wasnot asked to contribute an originalarticle; but inexcusable the fact hisname is not even listed in the pre-sumably accurate index! How thisoversight could occur is unfathoma-ble, especially when editor Schultzwrites in his closing comments thatFringes is "only the tip of the icebergof what I wanted to include, but Ichose to go for thoroughness of cov-erage of selected topics rather thanan exhaustive but superficial approach."What Schultz has included is com-mendable enough, if one lays thecompleteness proviso aside. The fami-liar John Keel weighs in with two pie-ces, "The Man Who Invented FlyingSaucers," about the diminuitive RayPalmer, and "The Great Phonographin the Sky," a veiled dismissal of allufological thought but that Keelian.Douglas Curran chips in some textand striking photographs from hisbook, In Advance of the Landing, astudy of the individual and sociologi-cal impact of belief in UFOs. Threeshort pieces on UFO folklore areincluded, two by Jerome Clark, edi-tor of International UFO Reporterand Fate, (on crashed saucers andhumanoids), and one by this writeron the enigma of MIB, Men In Black.Thankfully, the latter corrects a cou-ple of errors in spelling and contextwhich crept into the original appear-ance in OMNI Magazine. The "Ac-cess" section includes reviews ofnumerous UFO publications andbooks, some long out of print, othersprohibitively expensive for the aver-age budget. The MUFON Journal isprominently featured (p. 163), as isCUFOSs IUR, and the bi-monthlyUFO out of California.Most of the individual assessmentsof source material I can agree with,though there are one or two minorcurriousities here, too. Schultz, forinstance, refers to UFOs: A ScientificDebate, Carl Sagan and ThorntonPage editors, as "the best book toread when asking the question AreUFOs real?" Admittedly, this is amatter of personal opinion, but minewould rank Debate third or lowerbehind the controversial Condon Re-port (Scientific Study of UnidentifiedFlying Objects) and Capt. EdwardRuppelts The Report on UnidentifiedFlying Objects. In the latter case, Irefer of course to the original edition,the one without the three added-onchapters, which transparently tookaway with the left hand that whichthe right had already bestowed. Neith-er book is even referenced.The English contribution is con-spicuously slighted, too, and anyargument that it is difficult of accesssimply wont wash. For instance, twofine psychological studies of the vis-itor experience by Hilary Evans,Visions, /Apparitions, Alien Visitorsand Gods, Spirits, Cosmic Guardians(Aquarian Press, 1984 and 1987,respectively) were readily available inmany U.S. bookstores. So were sev-eral books by the otherwise indefatig-MUFON UFO Journal, No. 251, March 1989r~*
  17. 17. able Jenny Randies, not the least ofwhich was The UFO Conspiracy(Blandford Press, 1987). In the samevein, Timothy Goods Above TopSecret: The Worldwide UFO Cover-up (William Morrow, 1988) was virtu-ally abandoned by its American pub-lisher. Flying Saucer Review, theworlds oldest continually publishedUFO journal, is also left in the lurch.One could, also rather that notquite so much of the original material,which had its genesis in the Fall,1986, No. 52 issue of Whole EarthReview, was reprinted. This makes atleast the third time that Keels opin-ionated but hardly definitive article onPalmer has appeared in print. Andunless one is a complete addict, oneappearance of the Rev. Stang andSubGenius material would have suf-ficed, too. The occupied pages couldeasily have been put to much better,not to mention newer, use, given theamount and significanct extent ofmaterial omitted.Most of these sins are ones ofomission rather than commission. Butthere is at least one of the latter.Under "Chroniclers of the Unex-plained," for example, Michael Per-singer and Gyslaine Lafrenieres nowclassic Space-Time Transients andUnusual Events (p. 84) is listed asavailable from Readers Digest (!).Stranger things have happened, butthe last time I looked the publisherwas Nelson-Hall (1977).These cavils and quibbles aside,some major, some slight, should youdrop 15 hard-earned dollars onFringes? Undoubtedly. Despite thepeculiarities referred to above, theusual wealth of material expected in aWhole Earth access catalog is stillhere, much of it unavailableanywhereelse. And a few of the original andreprinted articles are well worth read-ing, even for the second time around.Ultimately, however, Fringes of Rea-son is barely on the edge of ufology.UFO PollDuring the week of May 16, 1988,KOAT-Channel 7 News in Albuquerquepresented a week-long segment onthe UFO phenomenon during its 6:00newscast. That following weekend(May 21 and 22) they conducted atelephone opinion survey as well. Fol-lowing are the results of that survey:Q. 1. Do you believe some UFOs are visitors from outer space?YesNoNo OpinionNumber1205477298Percent60.924.115.0Q. 2. Do you believe youve ever seen a UFO?YesNoNo Opinion65512289733.162.04.9h - 1980Methodology: The spokesperson forChannel 7 told me they used anautomatic telephone system whichrandomly generates numbers within adesignated area T- in this case, theAlbuquerque metropolitan area. Theserandom numbers were called andthey were able to collect completedsurveys from 1980 people as india-cated above. It is estimated that thetotal Albuquerquemetro area popula-MUFON UFO Journal, No. 251, March 1989tion is at approximately 450,000. At asample size of about .005 of the pop-ulation I would say this falls into arepresentative range. Even more so,if the assumption is made that themajority interviewed were adults. Thatwould of course enlarge the sampleas the population size would besmaller.Teresa Brito - AsenapCONDON, continuedabout UFOs. The final reports of thesestudies and the unsupported statementsmade by otherwise coherent scientistsare not well grounded in a logical pro-gression of analysis but rather, emphas-ize ad hominem arguments or personalbiases having no relation to the trulypuzzling cases which continue to bereported. Some of the reasoning employedis indeed so vacuous as to raise seriousdoubt about the veracity and credibilityof these otherwise reasonable scientists.For example, after the 1952 sightingsover Washington, D.C., Menzel (oth-erwise one of the most eminent physi-cal scientists in American history), rea-soning by human analogy, pronouncedthat the objects could not be extrater-restrial because if "they" had spaceshipsthey would also have radio by whichthey would have contacted us. "Theywould get off their ships and have alook at us. Wouldnt you on Venus?"Either these men, afflicted by somecurious "blindspot" to the subject, wereunable to fully focus their otherwiseconsiderable mental abilities on anobjective analysis of the UFO materialsthey claimed to have "fully studied," ortheir conclusions were intentionally ground-ed in something other than objectivescientific analysis.As did the Air Force, CIA, and theRobertson panel, Condon and Menzelclaimed that although there was "nothingto the UFO reports," the sightingsthemselves represented a potentialthreat to national security. By 1963, asthe UFO reports escalated instead of"vanishing into thin air," Menzel rehashedthese same opinions in his secondbook, claiming that in the short time itmet, the Robertson Committee hadanalyzed "every available act of evi-dence" about UFOs and found no sup-port for the extraterrestrial hypothesis,concluding that the "UFO hysteria" was"dying a slow and lingeringdeath." Withthe benefit of twenty years hindsight,itis now clear that it has instead been theunscientific prejudices of these men,and others like them today, that aredying the "slow death." Theirintentionalavoidance of legitimate questions raisedby the evidence concerning UFOs andthe fervor with which they pronouncetheir clearly illogical positions leave verylittle room for doubt as to what theyare really allabout.17
  18. 18. Looking BackBy Bob GribbleTHIRTY F!VE YEARS AGO -March 1954: On the afternoon ofthe 22nd, four flying discs were sight-ed at Hazelton, Pennsylvania,makingclose passes at an airliner. As theUFOs flashed past the aircraft thecaptain notified ground control. Thereport to the Civil Aeronautics Admin-istration was quickly covered up, butcivilian observers on the groundreported the incident to newsmen.On the 24th, Secretary of the AirForce Harold E. Talbott, his aidesand crew all witnessed a large,silvery, metallic disc follow their air-craft 1,000 feet below and 1,000 feetdistant. The incident occurred in day-light over Fresno, California. Whenthe Secretary ordered his crew tochallenge the disc, it maneuvered in atight circle, then shot away, disap-pearing at tremendous speed.At 10:32 p.m. on the 24th, AdolphWagner, Deputy Coordinator for CivilDefense at Baltimore, Maryland, sight-ed a formation of 13 triangular-shaped objects. As he watched thestrange craft an airliner approached.Immediately the formation split. Onegroup made a sharp turn toward theairliner, while the other held itscourse. Then a much larger object —estimated to be at least two and ahalf times larger than the others —descended from the clouds. As if onsignal, the smaller craft joined thelarger object and all disappeared inthe darkness. At 3:30 p.m. on the25th, Don Holland, a Marine Corpsjet pilot, saw a disc descend over aguided-missile range in Florida. Afterstreaking downward, it stopped abrupt-ly at 3,000 feet. Holland turned hisaircraft to try for a gun camera pic-ture but the disc instantly took off atterrific speed.***THIRTY YEARS AGO - MarchMUFON UFO Journal, No. 251, March 19891959: Percy Briggs, mail carrier, andCarl Towill, postmaster, said thatthey saw a huge dome-shaped crafttake off from a farmers field nearPurnong, Australia — 90 milesnorth-east of Adelaide — at 2:10 a.m. onthe 13th. When they first sighted thecraft it looked like a huge brightly-litcircus tent. As they approached thestrange craft and got to within 600feet of it, the object shot upwardsinto the sky and disappeared. On the14th Charles Athey was out for awalk in Kyger, Ohio when he cameupon a UFO that looked like twotable saucers placed together rim-to-rim and topped with a red sphere-likeaffair which rotated. The sphere con-tained openings through which a lightpenetrated, striking his shoulder. At8:45 p.m. on the 19th, Mayo R. Baleswas driving near Kyger when heobserved a similar object. Bales saidhis car radio reception cut-out and a"buzzing," static-like sound invadedthe air waves. He then spotted theUFO 300 feet up and 75 to 100 feetin front of his vehicle. The car lightsalso dimmed. "It was shaped like ashined-up aluminum pan with whitelight coming from it," Bales said. Hepursued the craft for 27 miles beforeloosing sight of it.***TWENTY YEARS AGO - March1969: William Overstreet, 50, was onhis way to work about 6:40 a.m. onthe fourth when he saw a bright red-dish ball — about 100 feet in diame-ter — near Atlanta, Missouri. Thesphere was so bright that he pulleddown the visor in his truck andshielded his eyes with his hand. Hesaid there seemed to be a yellowborder around the outside that movedclockwise. There was no sound, andit cruised about 30 feet above theroad ahead of him at 40 miles anhour. As he got closer to the ball, abeam of light that was the width ofthe craft at its origination but onlyabout eight feet in diameter on theroad, shined down in front of him.Overstreet described the beam asbluish-white and giving off intenseheat. He compared the heat to theinside of a car in mid-summer whenall of the windows had been rolled upon a sunnyday.When the front of the truck touchedthe beam, both the engine and hiscitizens band radio abruptly stopped.Also, everything seen through thebeam was magnified. Overstreet de-pressed the clutch pedal and theUFO moved ahead of him and boththe engine and radio came back tolife. He again attempted to catch upwith the sphere to see what it was,but the engine started missing whenhe got to within about six feet of thebeam and stopped altogether whenhe touched it again. He then stoppedchasing it. (Editors note: Caseinvestigated by MUFON.)On the 10th a Lancaster, Missourihousewife was driving near her homeabout 10:30 a.m. when a large, brightbeam of light that almost completelycovered the highway shined down infront of her.car. The beam was beingemitted from the bottom of a graydisc with a dome on top that washovering at about a 1,000 foot alti-tude. The cone-shaped beam wasnarrow at the top and wide at thebottom. As the witness drove into thebeam, her car slowed. "My carsspeed dropped from 50 m.p.h. to 8m.p.h.," she said. "It did not start tomiss; it merely slowed to that speed,although I had the accelerator on thefloor." When the car drove out of thebeam, it again functioned normally.The witness said that her eyes hurtfor several days after the sighting.Kjell Naslund was on duty at a tel-evision transmitter station at Mem-lidex, Sweden on the 12th at about6:30 p.m. when he experienced anuncontrollable urge to go outdoors.As he walked out the door he wasgreeted with an incredible sight.About15 meters from the station, in a clear-cut hollow, a huge craft was sittingon the ground. He estimated the18

×